Vladimir Kara-Murza - Vice-chairman, Open Russia Movement HARDtalk

Now on BBC News, it's time for Hardtalk.

Welcome to HARDtalk.

I'm Sarah Montague.

My guest today is lucky to be alive.

He was rushed to hospital in Moscow when his organs started

shutting down.

He says he knew immediately what was happening

because the same thing happened to him two years ago.

Both times he claims he was the victim of

deliberate poisoning.

He's Vladimir Kara-Murza, the vice-chairman of the

pro-democracy movement Open Russia.

And he claims he was targeted because of his opposition to

President Putin and the Russian government.

He is now recovering in Washington but intends to go back to Moscow.

So does he still fear for his life?

Vladimir Kara-Murza, welcome to HARDtalk.

Hello, thank you for having me.

Can you tell us when you first realised that

something was wrong in this recent illness that you suffered?

Well I actually woke up at about 4.30 in the

morning because I felt my heart racing, and it was racing at an

increasing speed.

And then suddenly I began sweating profusely and

feeling really, really weak.

And I felt my blood pressure dropping

suddenly and all of a sudden it became difficult to breathe.

I was gasping for air.

I was trying to make this movement to bring the air

in, and it felt as if no air was coming out.

But was probably...

No air was coming in, rather, and that

was probably the scariest thing.

And of course I didn't want to admit it

but I knew straight away what it was because this

was the second time this happened in the last two years.

The way that starts it, it happens really

quickly, so literally you

have just a few minutes before you become incapacitated.

And during those few minutes that I could still

do something I called my wife and I told what was happening.

And of course we both knew exactly what it

was, it was the same thing that happened in 2015.

And she called the doctor, the same doctor who saved my

life last time, two years ago.

She told him what was happening, and after that I basically

immediately collapsed, I was unable to sit,

unable to stand, obviously, unable to do anything, just lying down on

the floor.

And then again I was very fortunate because I was not alone, I

was at the apartment of my parents-in-law in Moscow.

And they could call an ambulance.

And then within six to seven hours, all of my

major organs just shut down, just gave up, one after another, and I

lost consciousness and I don't remember anything for the next two

weeks.

So there were, what, two weeks when you had been put into a

medically induced coma to keep you alive.

Yes and I was on several artificial life

support machines because none of my organs worked.

Everything just gave up, the heart, the lungs, kidneys,

liver, everything was artificially supported.

And they were cleaning the blood as well and changing the

blood plasma, once they've done that, by the way, this is when the

situation began improving.

So presumably the poison, the toxin, whatever,

it was in the blood.

And this, by the way, is exactly the same

picture that happened two years ago,

with some minor differences, but basically it was the same thing.

When I was poisoned for the first time in May 2015, except at that

time it took a little more time, it took about two days, last time,

for my organs to shut down, but this time it took just six to

seven hours.

Maybe because I still hadn't fully recovered from the first

poisoning, the body was weaker than it should have been.

But also this time because it was the same medical

team, the same doctors who saved me already in 2015, and they knew

straight away that this was the same thing they were dealing with,

exactly the same problem.

So they knew what to do.

And this is why they did everything so much quicker

than last time.

Last time I was in a coma for three weeks and I was in

hospital for more than two months and then it took me more

than a year to recover, I had to learn to walk again,

and use cutlery again, to try to get my strength back.

This time everything was much quicker but

they also saved me quicker.

But of course the recovery is still going

to take a long while, as 'm only just beginning this process now.

Now you say you were deliberately poisoned.

But what is the evidence for that?

Because normally you might expect when someone has been poisoned that

doctors, that they themselves would know immediately when it happened

and what was used.

But you don't.

Well, first of all the official diagnosis which is stated in my

documents from the Moscow hospital says toxic action by an

unidentified substance.

Which is poisoning.

And frankly, you know, my doctors in Moscow, their task was

not to find the reason, their task was to save my life, and they did it

twice in two years.

And I'm eternally grateful to them for that.

