Call Between Alexey Navalny and FSB Officer Konstantin Kudryavtsev [Russian Subtitles]

[@fabbaf2090]

And then when you think things can't possibly get any worse ... the phone call of the year pops up. Incredible how Navalny pulled this off, he missed out on an FSB career. He might give it a try when back in Russia, there is at least one open job position as of today!

[@oskarhaanpaa8627]

[ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT] [1/4] Konstantin Kudryavtsev (K): Yes, Artyom? Hello. “Maxim Ustinov” (M): Konstantin? K: Hello? M: Konstantin Borisovich? K: Yes, yes! M: This is Ustinov Maxim Sergeevich, aide to Nikolay Platonovich Patrushev. I received your number from Vladimir Mikhailovich Bogdanov. I apologise for the early hour, but I urgently require 10 minutes of your time. K: Alright. M: The Heads of Defence and Security will discuss this once again, and they will probably ask you to prepare a full statement, but now I am doing a report for Nikolay Platonovich, which will be discussed by the Security Council at most senior level. I need … a single paragraph from every unit member: What went wrong? Why the Navalny operation in Tomsk was a complete failure? Tell me your view, I will write it down and then you can elaborate further in your own report. K: But… was it a failure in Omsk? M: No, in Tomsk, I am speaking of Tomsk! K: Of Tomsk? M: Yes. K: What happened in Tomsk? M: Konstantin Borisovich! K: Yes, yes, yes. M: Did you hear what I said. I am calling on Patrushev’s orders! K: *coughing* No, I understand very well, I am just trying to remember what happened in Tomsk? M: Well, what was the reason for you to go to Omsk on the 25th? K: In Omsk or in Tomsk? M: You went to Omsk on the 25th. The operation was in Tomsk and now I am making a brief report on what happened. Later, Vladimir Mikhailovich will ask you for an extended testimony. I know that you have already done so, but the heads of the Security Council have asked me to prepare a report now. Thus, you will help me immensely, and more importantly you will not make Nikolay Platonovich wait. K: I will gladly help, but - you see - I have coronavirus and I am staying at home. M: That is why I am calling you. K: Did you call Makshakov? M: Of course, I will call Makshakov. But now… this is a simple procedure: I will phone Alexandrov, Makshakov, Tayakin, and will ask each and everyone of them to explain themselves in a couple of paragraphs. This must be a two page report, and I don’t need to tell you who is going to read it. Let’s just say that I was not going to call you in 7 AM, if this was not urgent. And I have a section here in the report, which states: “Kudryavtsev: … he thinks that because of this and this the operation failed, he thinks this should be done for it to succeed.” K: I would have written that, but I am staying in home, quarantined. M: So, you are going to tell me, and I am going to write it down. K: I have already written something… If you talk to Makshakov… M: I will talk to him as well, Konstantin. Just listen to me, please. Of course, you will make a written testimony for Bogdanov later. Now I need you, as I will ask everyone else, to tell me in a paragraph or so, what was the biggest problem in the Tomsk operation. I am writing it down. K: But I don’t have all the information right now. M: Of course. But to the extent that you have it… Hello, I am writing… Let me help you. On a scale from 1 to 10 how do you assess Alexandrov’s work? I understand that he is your colleague, but nevertheless… K: А-alexandrov? M: Yes. K: Well, he is working well. I assess him positively. M: Tayakin’s leadership qualities? How do you assess them? The Unit’s coordination? K: Tayakin was not there. Osipov was there. M: I know that Tayakin was not there, but Osipov. However, Tayakin was part of the operation, right? K: I don’t know. I don’t have this info and cannot comment. M: Alright. From 1 to 10 how do you assess Osipov? Wait, so I can write it down. K: Yes, yes, yes. I assess him positively. M: Therefore - one might reasonably ask, I am sure you would agree, and I must explain to Patrushev - if both Alexandrov and Osipov were doing their job well, how come the operation failed? K: Well, I have been wondering myself about that, not once or twice. Given the situation, as far