Вернуться   Форум по искусству и инвестициям в искусство > Дневники > Тютчев

Рейтинг: 5.00. Голосов: 3.

Russia - is such a bad child of Europe

Запись от Тютчев размещена 04.12.2009 в 12:37

Alexei Pushkov: "Russia - is such a bad child of Europe"

( "Business", Russia)

28/04/200816: 47
On the eve of the 10-year anniversary of the television program 'Postscript' her head and leading Alexey Pushkov answers readers' questions InoSMI.


__________________________________

Alex, 28.04.2008 14:34

Alex, thank you for coming here (on InoSMI) again! Throughout the presidential term of Vladimir Putin, we have witnessed the unjustified attacks by the western media on him, the Kremlin as an institution of supreme state power in Russia, and Russia in general. Edward Lucas, for example, allows himself to argue on behalf of the Russians about what is good and bad for Russia, as if he himself is a citizen of Russia. Are there effective ways to influence the degree of impartiality of your foreign counterparts - for example, some economic instruments or methods of "coercive" effects (in a purely informational space, of course)? Stand before you, Alexander Rahr said, in effect, that, say, yourself, Western journalists just set up a negative - though personally I find in such a systematic crackdown on Russia's leadership a purely selfish interest and not sincere attitude. As demonstrated your joint conference with Quentin Pilom and it seems that with Lucas, to convince them - a hopeless exercise. What then remains for us to do?


I think that Alexander Rahr in many respects. And, of course, strong-arm methods are absolutely excluded. The point is that the West created a culture of negative attitudes towards Russia, about which he wrote in 19 century N. Danilevsky, for example, and about which he wrote F. Dostoevsky. Because of some psychological characteristics of the West and, I think, largely under the influence of the Vatican, the Catholic Church after it was formed in Russia Orthodoxy and Russia took the wrong road, which went to Western and Central Europe. It has since Russia was seen as something belonging to Europe geographically, but also to the marginal areas of Europe, but not belonging to Europe ideologically. And then there is a very cautious attitude - that the Russian others, that they are different. In this stubbornly suspicious attitude towards Russia, in this deep-seated mistrust, in this ideological intransigence, there is something tribal, there is something primal when living in the neighborhood tribes hated each other more than anything. While the distant tribes, say, a tribe of Chinese, could not call a special hatred simply because they do not come into contact with him, and it is generally implicated in other historical roots. It could generate curiosity and interest, could cause a desire to colonize, which by the way, and began to make the Western powers in the 19 century. But it did not cause hatred.

I draw your attention to the fact that the West is virtually no people who are with the same fury, attacking China, with which they attacked Russia.

I recently spoke at the Nixon Center in Washington. And after the performance of well-known American political scientist, a skeptic of Russia, which at one time was a diplomat and Clinton's special representative for Russia and the CIS, was convince me that Russia should abandon their past, to condemn its imperial past, to condemn the Stalinist era, condemned their foreign policy. He spoke with such passion about it that I was surprised why he, a Croat by birth, American by nationality, so fiercely to me shows why Russia should abandon its past. And I asked other Americans, if America says such things Chinese. He said no. "Why?" He replied that 'it is pointless in the first place, and, secondly, the Chinese past is so far from us, that why should we ask them to renounce it?'.

We, as I explained to a French researcher, for the example of the West, where they proved themselves that they were better. Always important point of reference. It is ridiculous to argue that the West is more democratic than China. It is so clear that this did not impress. But Russia - is such a bad child of Europe. In his example, children from good families shows how not to behave.

As he told me: 'We in Russia hate worst traits of themselves'. Moreover, these traits are often attributed to us, exaggerate and magnified. And there is the image of bloodthirsty imperialist Russian. Besides that the human history the Western powers made a lot more bloodthirsty acts: a history of colonization of Asia, South America and Africa proves it. There can be no reproach Russia some heinous crimes against hundreds or millions of people when the Russia Empire was expanding its borders. Yes, there were wars in the Caucasus and Central Asia, but there was no genocide against the local population. While Cortes, Pizarro and other conquistadores, who were carrying fire and sword to the Catholic faith in Latin America, they have destroyed up to 2 million people. So-called American democratic civilization was born through the destruction of local Indian population. Everybody knows. And the crimes of the British in India are also known. But at the same time we are accused of imperialism, bloodthirsty, crimes against humanity.