As far as the evidence goes, there is no possible natural reason

for a healthy 33-year-old in the first

instance, now 35-year-old man, to suddenly collapse and have all his

organs shut down within several hours for apparent reason.

With no prior history of illnesses, no

possible natural causes existing before.

And of course...

But there are cases.

You will know that after that first poisoning, the chief

doctor at the Moscow hospital treating you,

which you praise,

said the tests had revealed traces of a antidepressant.

And he suggested, which you had been using, and he

suggested that it was that that could have caused the problems.

He couldn't confirm it but it was an idea.

Right, well first of all, that wasn't very plausible to begin with

even last time, but this time they didn't find

any traces of anything.

No antidepressants, nothing.

So they didn't even discuss this version

this time because it has absolutely no grounds.

What we do know from last time is, a sample of my

blood and hair and fingernails was submitted to a French toxicology lab

in Strasbourg, in France.

And they didn't find the actual toxins but

they did find traces of heavy metals in my body,

dozens of times over the normal acceptable limit which

obviously didn't show the cause of the poisoning but showed

the effects and showed that there was some kind of external

interference.

That sample wasn't very objective from last time because it

was taken, I think, three or four days after I was

brought into hospital

and they'd already begun haemodialysis, the cleaning of the

blood.

This time my wife and my lawyer managed to obtain samples

from the first day, so they are more objective

than the first time and

this time they sent them to three toxicology labs in three different

countries, France, Israel, and the United States.

They are still working on them.

We still have no results.

And of course I'm hoping that they will find something.

I mean it would be nice to see with what they are trying to kill me

every two years.

But this was some kind of very sophisticated toxin.

You know, one that shuts down all your organs

within several hours and of

course the way it was introduced was presumably sophisticated, because I

didn't notice, I didn't know.

That is one of the many strange things

about this, is that you have no awareness of when it could have

happened.

And yet you are fairly confident in who you are pointing

the finger at, which is, you've said, is likely to be the

special services, effectively the domestic Secret

services in Russia.

Absolutely, well, judging by the

toxin itself, which is, as I said, it seems to be very sophisticated,

it's not something you can just go and buy in a pharmacy, and also

judging by the way it was introduced, I think, frankly, that's

what usually happens.

The person is not usually aware of the moment he

or she is being poisoned, otherwise it wouldn't work.

So the way they introduced it was, presumably,

pretty sophisticated.

I'm confident that this was done by people who

either are now or have been connected with the Russian domestic

security services.

Especially if you put two and two together, given what

I do, given my active involvement in the democratic

opposition in Russia.

Particularly given my involvement, together

with the late Boris Nemtsov, the

leader of the Russian opposition, and several

other colleagues, in the

campaign a few years ago, in support of the Magnitsky Act, act

being passed in the United States.

OK.

We'll...

I think that is probably the most likely...

You talk about how you put two and two together.

The difficulty here is that there doesn't seem to

be any substantial evidence.

Even your own father was quoted, both in

the New York Times and in the Russian paper

as saying he doesn't believe you will poisoned.

He says the doctors don't think so, I don't

think so either.

If someone really intended to kill him they wouldn't

have allowed him to be driven to intensive care.

Well, in terms of my father, we have to be careful with

quoting here.

If somebody has tried to kill your child twice in two

years, I think, you know, maybe, you're not going to be in a very

stable and adequate state when you are doing these comments.

He said it on day one when he didn't have any more

specific information.

If you look at what he said later on, it would be very

different, and of course my

wife and my lawyer was speaking on my behalf during this latest

poisoning and they said it very clearly from the outset.

As I mentioned already, after the first

time, the French toxicology lab found traces of heavy metals dozens

of times over the limit.

No way would that naturally occur in the

human body.

Yes, but you sent your blood to two other labs as well,

who didn't find that.

No, no, no, this time it was sent to three labs,

Israel, the United States and France.

Last time it was only sent to one and it was sent, the sample

was, as I said, not very objective, because it took...

