HOW DO YOU SLAY A DRAGON?
A Manual for Start-Up Revolutionaries
Mikhail Khodorkovsky
Moscow – Chita – Krasnokamensk – London – Moscow
2003-2023
How Do You Slay a Dragon?
Foreword, by Stephen Dalziel
Right at the start of this book, I had a great surprise. I know Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s story well. I reported for the BBC on his rise to prominence in the YUKOS oil company, his disputes with the newly-elected Russian President, Vladimir Putin, in the first years of the twenty-first century, and his arrest on trumped-up charges in October 2003 and subsequent imprisonment. Four days after his arrest I was due to have a meeting with him in Moscow. Instead, a meeting was arranged with a representative of the Russian Prosecutor’s Office to explain the arrest. The trial hadn’t yet begun. But the outcome was already evident.
So when I was asked to translate this book, I thought I had a pretty good idea of what Khodorkovsky’s attitude would be to Putin. But then came the surprise. “Putin…sent me down, thus depriving me and my family of ten years of my life; yet he also saved my life,” Khodorkovsky writes, adding, “He could have killed me, but he didn’t. He could have left me to rot in jail, but he didn’t. I haven’t forgotten this.”
My interest was piqued. This man who was locked away for ten years in what was still, effectively, the Gulag, was not declaring that he was out for revenge on the man who put him there; he hadn’t forgotten that the same man released him. This balanced view set the tenor of this book.
Khodorkovsky is one of the most astute observers of today’s Russia. He’s known the best and the worst of the country. He’s discussed the country’s future with Putin himself, and with fellow inmates in prison. And like many Russians who now live abroad, he longs for the day when he can return to his country; when it’s a free, democratic country. He is a true Russian patriot.
Patriot is a much-abused word these days. Many virulent Russian nationalists cloak themselves in it to try to disguise their nationalism. The best definition of these terms I have ever come across was from the brilliant Russian Academician, Dmitry Likhachev, whom I met in 1989. “A patriot,” he told me, “loves their own country and respects others. A nationalist loves their country – and hates other peoples’.”
Khodorkovsky’s patriotism doesn’t cloud his view of modern Russia, nor its often troubled history. He wasn’t wearing rose-tinted spectacles when he wrote this book. Point by point he examines the opposite sides of what is happening in Russia now and what could happen in the future. He starts from the obvious – though often unconsidered – reality that whatever is happening in and with Putin’s Russia, there will be a post-Putin period. Putin may be in his seventies, but he’s not immortal.
Khodorkovsky has a deep appreciation of the cyclical nature of Russian history. A revolution against an autocracy has produced…another autocracy…followed by another revolution…followed… If Russia is to find its place as a contributor to global civilisation as it is capable of doing, then this vicious circle has to be broken.
I reported on and from Russia from the latter years of the Soviet Union, through the often crazy ’nineties, and finally on Putin’s first term. I saw people’s hopes rise and fall more than once. But by the time I left the BBC in 2004 I could already see that the wheel was coming full circle again, and some aspects of life once again resembled Soviet times.
The author of this work considers what happened in those times and what’s happened since. He acknowledges the mistakes that have been made – not just by the authorities, but by society as a whole – and sets a radical programme to try to prevent, as the Russians say, “the same rakes being trodden on again”.
This is not just another book about Russia’s history. Some may consider it as political science; others as a manifesto for true Russian democrats. In some ways it is both. But first and foremost I would describe it as a work of practical philosophy. Why? The clue is in the title of the final chapter: “The Moral Choice: Justice or Mercy?”
This shows that the book, too, is a circle – but not a vicious one. By making “mercy” a key element of his plan for the future Russia, Khodorkovsky is underlining what could be the breakthrough moment to take Russia forward to being a genuinely free, democratic and modern state. And it also shows how he can say that, despite spending ten years in Russian prisons, his account with Putin is settled.
October 2022
Preface
It was Mark Zakharov’s cult film, “To Slay a Dragon”, that gave me the title of this book. In the film, the archivist, in justifying his conformist views to his Knight, said, “The only way to get rid of someone else’s dragon is to create your own”. And that’s exactly how we live: first of all, we tolerate for a long time being tormented and oppressed by a foreign dragon (in reality, it’s our own, but it’s an old one), then we finally rid ourselves of it – and create a new dragon of our own. But after a while this one becomes old and foreign to us. I am absolutely convinced that this vicious circle of Russian history can be broken, and that Russia is fully capable of living with its own mind and its own conscience, and without dragons. But in order to do this, the young knights of the revolution must bear in mind that it’s not enough simply to slay the old dragon, even though this in itself is no easy task; it is vital also not to grant power to a new dragon, and one that may prove to be even worse than its predecessor. This book is about how this can be achieved in Russia.
As a country we’re in a difficult situation. Society already understands that “we cannot go on like this”; but at the same time we’re frightened that “things will be worse”.
Aside from the president, the powers-that-be fear that there isn’t a good way out; but simply hope that “suddenly we’ll find a way”.
The opposition has an overwhelming desire to sweep away the regime; but has no concept of “what will happen next”.
Because of this, I believe that it’s essential to explain clearly to the people what we’re proposing and what answers we’re offering to life’s key philosophical questions. People have the right to know what to expect if they stand alongside us, and particularly what are the principles for which it’s worth giving up a quiet life and risking their freedom and the safety of those dear to them.
But there is one thing we can say for sure: the time for burying your head in the sand and for turning a blind eye to the most serious social issues – that time has gone.
“We’re not interested in politics, we’re only concerned about people turning our yard into a dumping ground”; “we’re not interested in politics, we just don’t like despotism”; “we’re not interested in politics, we’re just concerned about artistic freedom, corruption, free access to the internet”… Yes, the time for such lovely little cunning phrases has gone. If you’re “not interested in politics”, then just stand on the sidelines and wait. Maybe they’ll be in a good mood and be so kind that they’ll give you something; but with the way things are today it’s more likely that they’ll kick you down and you’ll be the last to be carried off.
But if, on the other hand, you really want to stand up for your rights and the rights of others, then that means getting involved in genuine politics. It means making choices, and it means standing up to be counted, with all the risks that this brings.
I occupy a unique place amongst the ranks of the opposition (true, this doesn’t exactly make me jump for joy). I have huge managerial experience, having worked in the government and at the head of a number of the country’s largest companies, companies that were of strategic significance to the country, and that were linked to dozens of towns and villages which were solely devoted to these industries. But despite all this, I am deprived of the opportunity to carry out practical organisational work on the ground.