.jpg)
Host: Marat Aleksandrovich, do you regret signing the letter regarding Alexander Sokurov's participation in the “Dissent of the World” panel?
Marat Guelman: No, I regret that I didn't read and edit it carefully before signing. Let's put it that way. That letter contained one rather dismissive sentence directed at Sokurov. It shouldn't have been there. Frankly speaking, the entire uproar stems exclusively from that one sentence. The actual substance of the letter is absolutely correct.
The situation was that the President of the Biennale resolved to invite the official Russian delegation to participate—the reasons don't matter, though everyone today claims it was a corrupt transaction. Everyone else was opposed. A massive scandal ensued. The international jury resigned over this invitation, refusing to judge the art. To somehow rescue the situation, the President devised three roundtables examining the relationship between authorities and dissidents. Sokurov was invited to participate in this discussion, which was an absolute mistake.
Sokurov himself declined to attend because he comprehended that since he has to return to Moscow, he wouldn't be able to speak openly or participate in a transparent discussion. If he slipped up, he might not be able to return to Moscow. Our letter was about the reality that there are actual individuals who are currently imprisoned for their dissent. There are people who were forced to emigrate due to their dissent, who face prison sentences at home, and so forth. We argued that if you want a genuine debate, you must invite them.
It is a highly unpleasant situation. The entire positive impact of that letter was eclipsed by that single phrase, which slipped through because it was an urgent matter, written in English, lengthy, and listed a vast number of artists currently in prison. I don't absolve myself of responsibility; I should have edited it. But on the whole, the idea of replacing a decorative, staged debate with a genuine one was entirely correct.
Host: Why do you assume that Sokurov wouldn't have spoken out with 100% candor?
Guelman: Because we understand the reality. We love and respect figures like Sokurov or Dmitry Muratov, and we value their stance, but we comprehend that they are walking on the edge of a knife. If they participated in a genuine, unconstrained debate outside of Russia in Venice, they would either appear overly cautious and careful, or they would be forced to jeopardize themselves. We observe that an individual who resides within Putin’s jurisdiction measures every single word, because every word can trigger a prison sentence.
Host: Yes. But at a session of the Council for Human Rights, looking Putin dead in the eye, he explicitly outlined that specific problems existed.
Guelman: No, he was inside... It is one thing to say those words at a session hosted by Putin, where everyone else is aligned with the state and you are the sole opposing voice; it is a completely alternative scenario to participate in a free debate sitting alongside figures like Pussy Riot, who could, conventionally speaking, challenge him and prompt him to absolute candor.
On the whole, of course, the appeal was not directed at Sokurov. I repeat, that one sentence ruined everything. The appeal was directed at the Venetian authorities who, despite a directive from the European Commission and despite the stance of the Italian Ministry of Culture, kept dragging out the normalization of the Russian Federation's participation in the Biennale. They wagered on that and effectively shattered the reputation of the Biennale itself.
I was there. I don't possess 100% inside data, but it was explained to me why they clung so fiercely to Russia's participation. Let me emphasize my deep respect for Sokurov and his stance. Furthermore, remaining there on the ground, he risks far more than we do here in a Berlin studio. But broadly speaking, participating in a free debate concerning dissent on behalf of dissenters should have been handled by alternative individuals who are far more free.
Why did they invite Sokurov? He participated six years ago. Hermitage Director Mikhail Piotrovsky was the commissioner back then, and he selected Sokurov instead of contemporary artists. Sokurov participated in the Biennale and produced a rather weak project—but that's a alternative story. It’s just that last time, Sokurov allowed them to utilize his name. This time, he didn't allow it. He stated himself that it was his own decision—though he cited travel complexities and so on.
Host: How can we ensure that people inside Russia are given a platform to speak out? What needs to be done? Because it currently looks as though the platform has been monopolized by individuals who moved away from Russia, who live in emigration, as if they are the sole ones possessing the right to speak out.