I think that Russia - a convenient object for the transfer of Western sins and to divert people's attention from the crimes that were committed by the West. Here we not only typical distrust of neighboring tribes, which, though adopted Christianity, but in a somewhat different form, ie another religion. This is the desire to establish themselves at our expense. To say that they - the native civilization began, and next there is a country that throughout its history was just a rebuke of European civilization.

There are also purely political purposes, finally. And this is the third time. Returning from Washington, I looked out the airplane movie "Charlie Wilson's War" (Charlie Wilson's War) with Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts. I looked at him with great interest and with great indignation. Because it is deeply anti-Russian film. This is a film about the crimes that are committed during the Russian war in Afghanistan. It is not that they did not commit crimes, and talk about what the film shows the hatred of America to Russia.

This film is made in such a way to prove that the Americans in Iraq is nothing particularly wrong with not commit. But look what they did Russian in Afghanistan! There are such phrases as: 'Do you think that you want to kill a Russian? " With approval and support shown hatred toward Russia, which exists in certain circles in the United States, may be in extreme forms.

I was surprised because we do not make these films about Americans. We're not making movies about the crimes of the Americans in Vietnam. Although could, because the crimes were terrible, they are known all over the world. We do not make a film about how Americans staged coups in Latin America, that on their conscience, those thousands of people who were tortured by Pinochet. We're not doing such films. The Cold War ended. We stopped to settle scores with America's ideological and propaganda sphere.

And there always come out of the terrible Russian films, the terrible Russia. For example, a film by David Cronenberg ( "Eastern promises') about the Russian in London, which shows the Russian mafia. Our films, our kinokultura, turn to a completely different way. And there always supported this negative image of Russia.

Naturally, many members of the media are its carriers. It is very deep roots. Very often you talk to these people and do not know, and whether to talk with them? Do this at least some sense? Because they either do not want you to understand, or distort, or served you in this light, that would be better if you tell them nothing.

On the other hand, I do not agree with Rahr. I meet a lot of Western journalists, a small minority, but nonetheless, they are many who sincerely and seriously interested in what takes place in Russia, that Russia is not trying to condemn, but to understand. There are journalists, ideologues, it is important for them to condemn, but to understand - not important, it is important to hold its line. But there are journalists, scholars or just journalists who merely conscientious people, for such Western journalists, it is important to understand what is happening in Russia and bring this understanding to the Western audience. And I think that now with these journalists must work.

From the people who admire themselves to the loss of pulse and who believe that American civilization is the highest good of mankind created with them to talk is useless. Let them stay in his enthusiastic self-perception and write all these your stupidity. Makes no sense to invite them to Russia, it is meaningless to them to arrange a meeting with the president. I sometimes marvel at the actions of those people who organize our leadership contacts with Western journalists and political scientists. Western journalists and political scientists have come here, smiling Putin, ingratiating shake hands with him, ask him flattering questions, then come to America and want to exclude Russia from the Group of Eight '.

There are so-called 'Valdai Club'. In the framework of President Putin a few years in a row in September, met with Western journalists and political scientists. There are people who are good to us, there are people who are reserved, but willing to accept what we say. And there are people who constantly act out of hostility map of Russia. This is their main goal and the life and work. Why did they invite? Why would they organize a meeting with Putin, they are returning to Europe or America, used for anti-Russia propaganda? That is totally incomprehensible to me.

The Americans maintain ties with those with whom they feel have chances to talk with those who can take their messages. Yes, these people may criticize the Americans, but they are ready to listen and they can hear. What is the point to liaise with the people who are not able to be honest, I can not say.