But your father makes an interesting point.

He may have changed his position but he

made an interesting point that you were allowed to be taken to the

hospital, you were then, once you were considerably better,

allowed to leave the country, and he also made

another point on that.

Admittedly within the first couple of days.

"My son's health is weak and so is his

immune system.

Any common cold could be dangerous for him."

Well, first of all again I'm not sure why we are

discussing this because the official diagnosis from my Russian hospital

on the official papers states the diagnosis as toxic action by

unidentified substance, which is poisoning.

And as I've said, we have sent, or rather, my wife and my

lawyer, because I was in a coma,, I couldn't do anything.

They have sent the samples of blood, hair and

fingernails to three labs in three different countries, and we are

still awaiting the results.

But as I mentioned, I don't think there is a

guarantee that they will find anything.

I'm hoping they will, as said it would be nice to know

who is trying to kill me every two years.

But the one thing we do know about this organisation,

or these organisations if we are talking about the Russian domestic

security services, is that they do know their poisons.

They do know their toxins.

They've had this laboratory for decades now.

They've been developing this and these

poisons, these toxins, are not only very effective,

but many of them are also untraceable.

I mean, you've had cases in your own country, in the

United Kingdom...

How do you think they were able to get the poison

into you?

Well, I think that's the easiest thing of all.

Every day I have meetings with various people.

Many of them are in public places, cafes and restaurants.

It doesn't take, frankly, that much effort, to

slip something into tea or juice.

This is obviously, I don't have any specific information of where or

when this was done by whom.

The only thing I'm pretty confident about is the why.

But of course as you know they can do these things in

London, I'm sure they can also do these things in Moscow.

OK.

Before we come on to the why, you say it

was, you are convinced it was the special services.

But who would have ordered it?

Is this the sort of thing you think President Putin

would have got involved in?

I don't know and I wouldn't like to speculate.

I only like to say things I am sure about.

And I am sure that these were people in some way

connected to the Russian domestic security services judging by the way

it was done.

And judging by the reason but I think it was done for.

But why would they be interested in you?

Because you make the point about the Magnitsky Act which was an

American law passed to target individuals named after Sergei

Magnitsky, the lawyer who died in a Russian prison.

But for them to take the action of trying to kill

somebody, you seem, forgive me, but relatively small fry.

Why should they be bothered by you?

Well, first of all, if you look at the track

record of the last several years, there seems to be an extremely high

mortality rate for some reason among people who have either been critics

all political opponents of Mr Putin's regime

or people engaged in

independent journalism.

And as you well know, these people have died in

different ways, some of them strange and mysterious ways, not only inside

Russia but also outside, primarily in your own

country where you are now.

So, you know, this doesn't really fit into a normal statistical

model, this high mortality rate.

And in terms of my own case, again, I

don't have any specific information, I didn't

receive any threats, there

were no warnings.

This just happened out of the blue both times, both in

2015 and now.

But if I were to name the most likely reason, I would say

it was definitely the Magnitsky Act.

I was very actively involved, together with the late Boris

Nemtsov, the leader of the Russian opposition, who was killed two

years ago near the Kremlin.

We were involved with him in the campaign in

support of the Magnitsky Act when it was being discussed and while it was

being passed in the United States, and then later in the same campaign

in support of similar measures in the European Union countries.

And there has now been one EU country,

Estonia, which already passed a similar law.

And in your own country, in the United Kingdom, it's

in the process of being adopted, the financial crimes will,

where this provision was passed by the House of

Commons, I think.

I believe it now went to the Lords and hopefully will

be adopted soon.

In order to understand why this was such a big

deal, it's important to understand the nature of the regime that we

have in power in our country today.

In so many ways, Vladimir Putin's regime is similar to what we had

back in the Soviet times.

We have media censorship, we have the lack

of free and fair elections in our country.

We have political prisoners, dozens of people sitting

in jail only for their political beliefs and political activities.