Guelman: No, look. Take your own media platform, for instance. Understanding the entire complexity of the position of a person who has to return, you can conduct a highly structured, careful dialogue. It exists. For example, at our Anti-War Committee forums, we use specialized white badges. People traveling from Russia to speak wear these white badges. Upon registration, the press signs a non-disclosure agreement stipulating that they will not film individuals wearing white badges.
So a specialized environment exists where precautionary measures are entirely possible. This wasn't the case in Venice. You cannot stop anyone at an open discussion venue within the Venice Biennale; an activist from Palestine or somewhere else can just walk in. It is a completely alternative situation where ensuring the safety of those expressing their views is impossible. At our Anti-War Committee conferences, we always hold closed sessions where we listen to the candid accounts of individuals who continue to live inside Russia. They are still taking a risk—it can be tracked via tickets or alternative means—but at the very least, we endeavor to minimize that risk.
Host: What does the Venice Biennale represent to you today? I am a person completely detached from the art world. What is it from your perspective?
Guelman: Look, art operates within many diverse contexts. One of these contexts is national—meaning Russian art, German art, English art. It isn't the sole context, and perhaps today it isn't even the primary context, but it exists. And it has existed for a long time. The representation of these states is highly vital. As professionals typically note, the caliber of an exhibition doesn't manifest the caliber of a country's fine art; it manifests the caliber of its art bureaucracy. It represents the culture of cultural management within a nation.
Naturally, this isn't about raw innovation; it is a fully established map of the modern art world where every nation—just like in the UN, regardless of whether it’s a massive America or a tiny Moldova—is represented via a pavilion, meaning it has a voice. On top of that, there is a highly vital project: the Arsenale. That is an exhibition selected not by national states, but by a single curator who endeavors to formulate modern trends. For us, it stands as one of the three most essential venues globally where we can observe the entire palette of what is unfolding in the world of art simultaneously.
Host: If we set aside the fact that Russia is an aggressor state, what is the primary structural flaw within the Russian pavilion at the Biennale?
Guelman: That is a highly precise question, even if you claim to be an outsider. No actual artists have been present there for a long time. The reality is that the Russian state views artists with profound suspicion as a whole, because the level of reflection in contemporary art is so elevated that no one wants to act as a representative on behalf of an aggressor country. Despite the fact that the majority of artists still reside inside Russia, a strategy of sabotage—meaning non-participation—is a ubiquitous phenomenon. They managed to find some...
Therefore, the primary grievance is that a nation that implements domestic censorship, compiles blacklists, and so forth, failed to bring a single significant Russian artist to the forum—even if we disregard the entire issue of the war, as you suggested. That is the core challenge. This challenge existed six years ago as well. Even prior to the full-scale invasion, Russian art was viewed with suspicion. They were already searching for alternatives, trying to figure out how to swap them out. And that was exactly when they approached Sokurov. Piotrovsky approached Sokurov. Sokurov gathered some students from the art academy, and they sculpted something highly unconvincing. But everyone remained silent, precisely because Sokurov remains an acclaimed figure in his own domain of film directing. He stepped onto an alternative territory. That happens occasionally. An individual can simultaneously occupy two positions, but this wasn't the case. By the way, this year, the Austrian pavilion is one of the most brilliant showcases, and its author is a theatrical director.
.jpg)
Host: You mentioned there were no artists present. What was actually inside the pavilion this year?
Guelman: Flowers, vodka, and three days. It must be noted that the pressure ultimately yielded an effect. One cannot claim that the Venice Biennale simply ignored the international backlash. A decision was made to close the pavilion. However, it was permitted to operate for three days prior to the official opening of the Biennale. And during those three days, musicians performed, succeeding one another. There was a alternative three-day program featuring folk and contemporary composers. The thing is, it was so entirely outside the artistic context that I prefer not to criticize it simply because it was an entirely inappropriate action. Within the musical community, some of my friends note that there were some interesting contributions by composers like Alexey Sysoev, and so on. I repeat, our criticism was directed not at the state entity of the Russian Federation—because naturally, it seeks a normalization of the situation—it was directed exclusively at the Venetian bureaucracy.