as I know it, and I don’t know all of it - you understand I only know what I am doing and what they are telling me. M: This is why we are making a report. So everyone can present his own perspective. Right now, I am interested only in your opinion. K: Well, everything was done well… in the end of the day, the job was executed. Now, how it was executed, why things ended the way they did… Not once, I have been thinking about that. M: And this is the problem, isn’t it, that not once things ended up like that… K: Are you calling me from Artyom Troyanov’s phone? Because I saw his number on the display when you called? M: Of course, I am calling from… via the system. Bogdanov asked me to do so, in order for you not to worry. K: Oh! M: Alright. But I must ask you again the question, because I must write something down: If Osipov and Alexandrov did their job well, why the operation failed? What must be done in the future, for this not to happen again? K: Ugh - ohh. Well in our profession, you know this yourself, there are a lot of unknowns and nuances. We are trying to take everything into account, so there will be no mistakes. You understand me, right? M: I understand you! K: This was thoroughly examined, at least I think it was. After all, especially if you consider what was done previously. But there are always nuances. In every task there are nuances, and in every situation things would have been different if… how can I say this appropriately… M: What? K: Well, I also thought that we might… When they landed - you know what I am talking about - he took the flight, they made an emergency landing, the situation developed… not in our favour. This is what I think. If it was a bit longer, I think things would have turned the other way. M: What should have been longer, Konstantin Borisovich? K: The flight. M: He should have been in the air for longer? K: Well, yes, if he was in the air for longer, and they did not land in such an abrupt way, possibly, things would have not gone the way they did. Meaning, if the medics did not aid him, if there was no ambulance at the airport, and so on. M: The flight landed in 40 minutes. Principally, this must have been taken into account when the operation was planed. I would not describe this as an immediate landing. Perhaps, the dosage was not correctly estimated? K: Well, I can’t say that. As far as I know, it was estimated given the supply, therefore… M: Alright. Let me be honest with you, because you understand me as well. My bosses are telling me, and you know how bosses act, “Quickly! Go! Write this again, for a 15th time.” K: Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes! M: And I have this question here: What is the problem? There was Kaliningrad, then there was Tomsk. Why the problems in Kaliningrad were not addressed, in order for the operation in Tomsk to go smoothly? K: Well, I don’t know anything about Kaliningrad, I don’t have this information. I know what happened, not in Kaliningrad, but in Tomsk. I don’t know about Kaliningrad, I don’t have this information. M: Let us then turn to the specific technique: how was the substance administered? Do you think an appropriate method was selected? K: Oh, yes, yes. I think, yes. M: How can I briefly present this in the report? K: Well, this should be communicated via a secure channel. M: Do you understand who will read this report? On this level there is no place for operative channels. On this level, people are not concerned with details - I must explain them briefly how things transpired, and I want to do it correctly. K: How what transpired? M: How the substance was administered? K: Well, I better say this through a secure channel. You understand, I was working after… M: Yes, I know. K: This was the sort of… At least what I saw was only the consequences of what they have done. Well, yes, the fact is that the location was perhaps… how can I say it… the place they put it, there might have been some possibility for detection, subsequently. M: Well look, again, we’re having a frank conversation. You understand why I’m writing this: a bottle, a scandal, television, all discovered. For this reason, my bosses are telling me: explain to us why it was discovered, why it was on the bottle, and I must explain it briefly. K: There was nothing on the bottle.