And I can go on.

But for all these similarities there is one very

important difference.

And that is, while they were

persecuting dissidents and engaging in anti-Western propaganda, members

of the Soviet Politburo didn't hold their money in Western banks.

They didn't send their children to study

in western schools, they didn't buy yachts

and luxury real estate and

luxury cars in Western countries.

Leaders and operatives of the current regime do all that.

They want to rule inside Russia like it's a third World

dictatorship, but they want to use all the privileges and freedoms

and opportunities of the Western world when it comes to themselves

and their families and also for storing their ill-gotten gains.

And we think that this hypocrisy and these double standards

have to stop.

And this is why we are involved in this campaign to get

the Magnitsky Act Magnitsky Act past.

This was not sanctions against Russia, this was not even

sanctions against the Russian government.

This was sanctions against specific individuals involved in corruption

and human rights abuse.

And it was long overdue to introduce some kind of personal accountability

for these people but of course, as you realise, they will not be

very happy about it.

The problem with your argument is that you are talking

about a president who is still incredibly popular in Russia,

and you are talking about sanctions, targeted sanctions, June 2015

which a poll back in June 2015 which was when before some

of the broader sanctions were in place, said that,

almost half of those polled said they felt like they were shouldering

the burden of sanctions.

So they felt, 46% of the general Russian population felt

the sanctions were hurting them.

You're mixing up the difference sanctions.

The sanctions you are referring to are general economic

and sectoral sanctions introduced...

No, this was a poll taken back in 2015, asking

about the targeted sanctions.

Well, in 2014 there were general sanctions introduced,

economic and sectoral sanctions against the wider Russian economy.

When the Magnitsky Act was introduced that was back

in December 20 12.

There was indeed a pole taken by the Levada Centre which showed

that a strong plurality of Russian citizens,

40 something percent, were in favour of this idea that

people who engage in human rights abuse and corruption should not be

allowed to receive visas in Western countries or keep their money

in Western banks or buy real estate in Western countries.

Because people don't see if those crooks,

those billionaires who have got rich by plundering the resources

of Russian taxpayers, they don't see any limitations

on them as sanctions against the Russian people

because obviously they are not.

And Boris Nemtsov called the Magnitsky law the most

pro-Russian law ever passed in any foreign parliament,

that's a direct quotation from him.

Because it is a law that targets those who abuse the rights

of Russian citizens and plunder the money of Russian taxpayers.

But we still have a problem with your argument which is

that the president is remarkably popular.

And we'll win a game in the next elections.

I know you're going to say that the elections are not fair

but even if you accept that argument, he is

still remarkably popular.

You know, I really take issue when people in the West say that.

Garry Kasparov, who is a chess grandmaster and world just champion

was for many years one of the leaders of the Russian

opposition.

I think he said it best when he said, if you come

into the restaurant and there's only one dish being served,

you can say that this is the most popular dish in the restaurant

and you would technically be right.

But it doesn't make any sense and it doesn't have any meaning.

For years now Mr Putin has been destroying any

alternative, any opposition.

Those of us who oppose them are either in exile,

in prison, or no longer with us, like Boris Nemtsov.

For years now Mr Putin has been in total control and his government

have been in total control of all the national media

in our country.

In fact his first major target in his very early years of his will,

in the early 2000s, were the independent television

channels in Russia, which, one after another, he either

shut down or took over for the state.

The Russian parliament has been turned into a rubber stamp.

Not a place for discussion.

As its own speaker infamously said.

And as you mentioned yourself...

Mr Kara-Murza, you are sitting in front of a picture of the White

House.

The new occupant of that building is a man who wants to be friends

with the person you are talking about.

Yes, he certainly said this many times.

And to this we would say, by week, I mean myself and my colleagues

in the Russian opposition, we would say what we said

to president Obama before him and what we said

to President Bush before him.