Host: You launched an initiative for the independent participation of Russian democratic forces in the Venice Biennale and the Eurovision Song Contest. What is the current status of that initiative?
Guelman: This idea crystallized back when we secured a platform in PACE. When the full-scale invasion began, Russia was expelled from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. A year later, we initiated efforts to ensure that Russia remains represented in PACE, but not by the state entity of the Russian Federation—rather by an anti-war, opposition public framework. This was a protracted process. It concluded successfully in January of this year. On January 28, the list was approved: the Anti-War Committee is represented by three individuals. Although the initiative and the bulk of the effort were ours, the platform itself was selected by the Parliamentary Assembly from diverse political structures.
When that transpired, at that exact meeting on the 28th, I proposed to the President of the Parliamentary Assembly, Theodoros Rousopoulos—who was just assuming office at the time—that we must replicate this model on the cultural front. Where Russia as a state was expelled, anti-war voices must step in. This is an accepted baseline concept. We are awaiting a meeting with the President of Italy in the near future.
As for the subsequent Biennale, we are developing a concept. We possess two alternative projects of what it could look like. We will select a commissioner and a curator. And yes, I hope that... The reality is that even this year, if the current president hadn't been so preoccupied with his far-right ideas, he could have executed it, because the Arsenale exists. If you invite official Berlin, invite those artists who left the country due to their anti-war stance to the Arsenale. I repeat, the Kremlin’s desire to be present is understandable. The issue is that they didn't anticipate such a backlash; they sought a normalization by stealth, yet achieved the exact opposite—colossal scrutiny directed at a vacuous, hollow project. They didn't even attempt a sharp project—neither military nor anti-war—it was entirely non-descript, precisely to ensure their participation passed unnoticed. And subsequently they could claim: "See, it’s a norm, we are participating." This could have been executed even this year. But by 2028, I am absolutely confident it will materialize.
Host: In what alternative events does the anti-war delegation intend to participate? Do you have a roadmap right now, besides Eurovision and the Biennale?
Guelman: Look, we operate as a function of society. If certain communities approach us, we say yes. Regarding Eurovision, there is a musical community that proposed that track. Regarding the Biennale, there were several independent initiatives besides mine—one by Nadya Tolokonnikova, and some others. Therefore, we don't independently... I mean that while the Anti-War Committee houses people of culture, it doesn't operate as the primary initiator. But a third platform is the PEN Club. The PEN Center is a decentralized, network-driven structure of writers' club associations. With our assistance, though primarily driven by the writers themselves, a PEN Center was established for authors writing in the native languages of the peoples of Russia. We support that initiative as well.
Host: Do you believe such a substitution will be supported inside Russia? Meaning, if anti-war Russians travel to compete in Eurovision, will that find support in Russia?
Guelman: First of all, I am not certain they watched Eurovision closely in the past either. I don't know how that apparatus operates; Eurovision sits slightly outside my focus of interests. Regarding whether it will be supported on the whole: one must campaign for it. When Alla Pugacheva issued her interview that triggered such a massive echo, many told her: "Your audience won't support this. Your audience is identical to Putin's audience." An artist is responsible for their words, and down the line it turns out that some supported it, while others did not. We are accountable for our own actions.
If we talk about significance—let's look at the facts: a substantial portion of contemporary culture has left Russia. Does the segment that remained support this? For instance, if you open the VKontakte music charts, you will see Monetochka occupying the top slot. Monetochka left the country. Whether they support her departure, I don't know. But I know that if we look at the list of writers: Sorokin lives here in Berlin, 150 meters away from me; Ulitskaya is 1,000 meters away; Yerofeyev is here, and so on. Shishkin is in Switzerland, Akunin is in England, Glukhovsky is currently moving between locations. This accounts for cleanly more than half of the creative core—the most significant segment of Russian literature.