[@oskarhaanpaa8627]

[2/4] M: Okay. Then how the story with the bottle came about, if there wasn’t anything, or was it made up or something? K: No, from what I know there was nothing on the bottle. I think Stanislav Valentinovich… I’m not 100% sure… M: That’s why Bogdanov told me and gave me your phone number, because the task that I am given is to collect everyone’s views. However, this is not really a question of drawing some kind of organisational conclusions. The question is how to act in the future so that the leadership - on most senior level - can clearly understand what happened. So once again, I apologise for waking you up in the morning, but they are banging on my desk and saying: give me a two-page report, so that HE understands everything. What should I write in those two pages? K: You called me first? You didn’t call anyone else? M: I am starting with you, but I have a list, and I’m going to call everyone on it. I don’t really need you to tell me everything, I just need your perspective. What would you have done differently? If you were planning an operation, would you approach this in a different manner? K: Well, but for this I will have to sit down and think it through. Depending on the situation, on the circumstances. Looking through different possible ways, or rather, not ways, but possible places. There are a lot of nuances and every nuance must be taken into account. In my opinion, everything was planned correctly, it could not have been any other way. If it hadn’t been planned correctly, nothing would have been done. This is my point. I am saying: the fact is that the method was chosen correctly, but there are always nuances. M: So again, what method was chosen? K: You don’t know? M: Well, I know some things, and I don’t know others, but I have to ask you such-and-such questions, so I am asking them. K: Well, I can’t tell you that over this phone. M: That’s why I’m calling you, because I need [to fill out] this paper urgently. K: You have to call Stanislav Valentinich on a secure line, he will probably tell you how it all happened, but I can’t tell you over this phone how it all happened. M: You saw me calling you through the switchboard, you can tell me. This conversation has been agreed with Bogdanov. K: No one called me, neither Bogdanov yesterday, nor Makshakov. M: That’s because all of this started this morning, they woke me up at 5 AM and told me: do it, so I have been running around all morning frantically, looking for all the phones. If you so wish - I will call you in a while on an operational line, but you will save me a lot of time if you tell me now. Because I still have a list of 13 people to go through. K: Would you tell me your name? I’ll write it down. M: Ustinov Maxim Sergeevich, aide to Nikolai Platonovich Patrushev. K: Mhm. M: I still have some questions. What happened with his belongings? K: What about them? M: Well, where are Navalny’s things? K: Well, the last time I saw them they were in Omsk. We left them there, after we went and worked on them. M: You flew to Omsk on the 25th? K: Well, I am trying to remember. I guess, that must be the case, yes. I have in on written record at work. M: Exactly what happened with them? K: Their final destination? M: Yes. K: Well, we received them when we arrived, they were given to us by the local guys from that Omsk’s police, how was it called… transport police. They gave us the stuff, we worked on them and subsequently returned everything to the local guys. And the local boss - I have his phone number, I can give it to you if you want it - I told him to return those stuff. Most likely, he gave them back to the lads from the transport police. M: Mhm. Can you give me the chief’s number, please. K: 8962059**** [redacted] M: And his name? K: Mikhail Palych [Platonovich]. He’s the chief of… M: Okay, I will sort it on my own, no problem. Let us return to the belongings. Was there anything on them? Did you find something on the package, what exactly happened to it? K: Well, we went twice. The first time we received them in an ordinary package, with seals all over it, that we removed. Inside were his things, they were all somewhat wet. There was his suit, underwear, socks, masks, a shirt. M: And what procedure did you employ? How can I report what were you doing with those things? K: Well, the processing was done. M: The processing according to this Biysk methodology? K: Biysk? M: Well, correct me if I’m wrong. K: No, no, I don’t know the Biysk methodology, or perhaps I know it, but am not making the connection right now. M: What exactly did you do, can you elaborate? K: We processed them with solutions, so… ohhhh, how can I say this… so there would be no traces left. M: Did you process all of his belongings? K: No, in the beginning