Former Anti-Corruption Foundation director says Team Navalny’s leadership has abandoned its core principles

Ivan Zhdanov, the former director of the Anti-Corruption Foundation (FBK) who spent more than 10 years at the organization before being dismissed in the fall of 2025, gave a lengthy interview to Irina Shikhman — his first interview immediately after leaving was given to Meduza. In his conversation with Shikhman, Zhdanov described how he organized the removal of Navalny’s biological samples from Russia to Western laboratories, which later established how the politician was poisoned in his Arctic penal colony. He also spoke about his disagreements with FBK leadership, decisions by the organization he opposed, and Leonid Volkov’s signature on a letter in support of banker Mikhail Fridman. Meduza has selected the key quotes from the interview.

Update

Navalnaya calls former Anti-Corruption Foundation director’s interview a ‘lie,’ says she removed him for weak management

{{ datetime }}

On removing Navalny’s biological samples

Who said they [the people who helped remove Navalny’s biological samples from Russia] were inside the prison? There are certain details I can’t share because they involve people who are still in Russia — people who risked a great deal and made it possible to prove that Alexei Navalny was killed.

On the biological samples, I had to make many decisions on my own. It’s an important and sensitive matter, and the wider the circle of people who know about it, the greater the risk that everything falls apart. For a long time I was afraid — even after the body was handed over to [Navalny’s mother] — that it would be seized and taken away. That when they [the security forces who obstructed the release of the body and Navalny’s funeral] reversed course, they wouldn’t allow Alexei to be buried normally. A decision was made to place an AirTag nearby — simply to track where the body was being taken.

On his dismissal from FBK

I lost trust in my colleagues, in the leadership. I can’t work under the direction of people I don’t trust. Everything changed in exile. The basic principle of FBK is: “Don’t lie and don’t steal.” I think the leadership has abandoned those principles. There came a point when we left something unsaid once, then a second time, then covered for each other a third time. And that is exactly how Putin’s system of lies spreads — when anything goes among friends.

On the foundation’s bad decisions

I spoke out [before my dismissal] about things I fundamentally disagree with. There are things we handled with serious negligence, and we need to own that — take donations, for instance. People are now facing criminal prosecution for donating to FBK during the period when we were accepting payments from Russia. That’s a mistake that needs to be acknowledged. That’s [Leonid] Volkov’s mistake.

On the letter in support of Fridman

I was in the States at the time. I watched how the story emerged — when [former editor-in-chief of the shuttered Russian independent radio station Ekho Moskvy, Alexei] Venediktov started publishing about it, we quickly got on a call with Volkov and [FBK head Maria] Pevchikh, and he said: “This story is made up. There’s no such letter, I didn’t sign it.” Then it turned out that “what I meant was I didn’t sign a collective letter — I signed an individual one.” That means the man lied. The most important question still hanging in the air is whether Volkov took money for that letter. My impression is that no, he didn’t.

Leonid Volkov, in a comment to the independent Russian broadcaster TV Rain after Zhdanov’s interview was published, called it “deeply unethical” and untruthful. He rejected all the grievances and accusations from the former FBK director (including the claim that the foundation employed fictitious staff). “I watched the clips […] and I can say briefly that FBK has not abandoned its principles, FBK does not lie and does not steal, and FBK employs wonderful people who do important and necessary work,” Volkov said.

On underground campaign offices and the sentence for pro-Navalny graffiti

This was entirely my initiative, my idea from start to finish. It didn’t work out — it’s a fairly dangerous project. The risks were obvious from the outset; we warned about them. But the project’s effectiveness turned out to be not as high.

When you warn someone that this [participating in underground campaign offices] is a very risky undertaking — I said in my broadcasts: “Yes, it’s a risky thing for those who want to do it” — and many do want to. Some people feel that impulse and send us photos [of protest graffiti]. It’s not like we’re taking responsibility as a terrorist organization for some painted fence. Somebody paints it and asks us to show it.