If we look at musicians, the situation is identical. Every single one of them did not follow their audience; conversely, they pulled the audience toward themselves. They state: "This is my anti-war stance, now choose where you stand." Naturally, the Kremlin endeavors to discredit them. And the regime is so nervous precisely because it is far simpler to discredit a politician than a person of art, because an audience follows an artist for decades. You cannot simply dismiss them and claim: "Oh, Pugacheva was paid off," or "Grebenshchikov is a traitor," and so forth. The profession of an artist, in the broadest sense, is a public profession. You manifest your stance constantly. A physician or a taxi driver possesses the right to withhold their political stance; you utilize their services without inquiring what they think about the war. An society grants an artist attention precisely because they are an individual, because they follow their convictions and their stance. Therefore, it may turn out that while they don't support it today, they will support it tomorrow. Be that as it may, not a single artist—including those remaining inside Russia—wished to speak on behalf of the Russian Federation as a state.
Host: Are there artists remaining inside Russia who harbor an anti-Kremlin agenda and could act as representatives?
Guelman: Of course, absolutely. We have actually introduced a specific term for them: "the new quiets." These are artists who simply sabotage participation, refusing to engage in anything connected to the state. They work exclusively with private galleries, private art fairs, and private museums. Naturally, a threat looms over them as well right now. That is why they are silent. Their minimal form of resistance is silence.
Host: Concluding the Biennale topic: under what flag will the delegation of anti-war Russians be represented at all these events?
Guelman: Brilliant. You know, one of the actions—perhaps it didn't echo as loudly as the Pussy Riot action—was an action by Anton Litvin. Anton Litvin is a Russian artist residing in Prague who organizes the “Kulturus” festival—the culture of Russians. Following the Pussy Riot action, the official representatives inside the Russian pavilion essentially hid inside the building, terrified of stepping outside because individuals wanting to confront them over their participation stood outside.
Consequently, the flagpole where the flag is hoisted was left unattended. Anton removed the official flag and hoisted the white-blue-white flag. It was a beautiful, elegant symbol demonstrating that an alternative, anti-war Russia exists. I don't know what official decisions will follow down the line, but today it utilizes the white-blue-white flag as a banner from which the red stripe—the stripe of blood—has been washed away from the Russian flag.
Host: What is your current relationship to the tricolor?
Guelman: I relate to it in such a manner that I endeavor to avoid being near it—meaning I refuse to stand beneath it. I comprehend the individuals who argue that we must not surrender either the Russian language or the Russian flag to Putin. Okay. On the whole, our endless debates regarding what is correct are pointless. What matters is strictly whether a person is against the war or for it. If they are against the war but believe the tricolor is necessary, okay—they are still my ally. But as far as I am personally concerned, without attempting to convince anyone, I utilize the white-blue-white flag.
Host: On Saturday, the Champions League football final took place, featuring Russian goalkeeper Matvey Safonov playing for Paris Saint-Germain. His wife fashioned a Russian tricolor out of a French flag and stepped onto the pitch with it to celebrate the victory. What is your relationship to this? How do you view it?
Guelman: I view it as a statement made by a free person in a free country. It reminds me of the joke where two individuals are debating where there is more freedom, America or Russia. The American says: "I can step in front of the White House and criticize the sitting President of the United States." The Russian responds: "I can also step onto Red Square and criticize the sitting President of the United States." I view it exactly like that: the person fears nothing, expresses themselves, and holds certain convictions. They appear rather un-reflected to me, but those are her convictions.
Host: We don't know what context she embedded into stepping out with the Russian flag.
Guelman: What matters is that she is not afraid. That is the most essential aspect: she comprehends that in Paris or in France, she won't be imprisoned over this gesture. That is what matters.
Host: Do you think anti-war society will condemn this?
Guelman: I don't know. I don't think there will be a single, uniform party-line opinion. No, someone will undoubtedly write a lampoon; we can even guess who, and it will contain many valid, piercing words. But as for us, during this time we have learned not to debate such matters. There are actual, fundamental challenges that must be resolved, and across the rest of the spectrum, every individual possesses the right to their personal stance.