only the main ones: the suit, the underwear, those things. Later, on our subsequent trip, they gave us a second package, and this time we processed everything. M: Is there any chance, that Navalny’s wife or someone else cut off a piece of clothing and took it away? K: No. M: There is no such possibility? K: No. Everything was in one piece. There were no traces of cutting or ripping apart. M: Then, in your opinion, how did the Germans eventually uncover all of it? K: Well, they got the Bundeswehr involved. They have military chemists working there. Maybe they have some methods of detection. M: On which part of the body they could have found traces? K: Nothing on the body could have been found, there was nothing there. They probably found something in the blood. I don’t think there was anything on the body. That must be the assumption. He was also washed in our hospital. M: Who in the Omsk hospital can I ask if the body was washed? K: No, this information is not available anywhere. But Mikhail, the BT chief, knows all about what was done. M: Alright. Excuse the naive question, but given what I have written I have no doubt they are going to ask me: If the clothes were washed to remove any traces, how come you are absolutely sure there were no traces on the body. Why is that? K: Well, because it is absorbed quickly. It does not leave any traces. Makshakov will tell you more about it, I don’t have all the information. I don’t even know what was done there. Well, I mean, you know, right? M: I understand. K: I don’t know, I don’t have this information. I was told, I went, I did it, and I left. All the other information, in terms of who went there and who did it - I am not aware of that. M: I will talk to all of them myself, right now I am interested in your perspective. Let us review everything once more. This subject survived because the plane landed too soon - is that the main reason? K: It seems to me so. If they were in the air for a bit longer, maybe things would have ended the other way. See, unforeseen events are the worst factor in our profession. M: I see. By unforeseen events we mean circumstance number 1 - that the plane landed abruptly. And what is circumstance number 2? K: The fact that the ambulance arrived, and so on. They performed these initial steps, the ordinary ones … lowered the acidity, injected an antidote of some sort. Supposedly, it is possible that such procedures can, you know, the symptoms are similar. They acted right away, the medics, because an ambulance was called - this is also a factor. And then the fact that they took him to the hospital, and there they also did something in relation to the symptoms and all that. M: I don’t understand, and based on the questions I was given, my bosses also wonder: was the plan to let him die in the hotel or on the plane? K: I don’t have any information about that. M: But the planning was based on where it was supposed to happen. K: If I knew, I would say, I don’t want to lie. I am not and was not aware of how it was supposed to go. I can only speculate. M: So, speculate. K: Well I can’t. It is not like I knew the entire plan. I was given the information I need to know, nothing more. They don’t give me anything else. Assuming, presuming - that’s bad, I think. M: Assuming, presuming, is bad, but the task before me - excuse me for repeating myself like a parrot - is to talk to everyone, and let them express their own opinion. In our work, you are absolutely right to say - everything depends on unforeseen events, and other circumstances. For this reason, everyone’s opinion of what went right, what went wrong, is very important. We ask for your view in general, to give us the big picture. Because the consequences of all of this, you know, will haunt us for a long time to come. K: I understand, I am also watching TV and reading on the internet. They didn’t think events will go the way they did, I am certain, it all went the wrong way. M: Yes, to put it bluntly, it did, so we need to understand why? K: Well, I think it should have happened sooner than it did. But perhaps they wanted it to happen on the plane, because you understand this: if he flew for three hours, if there was no emergency landing, then the result would have been different. In this sense, I think the plane played a crucial role. Well, it was one of the factors, the other being the ambulance. M: How much time elapsed between the administering of the poison and the moment he passed out? K: I don’t have this information. I don’t know exactly when the poisoning happened. Makshakov can tell you, perhaps, or someone from the lads could know. M: I have a somewhat peculiar question. You traveled with Navalny several times, 2017 in Kirov, what is your assessment of him as a person?