That you could do some short-term tactical,

I would say cynical deals but I think, in the end,

because of such a divergence of values between a system based

on democracy and the rule of law, which the United States is,

as well as European Union countries, and the corrupt crooked dictatorship

that is Mr Putin 's regime, there cannot be any

long-term genuine co-operation.

And in the end, as we know, but President Bush and President

Obama also began their terms by declaring that they wanted to be

friends with Mr Putin and his regime.

And we know what it led to in the end.

So you are not unnerved by what you share from President Trump

and his new approach to Russia?

First of all, the most important thing to remember is,

and we always do remember this, is, it is our task, our job,

to bring political change in Russia.

To bring democracy and the rule of law back to Russia.

It is not for any outside players.

It is not for any foreign powers, it is not for the US,

not the European Union, not for anybody else.

Only for us and we will do it.

The only thing we would ask of the leaders of the democratic

world is, not to help Mr Putin.

First of all by treating him as a worthy and respectable partner

on the international stage, and secondly, perhaps even more

importantly, is what we just talked about.

By not allowing his cronies and operatives of his regime to use

Western countries as havens for the wealth they have looted

from the Russian people.

This is all we ask.

And this is why a gain the Magnitsky initiatives were so important.

And cities like Washington and London are guilty of that?

Guilty is a strong and legally charged word but certainly for many

years, I don't think it's a secret for anybody,

many people connected with the Putin regime,

the Kremlin connected oligarchs, the officials, the cronies,

they have long used countries of Europe and north America

as havens to buy houses to keep their money,

and we know that the United Kingdom has been frankly among the top

on that list.

And this is why it's so important that the British Parliament is now

in the process of adopting its own legislation that would target those

crooks, target those human rights abuses,

and as the British Security Minister said when this law was being voted

on, in the House of Commons in February, this should be stopped.

And the UK should not become a haven for these people.

And I think this is very honourable and the right thing to do and I'm

happy this is happening.

You say the opposition will do it, will bring about change.

And you have said it will come not as a result of elections,

it will come unexpectedly and very sudden, when no one

will least expect it.

Do you think it will come soon?

Well, Russian history does show that when political change comes

to our country it always begins suddenly and unexpectedly.

This is what happened at the beginning of the 20th

century, this is what happened in the early 1990s,

which was within in our lifetime.

I remember August 1991 when the regime that had existed

for 74 years, the Soviet Communist regime, collapsed in three days.

When the people came out onto the streets of Moscow

in their hundreds and thousands and stood in front of the tanks

and the coup collapsed.

But will it happen soon?

Well, the one thing we certainly cannot say is exactly

when and exactly how.

It would be reckless to try to name any specific dates.

And what about your role.

Because there you are recovering in Washington but you plan to go

back, don't you?

Do you not expect another attempt on your life?

Well, first of all I will definitely go back, I will definitely

resume my work.

I think those of us who believe in a different future for Russia,

a different vision for Russia, will want to see Russia become

a normal modern democratic European country.

We have responsibility. We cannot just run away and give up.

We have to continue our work, and we will do it.

And I will do it. And I will absolutely go back.

I don't know when that will happen, because doctors have advised me

to hold off going back for a while, for at least

until full physical recovery.

Because they have said, if there is a third time now,

this will be your last one.

This is what they told me directly.

But I will absolutely go back and we will continue doing

what we are doing.

Because there are many people in Russia who reject this regime

and what it stands for.

You don't hear their voices.

A minute ago you mentioned the so-called popularity of Putin.

It's fake.

Popularity created by controlled media, the lack of free and fair

elections, and total political control, basically.

Partly fear, party propaganda.

The fact is, I mean, I travel widely around Russia,

beyond Moscow, beyond Saint Petersburg, in various

regions, East to West.

And everywhere I go, there are people who are fed up

with this regime, with its corruption,

with its political control, who want to see a different

future for Russia.

And frankly I think these people represent the best hope

for the future of our country and it is for their sake

that we have to continue working.

Vladimir Kara-Murza, thank you very much for coming on HARDtalk.

Thank you.