Host: Remaining with sports: many international federations are currently restoring the Russian flag and the Russian anthem. At the European Rhythmic Gymnastics Championships, gymnasts competed under the flag and anthem. What is your relationship to this?
Guelman: My relationship to this is melancholy. I believe Trump has essentially achieved his objective: he fractured the wall separating Putin from the world. And into this breach, various kinds of corrupt individuals and what we in Germany call “Putin-Verstehers” (Putin-understanders) have crawled. "Let’s understand Putin." Unfortunately, yes, I regret it, but over these past two years with Trump in power, a corrosion of the international rejection of the Russian Federation's aggression against Ukraine has transpired. I cannot say that I condemn it—my opinion doesn't matter to them anyway. I simply regret that it is unfolding.
Host: Is it necessary to combat this, to take action?
Guelman: I would put it like this: if they brought me a letter to sign yet again, I would read it carefully, purge any personal attacks, and sign it.
Host: You spoke extensively regarding the elections in Moldova. Do you discern similarities between how the elections transpired in Moldova and how they are currently unfolding in Armenia?
Guelman: The primary common denominator is the Kremlin's interest in the defeat of democratic forces and its attempt to position its handlers at the helm of the country. That is identical. In a sense, the exact mechanisms the Kremlin is deploying in Armenia were utilized in Moldova previously, rather than this time around. For instance, economic pressure. In Moldova, long ago, after Vladimir Voronin declined to sign a cooperation agreement, Russia rejected Moldovan apples, Moldovan wine, and so forth. Moldova endured it. And if anyone from Armenia hears me, it actually proved beneficial in the long run.
Yes, initially it was exceptionally difficult, but today Moldova boasts excellent, high-quality wine, executed with fine technologies and sold across Europe—rather than being shipped in bulk, cheap and low-quality, to Russia. So Moldova navigated that phase earlier. Second, the Kremlin operated through local oligarchs. That occurred when Ilan Shor and Vladimir Plahotniuc held sway. This time, the Kremlin faced a challenge injecting capital into the country because it lacked domestic oligarchs. Consequently, to execute electoral purchases, capital was needed inside the country, leading to various absurd situations.
The common narrative is that the Kremlin equals Russia. The reality is that a positive relationship toward Russia exists in Moldova. Twenty-five percent of the population doesn't merely speak Russian; a larger segment speaks both Romanian and Russian, but for 25%, it is the household language—their native language. Consequently, what we in the Anti-War Committee engaged in was explaining that they are not identical. We, well-known Russian citizens who oppose the war and oppose the Kremlin, traveled there and successfully disabused Moldovans of the notion that alternative voices do not exist.
In Armenia, conversely, they are currently attempting to demonstrate that Nikol Pashinyan is breaking the fraternal bonds between the Armenian and Russian peoples. Perhaps the distinction is that the Kremlin has learned something, utilizing fewer hybrid technologies and acting directly out in the open. They don't hesitate; they speak out in the open. In Georgia, it was a choice of: "Either vote for Georgian Dream, or it will look like Ukraine," with billboard advertisements literally displaying ruined buildings. Brutal propaganda. I believe the advantages associated with pro-Russian candidates are fleeting—it is a literal transaction. The disadvantages are long-term, so I highly hope that Armenia, like the Moldovans, will make the correct choice.
Host: You mentioned that members of the Anti-War Committee traveled to persuade Moldovans. Do they intend to travel to Armenia?
Guelman: We were explicitly requested to do so in Moldova. Gudkov traveled not just to Chisinau; we visited Russian-speaking towns, and spoke on television in Balti. Following the elections, representatives of Armenian pro-democratic political forces approached us, but primarily for consultation. I drafted an analytical document, but personal participation wasn't requested. We participated in Hungary because the Hungarians requested it, but no one in Armenia has requested it of us.
Host: Do you view this as election interference?