[@oskarhaanpaa8627]

[3/4] K: What? How do I assess him in what sense? M: Well, this is why I said it is a peculiar question. K: He is meticulous, always cautious, on one hand. On the other, he travels a lot. Periodically they are changing their numbers, very careful in this regard. Perhaps, he had a hunch that he was followed, you understand me, hello? M: Mhm, yes, yes, yes, yes, I am listening, and writing down. K: Many times he said in his blog that he was followed. Therefore, he was very cautious, meticulous in this regard. Never did any unnecessary moves. M: Is there any possibility that he saw someone from the unit in the face? K: Oh, no, we always have strictly approached this, changing our clothes, and other stuff. M: I have some information, that once members of the unit traveled in the same transport as him. Do you know anything about that? K: I don’t know about that, unfortunately. Usually, we are always traveling with a different transport on purpose. And if he is traveling to several places, we have different teams traveling with different transports. We are always very careful,… I don’t know how this could have happened. M: So you don’t know of such incident? K: No, I don’t. M: So, on a scale from 1 to 10 what it the possibility that his team caught you, took pictures of you, video recordings, or something of the sort? K: Ohhhhhh, given the technology advancements… now cameras are everywhere. But even so, when there are cameras we are turning them off, you understand, right? We execute an operation only when the recon team tells us that we are good to go - I mean they describe us the setting and then we decide whether to do it or not. Therefore, we are always removing any possibility to be captured. Maximum conspiracy - this is of utmost importance. No one must be seen. M: How do you assess the work of your teammates? K: Who were on those missions? Well, those I have worked with, I assess positively! M: Give me their names and phone numbers. K: Whose? M: Your contacts, with whom I can talk about this. I don’t think I will be dealing with this, but if my boss tells me to do it, I want to have their contacts so I can do my job. K: Well, I don’t remember all the guys… There was Mikhail, and I can’t remember the rest. This was a long time ago, in 2017, I don’t even have their numbers anymore. I know him, because we kept in touch, we were on a mission a second time. But all the guys were good, everything was planned and executed well. I never had any complaints. M: How many operations did you partake against Navalny? K: I don’t remember how many, I was in Kirov and don’t remember any other. M: I received information, that Navalny is preparing some sort of a publication. Perhaps, this is why they have asked me to contact you. And apparently he suspects that there were more attempts. What could he be talking about? What can he know? He could say: they tried to poison me several times. What could he could possibly say? K: What he could be thinking of? M: Yes. K: Well, I don’t know. I am not following this so closely, I heard that he said he will reveal something, but I don’t know what is he talking about. Perhaps, something happened, but it did not reach me. M: Your assistance has been quite useful. Let me go over my notes one more time. The flight - you answered that, the medics, yes, you assess your colleagues highly… Correct me if I am wrong about something. How do you assess Panyaev? K: Who is that? M: From the Unit, Vladimir Alexandrovich Panyaev. K: Panyaev… M: You don’t know him? K: No, we have not met. Perhaps, the other lads know him. M: Alright, I will discuss this with Stanislav Valentinovich. The clothes are processed, everything is fine with them? K: Well, eventually, the last time that we were working on them - everything was clear. M: We should not expect any surprises with the clothes. K: Well, this is why we went there a couple of times. M: So, the first was on the 25th of August, when was the second? K: In a fortnight or in a week, perhaps. M: You don’t remember, precisely?

[@oskarhaanpaa8627]

