Выборы-2026 (Россия 1, 01.09.2026) Бондаренко у Соловьёва

Summary of Main Arguments and Content

The broadcast is framed as a pre-election debate for State Duma deputies (9th convocation) on “Russia 1.” It focuses on protection of traditional values, preservation of historical memory, civil society/civic solidarity, and patriotism. Each party candidate delivers timed remarks and then responds to opponents.

1) Civil Society and Civic Solidarity (Tolstoy vs. Others)

Pyotr Olegovich Tolstoy (United Russia) argues that civil society in Russia should be grounded in shared spiritual-historical continuity and collective action, contrasting this with what he describes as Western “mercantile individualism.”

He cites examples of community coordination during the war / in the “special military operation”—such as group coordination, donations, and supplies sent to the front—as proof that people can overcome past disagreements when there is a common cause.

Tolstoy presents civil society as citizens acting practically, not engaging only in “noisy” activism, and ties this framing to the party’s platform: traditional values, youth education, patriotism, and solidarity.

2) Patriotism, Historical Interpretation, and “Who Owns Crimea?” (Pakhalkov vs. Bondarenko)

Oleg Vladimirovich Pakhalkov (Rodina) offers a strongly patriotic critique of Western influence, arguing that patriotism has been undermined for decades through education policy and cultural change.

He uses historical anecdotes about Russian defeats and “betrayals” (including conflicts with Japan and 1917) and claims that Western funding/influence contributed to revolutionary events.

He makes a concrete political demand: voters should repeatedly ask each candidate a direct question—“Whose Crimea is it?”—and also Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk—demanding a clear answer.

Nikolai Bondarenko (Communist Party) responds that Crimea is Russian, while also accusing current authorities of failing working people and arguing that the idea of reexamining 1990s privatization must be reconsidered.

3) Economic Program and “How to Pay for Values” (Bondarenko’s Central Thrust)

Bondarenko pivots from the themes of patriotism and traditional values into an extensive economic and governance critique, asserting that:

• United Russia’s governance and budgeting lead to “degradation,” while his party offers a clear plan rather than slogans.

Key proposals include:

• Nationalization of strategic sectors (oil, gas, and resources), and potentially industries connected to the fuel/energy complex.
• Nationalization of banking, including the Central Bank, to enable lower interest rates and improve access to mortgages/loans.
• Greater public control over spending and anti-plunder measures (including referenced ideas about financial control/reporting for officials).
• Labor and corporate transparency through expanding trade unions and workers’ control.

He also argues for policy changes such as increased social spending (healthcare/education) and describes the USSR/Russian past as more favorable for social protection. He cites shifts in billionaire counts, arguing that wealth growth reflects extraction from ordinary people.

4) “Active Patriotism” vs. Prohibitions; Social Policies and Youth Support (Khurudzhi)

Alexander Alexandrovich Khurudzhi (New People) criticizes what he characterizes as outdated, slogan-based communist rhetoric and argues for “active patriotism” rather than rituals alone.

He emphasizes grassroots civic work tied to the party’s origin—such as tree-planting initiatives, youth education/projects, and local volunteer action.

For Khurudzhi, patriotism includes:

• trust in the state,
• community initiatives,
• sports and mass participation,
• practical support rather than bans.

He repeatedly stresses housing affordability for young families, asking whether preferential mortgages and rental-housing programs will be extended/implemented, and criticizing high housing prices. He also frames tradition as compatible with modern life and warns against simplistic “ban-everything” politics.

5) Historical Memory: WWII Framing and Debates on “Rewriting History”

In the historical-memory block:

• Tolstoy argues that Russian history is “united,” emphasizing WWII heroism and the need to defend the memory of soldiers who died in liberation campaigns. He highlights:

  • protecting memorials and graves from destruction/removal,
  • direct personal communication between youth and war veterans (including SVO veterans, in his framing),
  • school-level education and rituals (including Knowledge Day anthem/flag behavior).

• Bondarenko focuses on censorship/free-speech controversies, criticizing “rewriting history” and accusing authorities of restricting information—such as internet blocking and limiting access—rather than preserving an open historical debate.

• Khurudzhi adds an interpretive modernization angle, arguing for balanced governance and future-facing legislative competence (including regulation of AI/robotics) while still claiming commitment to historical memory.

6) State Role in Education/Training and Social Preparation for Risk (Rodina’s Youth Section)

Pakhalkov argues that patriotism education has been weakened systematically: memorial elements have been altered (e.g., “red stars” removed after reconstruction), the state withdrew from education, and children allegedly lost practical skills/training.

A major proposal is to return basic military training to schools, asserting that children should learn practical skills (such as disassembly/reassembly) and that state-led upbringing historically prepared youth to handle future crises.

7) Contentious Policy Disputes and Mutual Accusations

Across the debate, candidates attacked each other on multiple fronts, including:

• Domestic violence / gender policy: Khurudzhi references a manifesto against violence and a proposed approach to protect victims, while opponents question how it aligns with existing law.
• Internet regulation and security: disputes about censorship, blocking practices, and obligations to comply with intelligence/security requests.
• Labor-time reforms: discussion about workday length (six vs eight hours), framed through different historical/social conditions.
• Economic statistics and legitimacy: Bondarenko and Tolstoy/Khurudzhi trade claims about numbers (poverty levels, hospital/medical beds), arguing over accounting methods and bias.

Key “Reports” or Concrete Claims Mentioned in the Debate

• Community cooperation around sending aid to the front is presented as a model of civic solidarity (Tolstoy).
• Rodina’s proposal concept: voters should demand explicit territorial-answer commitments from candidates (e.g., “Whose Crimea?”).
• Communist proposals: nationalization of strategic industries and banking; higher healthcare/education spending; anti-plunder/accountability mechanisms; workers’ control; expanded trade unions.
• New People priorities: grassroots-driven initiatives, trust-based “active patriotism,” mass sports, housing affordability for young families, and modernization of legislative competence (including AI/robotics).
• Historical-memory emphasis: preservation/defense of WWII memory and opposition to removing/altering memorial sites (Tolstoy); criticism of censorship practices (Bondarenko).

Presenters / Contributors (Named Participants)

• Pyotr Olegovich Tolstoy — United Russia
• Oleg Vladimirovich Pakhalkov — Rodina
• Nikolai Nikolaevich Bondarenko — Communist Party of the Russian Federation
• Alexander Alexandrovich Khurudzhi — New People
• Ksenia Goryacheva — mentioned by Khurudzhi as launching/signing a women’s manifesto
• Boris Kitov — mentioned by Khurudzhi as a New People party figure
• Alexey Nichaev — mentioned by Khurudzhi as founder of the New People party