Guelman: There is a political force. We spoke the truth. We interfered within the boundaries of the law, unquestionably. We didn't speak on behalf of an institution; each of us spoke in their personal capacity. I spoke as Marat Guelman, an individual born in Moldova. Everyone acted in their personal capacity and within... In Moldova, for example, a law exists prohibiting foreigners from campaigning during the final month prior to an election. Not only we, but MEPs who previously traveled to discuss Moldova's European integration, ceased all activities a month prior.
Host: How do you evaluate Pashinyan’s chances of victory?
Guelman: I possess no inside data. I consider him a highly talented politician, remembering how intensely they combated him when he initially became prime minister. It seems to me his current objective is entirely achievable—to win these elections.
Host: And what are Armenia’s chances on the European path?
Guelman: It isn't simple. The European path can be pursued in installments, I would put it that way. Looking at the situation with Moldova, I understand that while a complete treaty signing with the EU might materialize in 2028, structural components, credit lines, and European banking integration are already rolling out in fragments. It is a process. If Armenia maintains a democratic government, that government will secure European support.
As for formal accession, we comprehend that Europe itself is navigating a complex phase, resolving internal challenges with migration policy and alternative issues. That is the first aspect. Second, there is the factor of Ukraine, which Moldova encountered. Ukraine is currently fighting a war, and in that sense, it is unready for full EU participation. At the same time, admitting alternative nations while bypassing Ukraine is a political decision that Ukraine itself opposes. Therefore, the situation is highly complex. As soon as the war that Russia unleashed in Ukraine concludes this year, many questions will be resolved far more easily and rapidly.
Host: Andrey Zvyagintsev’s speech at the Cannes Film Festival was viewed by many as insufficiently anti-war. What is your take?
Guelman: For me, what matters most is that it was delivered. This relates to the exact same question: every individual determines the measure of their vision and perspective independently. This endless debate over whether Putin is solely to blame for the war or whether a pro-war segment of Russian society shares the blame is intellectually interesting, but completely uninteresting to me personally. I cleanly comprehend that regardless of who triggered it, it lies within Putin’s power to stop the war.
Zvyagintsev did not appeal to the ideological paradigm that Putin is to blame for everything. His proposition was highly pragmatic, extremely pragmatic: regardless of the cause, if it lay within my power to stop a war, I wouldn't debate whether I am to blame for its existence; I would take immediate action to stop it. The same applies here. Therefore, I believe he acted correctly, and the form he selected was appropriate. You cannot simply yell: "Hey, stop the war!"—you will just receive an identical response. He addressed him politely, if slightly mockingly: "Comrade, Sir, Great Emperor, stop the war." Nothing in that statement troubles me. Zvyagintsev did well.
Host: Because Russian celebrities attend such events—figures like Ksenia Sobchak. Whom does that benefit?
Guelman: It doesn't matter. Or rather, over a certain horizon, it carries significance—specifically, that despite all this rhetoric regarding "constructing a separate Russian World," the elite sends its children to study in Europe, dresses in Europe, and wishes to live like in Europe. Long ago, in 1999, when Kiriyenko and Nemtsov ran for the Duma and I managed their campaign headquarters, every participant—Khakamada, Nemtsov, Kiriyenko—selected their slogans from a vast array of options. Kiriyenko selected: "If you want to live like in Europe, vote for Kiriyenko." Today that sounds like an absurdity, of course, but it demonstrates that they all acknowledge that the quality of life, human freedoms, and the European standard constitute the ultimate aspiration.
Host: Do I understand correctly that Sobchak is effectively promoting European values inside Russia today? Do you agree with that?
Guelman: On one hand, yes—this is the dilemma not of Sobchak, but of the so-called systemic liberals (syslibs), a category that included Anatoly Chubais and includes German Gref—all those individuals who are liberal in their convictions yet serve the regime. On one hand, they mitigate the regime, but on the other hand, they sustain its existence.