But with journalists, gravitating towards objectivity, to work, of course, necessary, and these journalists are. I think it is very many journalists from CNN, ABC, BBC, with whom I talked in the past 10 years. They tried to understand Russia rather than condemn it. Another thing, the unfurling of their content editors in London or the United States. But these journalists I have seen an interest in what is really happening in Russia. These journalists are, and they need to create conditions for a better understanding of what is happening in the country. We can not take the position that there is some guidance offices, that 'all of us there is no love, no matter where we do not understand, it is still on us there will be a bad writing'. This is also the wrong position.

I would suggest that separate flies from cutlets. Troublemaking buzzing flies, which are stored in large quantities in the Western press, we can not convince them - they are flies, and will remain. But people who are able to perceive, it is necessary to allocate and work with them. And then the result will be.

Paul (Moscow), 01.05.2008 01:08

Is your TV propaganda channel?


I do not think that the program 'Postscript' is a promotional program. Advocacy program comes from a political problem. And this outreach program was a program of Sergei Dorenko, which was published in 1999, the First Channel and focused only on one task: to ensure that the bloc "Fatherland - All Russia 'has won the parliamentary elections. And the task of leading this program was to maximize discredit Yuri Luzhkov and Yevgeny Primakov as the leaders of the party bloc. That was pure propaganda! Seek out all the negative, creating a negative image, invent stories, held this, I would say the line of slander against two well-deserved Russia's politicians, who, like all, have something to criticize. But the content of the program was not to criticize. The content was in the libel, in deliberately demonizing these people.

Y 'Postscript' was never a problem. I've never had a problem someone deliberately vilify, to someone deliberately attack. Although, of course, the program 'Postscript' has its own ideological foundation. And this ideological foundation was laid in it since 1998. And the position of a program, of course, is. But the program's position and advocacy program - two different things.

In particular, the program 'Postscript' is traditionally taken a critical position towards the right-liberal wing in Russia. But she took this position because the right-liberal wing, who led the country under Yeltsin, has led to the 1998 default and to such disastrous social and political impact that we have had, and still more have mopped.

However, I for a long time in his program gave the floor to representatives of right-liberal wing. We were in the studio Yavlinsky, Nemtsov, Hakamada, Nadezhdin, Gozman, all leaders Yabloko and SPS. And now, if they participate in the program has declined sharply, it is due to the fact that sharply reduced their influence in the country. But none of them can not say that they were frequent guests in the 'Postscript', that program does not do interviews with them and show them on the screen.

For seven years they were always present in my television program, which proves that with my critical attitude towards these political forces, they were not excluded from the political spectrum, who attended my program. I think 'Postscript' program, which is fairly clear political position, but it is not propaganda.

Paul (Moscow), 01.05.2008 01:08

Does it reflect your program to view Russia's leadership? Does the information vector "Postscript" to the opinion of some political forces, why?



I think it reflects the view, at least part of the political leadership of Russia, but this does not mean that the program was created in order to reflect this view. The program appeared in 1998. In 1998, the names of those people who after 2000 began to lead Russia, the vast majority of viewers were generally unknown. In 1998, Vladimir Putin has worked in the President's Administration and was not too well-known bureaucrat. And, most likely, no one knew about the political views of Putin, because he never expressed them: he had a different role and other functions.

Thus, the ideological and political basis of the program was laid before the arrival of Vladimir Putin and his team to power. And even then the program stemmed from a clear state line, from what should be guided by the national public interests in Russia, rather than clan interests within the country. Even then, the program strongly opposed the legacy of Andrei Kozyrev, Yegor Gaidar, Anatoly Chubais, in our foreign and domestic policies, then the program has sharply criticized Boris Yeltsin, and even then the program seriously enough not agree with U.S. foreign policy.