[4/4] K: No, unfortunately, I don’t remember. Makshakov will tell you. M: Ok, who were you traveling with? K: Who was traveling with me? M: Yes. K: Vasily Kalashnikov! M: Kalashnikov… K: Perhaps his name was not given to you? M: I don’t have him in my list, strange… K: Well, apparently the bosses though that… M: Well, yes… Alright, I will discuss this with Bogdanov. Do you think there is anything left to be discussed over the phone? K: I don’t think so. And I am not aware of exactly what they did over there. Do you understand me? I don’t know what happened in regards to the effect and the penetration. But I think it is highly unlikely that any trace remains. M: And on which piece of cloth was your focus on? Which garment had the highest risk factor? K: The underpants. M: The underpants. K: A risk factor in what sense? M: Where the concentration could be highest? K: Well, the underpants. M: Do you mean from the inner side or from the outer? I have an entire questionnaire about this, which I am about to discuss with Makshakov, but will require your knowledge as well. K: Well, we were processing the inner side. This is what we were doing. M: Well, imagine some underpants in front of you, which part did you process? K: The inner, where the crotch is. M: The crotch? K: Well, the codpiece, as they call it. There is some sort of seams there, by the seams. M: Wait, this is important. Who gave you the order to process the codpiece of the underpants? K: We figured this on our own. They told us to work on the inner side of the underpants. M: Who said that? Makshakov? K: Y-yes. M: I am writing it down. The inner side. Ok… the grey-colored underwear, do you remember? K: Blue. But I am not sure, better ask him about it. M: And they are whole, I mean theoretically we could give them back? We are not going to do this, but they are undamaged and everything is ok with them? K: Yes, all is clear. M: Visually, nothing would be discovered? There are no spots, nothing? K: No, no. Everything is fine, they are in good condition, clean. M: The trousers? K: There was a possibility that something remained there - on the inner side. So we cleaned them, as well. But this is hypothetical, since there was contact with the trousers, so some of it may be there. We processed the trousers. They are also clean and everything is fine with them. M: Do you think this was a mistake - the method of administration? K: Well, this is not my call. M: What is your opinion? K: This is what my superiors have decided, therefore, it is probably correct. The method is a good one. M: Well, he remains alive, therefore, it is not that good. Do you understand what I am saying? K: Well, I already said that the circumstances developed in a way for the situation to be as it is. There was contact - therefore the penetration was good enough. Those decisions depend on the situation and the experience. M: Ok, I already asked you about that, and about that… Do you want to add something, which you think may be of importance to my report? K: Oh no, I think this was probably all. Even too much. Who are you going to call next, if it is not a secret? M: It is not a secret, but I would appreciate it if you do not give them a heads up, because I need your honest opinions - not for you to make up a narrative. K: But you see, I am the first one, nobody said anything to me, neither Bogdanov, nor Makshakov. Honestly, I am shocked by some of the questions you are asking me, you understand why I hope. M: Konstantin Borisovich, we are all shocked. Imagine my shock! I don’t know any of this, they called me in 5 AM and told me: go, find out. And here I am calling you and asking stupid questions. I really don’t know much, but this is my job: they called me, I have to do it. Now I am going to phone all of your colleagues, and it would be better for you not to share a detailed account of what you said, so they could also give me a more honest… K: I am not going to share any details. But I will call Makshakov now, he knows about this? M: Of course he knows. I called Makshakov already in the morning. Before phoning you, I already called Bogdanov and Makshakov. K: And Bogdanov gave my name, and those of my colleagues, respectively? M: Well, of course. K: And do you have a phone number on which I can call you? M: Of course I have one. 89169122***. Maxim Sergeevich. K: Yes, I wrote that. M: If I need any more details, I may call you again in a couple of hours. So, please, stay close to your phone, alright? K: Yes, I am always available, day and night. I have this habit of mine, I am bringing my phone everywhere - even in the toilet and when I am taking a bath. M: I understand, I understand. By the way, I still do not understand one thing. They placed the substance on the underpants or on the trousers? Because I have conflicting accounts on that, and I can’t understand. K: Makshakov can say exactly. M: Well, he will tell me, but I want you to tell me. K: I don’t know. We worked on the underpants and on the trousers, and we were searching for any spots. On the underpants there were no visible spots. There were none on the trousers, either. Those were fleece trousers, nothing was left there. And they were both in dark colours. What they told us, that’s what we did. Visually, nothing could be seen. M: I understand, ok, thank you very much, Konstantin Borisovich. let’s keep in touch, I may need to call you again. K: Nothing else to discuss. That was it? M: Yes, yes. K: May I ask you: There is no problem, discussing this over an unsecured line, you are sure of it? M: No secrets have been discussed. This is an extraordinary situation and I said to Bogdanov that we are going to conduct this over an unsecured line. K: Oh, he knows about it? M: Yes, yes. K: Talk to you later then! M: All the best, talk to you!

[@leochambon6997]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/rH3WomSNYqtnr5Y

[@ATGG]

@@oskarhaanpaa8627 Thank you for your service.!! xD

[@antondrakon717]

This is perfect prank 🤣🤣🤣!

[@samfisher7876]

я бы сказал EVER)))))))

[@capfluff]

Sherlock's emotions during the call are priceless.

[@drydry1]

thanks for a job!

[@CommentConqueror]

This is crazy!!!!

[@dasm9657]

lol, the moustache

[@macnet83]

Incredible... please post the subtitles as well. Many thanks for your work!

[@EVZYL]

Bellingcat = CIA puppets.

[@duartesilva7907]

I thought that the FSB wasn't as porous as it really is..

[@ATGG]

@@fonzieforeverr7048 The FBI is incompetent...? xD

[@ATGG]

@@fonzieforeverr7048 say what? I don’t know her circles or her affiliation with the FBI, but I don’t watch CNN.

[@artursalksnis140]

Epic fail... 🤣

[@tomoneill1098]

FSB are not Mensa members

[@arturrabtsevsi9677]

Fairytale? For Xmas?

[@32lkrpo2fjm]

It's a fairy tale for liars. Deadly serious for those who don't spend their days endlessly lying to protect a bunch of thugs and criminals that are robbing the Russian people blind.

[@mitchyoung8791]

@@32lkrpo2fjm The Russian people were robbed blind under Yeltsin and the neoliberal 'advisers' from the West. Putin, for all his faults, has corrected some of that.