One can almost pity them; right now, it is straightforward either for individuals like myself who are opposed, reside in Berlin, and speak their minds, or for the explicit Z-patriots who are entirely aligned with the state, experiencing a sense of shared ecstasy. But things are exceptionally difficult for these systemic liberals right now; they are "a stranger among one's own, one's own among strangers." A alternative, unappealing role, perhaps—but fine literature and fine novels will be written about them, not about us. Their internal landscape is highly complex, and we love to read and watch accounts of complexity.
Host: Marat, what do you engage in as a member of the Anti-War Committee?
Guelman: First and foremost, we all participate equally in decision-making and signing resolutions.
Host: How does that operate?
Guelman: We have a chat; we lack a centralized institutional structure, but we use a chat. We debate matters there, and subsequently a separate chat channel handles voting. If a proposition secures more than half the votes, it is adopted, but it still generates a list of specific signatories. If you oppose a resolution, your name simply doesn't appear on the list of signatories representing the Anti-War Committee. That is how our decisions are adopted.
Additionally, I manage our gallery. We established a gallery in Brussels; the inaugural exhibition has concluded, and on June 23, within the framework of the Brussels Dialogue, the second exhibition will open. This gallery boasts a serious international program. The subsequent exhibition in August will feature Vladimir Tsesler, a leading Belarusian artist. We intend to feature Chinese and American artists, not exclusively our own.
I think this is highly vital. Why did we open a gallery in Brussels rather than an office for the Anti-War Committee? Because inside the anti-war movement, cultural figures play an essential, if not the primary, part. Within our committee and globally, as I noted, milestones like Zvyagintsev's speech, or Pavel Pavlikovsky winning an Oscar, or Pugacheva's interview exert a far more profound impact on both external and domestic audiences than an Anti-War Committee conference. We recognize this, which explains our focus on cultural projects.
Host: Who among cultural figures is a member of the Anti-War Committee?
Guelman: Artur Smolyaninov, Dmitry Bykov, Viktor Shenderovich. One would have to check the complete list. We have 24 members within the Anti-War Committee. I checked recently: there are four scientists and six people of culture. Masha Alyokhina from Pussy Riot is also a member of the Anti-War Committee, so it’s a respectable contingent. Six out of 23 is a significant proportion.
Host: What are the subsequent objectives of the Anti-War Committee?
Guelman: Currently, we are entering a new phase of institutionalization, let’s call it that. Initially, our objectives were simple: to demonstrate that anti-war Russians exist, that alternative voices exist, and that not everyone supports Putin or the war. Subsequently, a phase ensued where the primary focus was the advocacy of Ukraine. We campaigned for the necessity of assistance to Ukraine, including military aid to restrain the aggressor.
Following that, a phase began addressing the challenges encountered by Russians who emigrated, and we established a network of consuls assisting Russians with legal hurdles, passports, bank compliance, and so forth. Currently, the process of institutionalization has commenced, meaning a platform has rolled out in PACE. The European authorities operate via PACE and the European Parliament. PACE functions like a Senate—its delegates are parliamentarians from the member states themselves—whereas the European Parliament functions like a Duma, with direct elections. Within PACE, the concept of establishing a Russian platform was approved, operating on a session-by-session basis. Within the European Parliament, a permanently operating commission emerged. Or rather, a commission existed previously for EU-Russia state cooperation, and now the exact same structure exists for interacting with anti-war Russians. Consequently, a necessity arose for us to maintain a permanent platform in Brussels.
Today we act as representatives on behalf of Russian society. Regarding the Russians who emigrated, we endeavor to resolve their challenges—the issue of alien passports ("grey passports"), residence permits, and so forth. Regarding the Russians who remained, we explain that Russia possesses a viable democratic future, and that the concept of digging a ditch filled with crocodiles around Russia to isolate it is a deeply flawed, un-realizable concept. After all, a European population resides inside; the Russian populace is predominantly embedded within European culture.
Host: How successfully do you evaluate the efforts surrounding documentation and alien passports? What is the current status of those initiatives?