I have changed nothing in the program after Putin came to power. It was the same in content. And if the policy is changed, changed the political line of Russia's leadership, began to change the public mood (I hope I have contributed to this change in public and political sentiment), I did not fit the program to a new time. There was quite a natural convergence of views of those people who came to power in 2000, and the views of those who conducted the program 'Postscript'. Came to power people who are more of my associates, than those who ruled the country in the 90 years is just my ideological opponents. Exemplified by the articles that I wrote in the 90 years 'Nezavisimaya Gazeta', in other media. So it's all documented and recorded, (laughs).

Program 'Postscript' is not a program, expressing the views of some groups. This program, which came into television time with their own views. And then these views have become dominant.

Paul (Moscow), 01.05.2008 01:08

notice whether your program in other countries?


Yes, the program noticed in other countries. Moreover, and in a positive and negative senses. In a positive sense, a few special stories about the program made the U.S. television. They came shooting team, shot me in the studio, told in their subjects on the program, that, as I am, asked about the development of Russia, Russia-US relations. There were several film crews - ABC, NBS, CBS - who had asked to make these plots is in a professional studio program 'Postscript'. It was not just an interview with me as a political analyst, it was a plot it on the program and the opinion of its author and presenter.

A couple of years ago, the newspaper The Wall Street Journal, a leading U.S. conservative publication, has made a great story, which, incidentally, translated into InoSMI. It's called 'Russia expert blames the West'.

The correspondent of The Wall Street Journal in Moscow interested in my evolution from a man who wrote the speech for Mikhail Gorbachev and supported the idea of a new political thinking to the position of a consistent critic of the current U.S. foreign policy and a man who insists that Russia should firmly defend its national interests. Article deals with this evolution, and I am in this article are explained in detail the reasons that forced me to reconsider its initially very positive attitude towards a strategic partnership with the United States. It must be said, to honor the editorial board, it was published.


Program notice and well known in the circles, which is specialized engaged in Russia. It is well known in the U.S. State Department, in the analytical services that are studying in Russia, it is well known in journalistic circles. Many people do not like, for example, there are such people in the newspaper The Washington Post, but at the same The Washington Post, there are people who treat it with interest. Program known in Europe.

As a leader and lead this program me for the past 15 years are invited to the Davos Forum. However, when I began to invite, I have not studied the program.

Davos Economic Forum - a forum number one in terms of weight of those people who are on it. Every January 2,5 thousand leading politicians and businessmen, political commentators, scientists meet at Davos in eastern Switzerland. I was invited to go exactly as leader and lead this program since 1998. That is, the Davos organizers believe that this program is quite interesting and influential, that I was a member of this forum. Although the break at this forum is very difficult even for money.

But I am among media leaders, team leaders and key observers of world mass media, formed as part of this forum.

Attention is very much when I speak with public lectures in Germany. Russian-speaking population, and now lives in Germany, about 1 million people, speaking in Russian, with great interest to these speeches. Russian speaking Germans also know about this program.

I recently spent a few public appearances in England, one of them, before the audience at the prestigious Chatham House, a Royal Institute of International Relations, which brought together experts. And all who were there, know well the program 'Postscript', some were in the program. And then I spoke at a public debate in England with Edward Lucas, author of 'New' Cold War ', before an audience of 800 people. Many of those who came to them, at least, have heard that the program 'Postscript' for a long time there in Russia and is considered one of the most influential. This positive attitude towards the program in the West.

There are examples of negative attitudes. One last major German politician who switched to pro-American stance and calls for the containment of Russia and to take place in the attitude of most rigid position, recently refused an interview with our program. At the same time he refuses to give interviews to Russia's television in general, he refused to give interviews is the program 'Postscript'. This indicates a very good knowledge of what the program asks for an interview and understand why he refuses. Refusal connected with his negative attitude in general to the political wing in Russia, which stands gosudarstvennicheskie position.

At the same time, Henry Kissinger, the patriarch of American diplomacy, a man who very much values the relations with Russia, each year arrives, meets with Putin, gives exclusive interview to the program 'Postscript' for 5 years. No other channel could not boast that he had received such lengthy detailed interviews from Henry Kissinger.

As writer and presenter of 'Postscript' I switched in 2002, the editorial board of a fairly well-known American political journal National Interest, and the chairman of the editorial board is Henry Kissinger. So, I think that all this clearly shows that at least in political circles in the United States program has a serious reputation for someone positive, for someone negative, but certainly serious.

Setner, (Chuvashia), 28.04.2008 14:05

Is not it time your program translated into English and published on the Internet?


(laughs) No, my program goes in the project TVCI (TVC International - international version of the TVC), though, in Russian. I am told that it looked everywhere: in Greece, Germany, Britain and Israel. I once produced a program on Saturday, arrived in Geneva, at the Intercontinental Hotel turned on the television, and was surprised to see on the screen itself. It was a re-run the program on Monday. I realized that the scope of the foreign audience is gradually increasing.

As for the English translation, I think that it is technically very difficult and requires a large English-speaking audience, which would be interested in the details of what is happening in Russia and the details of Russia's foreign policy. I do not think that this audience exists, at least, until ... With regard to Internet publications, then, I absolutely agree. At one time, the contents of the program exhibited at TVC, and I know that for him, many followed. Then there was a break. But now at the channel www.tvc.ru is reformatting, and it soon again will be familiar with the written content of the program 'Postscript'. It also has the ability to view computer video edition of the program. In the next few months working on improvement of the Internet version of the TVC will be finished.

igrokvpoker, 07.05.2008

Program 'Postscript' turns 10. What are the results of a decade on the air?



The program has established itself as a credible and serious. When I say this, then do not try to flatter yourself. We just talked about the Western reaction to the program. But in Russia it is confirmed by persistent high ratings. Although the TVC channel can not compete with the first and second channels to reach audiences, but the program 'Postscript' successfully compete with these channels of information programs, and its no worse than they know the people who care about politics. Moreover, 'Postscript' favor now in a rather unique genre of political analysts. While many programs are called information-analytical, if you look closely, that in fact they are informational. Leading these channels are rarely allow themselves or by virtue of the fact that they gravitate to the style information, or for other reasons, to go in the direction of analysts. They would rather hold informational style with a few comments.

Genre analysts with mandatory weekly commentary on a serious topic, with commentary and storyline, which reflect a certain position, and not just a story about an event, such materials are now a rarity. And those programs that fall in this format do not have such a wide audience, as in 'Postscript'.

I was told that the country's leaders set aside their traditional Saturday billiards, to watch the program. For many prominent business leaders, the political world, the deputies, the program is mandatory, and they try not to miss it. At the inauguration of Dmitry Medvedev came to me one honored the Federation Council, one of the patriarchs of Russia's policy and asked me: 'Alex, where have you been? " 'He was in Washington, then a few days rest, was engaged in fishing. " 'Well, you do not do that anymore! Because I am on Saturday at 9 am turned on the TV, and you do not! And I do not know how I live! ". This, of course, a joke. But in every joke, as we know, there is some truth.

Recognition is also from a wide audience, and by the political elite, and by the people who outside Russia are studying in Russia. That wide range of media, which regularly take to interview me, from American to Chinese, Arab and Iranian, said that the results are outside of Russia. The results I'm satisfied.

A. Chuhachev, (Moscow), 03.05.2008 20:10

Dear Alexei Konstantinovich. I am a regular to your audience and I think that you keep the best traditions of domestic observers, international affairs, to which I refer, for example, A. and E. Kaverzneva Fesunenko, and collapses with the rabid criticism of Western countries, and methodically rasschelkivaete Geopolitical nuts " which now and then are, pardon the imagery, the expert on your desktop. Especially pleased with your bold forays into "open space" - the Internet, which, in my opinion, demonstrates your confidence in their views. In this connection I want to ask a few questions:

- Your cooperation with InoSMI is ad hoc, or one would hope that it will become a tradition?
- How useful the formation of the Russians on the basis of articles from Western media awareness of how to include Russia in the West?