Guelman: At the latest PACE session, a highly vital, useful debate transpired with MEPs, demonstrating that launching this process requires no new legislative ratification. Every EU member state already possesses the legal right to issue these alien passports. Previously, this was executed exclusively in exceptional circumstances; now it needs to be implemented as a general procedure. This message has been delivered. It won't be a uniform, single-template alien passport; every nation manufactures its own alien passport based on a shared framework agreement. That is why PACE is far more vital here than the European Parliament. Following a PACE resolution, every delegation returns to its home country and, if a decision is approved, engages in implementing this procedure within its domestic agencies. We set a target timeline of one year to resolve this challenge, because our data indicates that in a year, massive challenges will erupt as foreign Russian passports begin to expire, and the Russian authorities are refusing to issue new ones to individuals who have manifested an anti-war stance.
Host: There is a highly critical question: who will bear the responsibility for issuing these alien passports?
Guelman: Every individual state independently.
Host: Fine. Currently, a trend exists where anti-war落 Russians face deportation threats. Can the Anti-War Committee intervene to ensure they receive alien passports instead of facing deportation? What are the options?
Guelman: Look, we operate a specialized emergency team. If you visit our website, you will see the “Consuls of the Anti-War Committee” section. We maintain a consul in every country who is in direct contact with local authorities and legal counsel. Their objective is to demonstrate that in the event of deportation, an individual faces immediate arrest or persecution, which legally voids the deportation order. But understandably, this functions strictly as an emergency unit assisting individuals who have already encountered jeopardy.
As for a systemic, global resolution: because we operate through PACE, PACE functions session by session. We concluded a session successfully, but the subsequent step awaits the subsequent session. It is a alternative dynamic. Conversely, with the European Parliament in Brussels, the commission operates continuously throughout the entire year. They travel home for weekends, but otherwise they are active. Therefore, we pin massive hopes on the launch following the Brussels Dialogue; on June 23, continuous work will commence within the European Parliament.
Host: What I am getting at is this: isn't it likely that states that easily deport anti-war Russians will simply decline to issue alien passports? Can that be influenced somehow?
Guelman: Well, as the saying goes, "the road is conquered by the one who walks it." The reality is that since the anti-war Russians who emigrated are predominantly mobile, educated, and young individuals, those nations that issue these passports more readily will benefit—they will acquire an economically active resident who is useful to the country, even if they hold a resident status rather than citizenship. Our arguments operate on a human rights level on one hand, and an economic level on the other: Gudkov delivered an excellent report demonstrating that the economic activity of emigrated Russians in multiple countries is far superior to that of local citizens.
Host: Marat, finally, we have cleanly two minutes remaining. Tell us regarding your subsequent personal plans, exhibitions, and what you wish to share.
Guelman: First of all, some of your audience might be unaware, but my inaugural exhibition took place last May—a year has passed, and I have become an artist myself. I enjoy certain successes. Recently, on the 23rd—less than a month ago—I returned from New York where a major exhibition opened, and we had a showcase at Art Basel. It represents a fascinating personal experience that never existed for me in Russia.
Secondly, FLAS (Faculty of Liberal Arts and Sciences). In Montenegro, utilizing the faculty core of the dismantled Moscow Shaninka University, we successfully registered and established a university. We are already granting Master’s degrees. I oversee the Art History department; alternative tracks include Political Science and Media—with Ksenia Luchenko, who operates on your platform—and Sociology with Viktor Vakhshtayn. Applications are open until mid-August. It represents a three-year higher education program. Crucially, the university provides students with a student residence permit that includes the right to work. If you wish to send your children to Europe as a foundational first step, this university, called FLAS, is a viable track.
Finally, on June 23, the Brussels Dialogue gathers—meaning the European Parliament is surrendering its entire venue for a debate concerning the destiny of Russian migration, and so forth. A highly vital event. I want to focus the attention of journalists and activists on the reality that we will be defending our interests there, including those of emigrated Russians. There is still time prior to June 23 to contact members of the Anti-War Committee; participation will be broad. I am responsible for our sector. Those are the plans.