- Do not you think that the publication of pronounced negative articles about Russia from the foreign press can have a negative effect on the unprepared reader?




I think it largely depends on InoSMI. If what I say is of interest to readers, for visitors to the site, we can turn this into a tradition. I do not see any obstacles to it with his hand.

I believe that we need to know what people think about us outside of our country. Do not look to the United States of America, which delighted and looking at its own navel. French traveler and explorer, Alexis de Tocqueville in the first half of the nineteenth century, wrote about America, a remarkable phrase: 'the vast majority is in constant awe of himself'. This American arrogance, I think Russia does not need. But on the other hand we do not need and inferiority complex. We should not measure ourselves on the western estimates. We must constantly exclaim: Ah, the Council of Europe said something, ah, the Parliamentary Assembly, something condemned ... Now in Georgia before the elections took place such outrages and serious violations of political rights of opposition. The only independent TV there was closed because the authorities told her that burned down the transmitter. And the head of the company said sadly that the transmitter fuse every time during the elections. A Council of Europe has nothing on this subject says not a word. Because Saakashvili - a strategic ally of NATO and wants to bring Georgia into NATO. If you want to bring Georgia into NATO, then forgive you everything!

Evaluation-oriented organizations that work on its plan and for whom human rights, democracy and so on - this is a bargaining chip in a big political game correctly. That inferiority complex, which we sometimes try to educate our Western partners, saying that you must start from our estimates, you must rely on our opinion about you, Russia is not needed.

Russia viewer, reader, should know that the thought of him in the world, but it should not kompleksovat on this occasion. And many Western and businessmen and politicians who are sympathetic to Russia, told me that you pay too much attention to what we think about you. For example, in the U.S. general public, outside professionals, not at all interested in what Russia thinks about the United States. The maximum that they are interested and a little worried, I am now talking with ordinary Americans, is that because of the war in Iraq has plummeted, America's image in the world. It appeared recently in the last 3-4 years. But it is uncharacteristic for the American state.

We should not kompleksovat on this matter and should not turn to people who should take as its starting point the position.

A. Chuhachev, (Moscow), 03.05.2008 20:10

In your opinion, are necessary if sites like InoSMI regularly publish translations of topical political material of the foreign press? And if needed, then why?



My answer as a professional in the field of political science and the media. For me it is extremely important, because it just helps to work on the program. As someone who has an excellent knowledge of English and French, and has an idea of German, I regularly read the Western press. My desktop newspapers - this is The Financial Times, International Herald Tribune, sometimes Die Zeit, Le Monde, Figaro. This newspaper, which I track. But of course, that neither I nor those 16 people who work in the program can not trace the work of all media. And what happens to the primary selection of information InoSMI and translation of key materials - it is extremely important for such a program, like mine. This is very helpful in daily practice.

With regard to a wide audience, then I'm a big opponent of isolationism. I am always surprised to look at both the World Economic Forum in Davos, people coming from Russia do not participate in the sessions, which is discussed American foreign policy, which discusses the financial crisis, and communicate with each other, as if they had not seen long ago in Moscow, and is the only place where you can communicate with each other. I was always surprised. For me it is evidence that Russia's elite is sufficiently provincial. In my opinion, Russia's elite should gradually move from that isolationism to a wider world view. And sites such as InoSMI, of course, it helps.

http://www.inosmi.ru/online/20080428/241044.html

To be continued
Миниатюры
Нажмите на изображение для увеличения
Название: Алексей Пушков.jpg
Просмотров: 309
Размер:	13.3 Кб
ID:	9542  
Размещено в Без категории
Просмотров 2985 Комментарии 0
Всего комментариев 0

Комментарии

 

















Часовой пояс GMT +3, время: 03:37.
Telegram - Instagram - Facebook - Обратная связь - Обработка персональных данных - Архив - Вверх


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Перевод: zCarot