Virtual club. Do you know who Oles Buzina is?

https://www.site/2017-06-20/regnum_opublikoval_intervyu_svetlany_aleksievich_kotoroe_ona_zapretila_razmechat_v_smi

Regnum published an interview with Svetlana Alexievich, which she prohibited from being published in the media

Writer Svetlana Alekseevich Russian Archives/ Global Look Press

Regnum news agency published an interview with the laureate Nobel Prize in literature by Svetlana Alexievich about politics, which the writer herself prohibited from being published in the media. The publication released a full transcript of the conversation, citing the fact that the interview had been agreed upon in advance.

At the beginning of the conversation, the correspondent said that he completely disagreed with Alexievich’s position on all issues, but he was interested in dialogue with the writer, to which she replied that she was also interested in “finding out the image of the person on the other side.” Then the journalist and writer argued about the war in Ukraine, the situation in Donbass, Russia’s role in imposing the Russian language over the past 200 years, as well as nationalism. According to Alexievich, countries should follow the example Western Europe to become free. The publication's correspondent sympathizes with “leftist” ideas.

From time to time the journalist tried to catch the writer with inconsistencies, for example, he asked whether Russia is “us” or “they”:

— You sometimes talk about Russia “we”, and sometimes “they”. So is it “us” or “they”?

- Still, “they.” Already “they”, unfortunately.

- But then this is not the prime minister of your state, why should he certainly congratulate you?

- But we count Union State. We are still very closely connected. We haven't pulled away yet, and who will let us go? At least we wanted to break away.

- So, “they” then?

- For now - “we”. I am still a person of Russian culture. I wrote about this time, about all this in Russian, and I, of course, would have been glad to receive his telegram. According to my understanding, he should have sent it.

As a result, Alexievich declared that the publication’s correspondent was “a bunch of propaganda, not a reasonable person,” and forbade him to publish the interview.

It is worth noting that Regnum is known for its critical position towards the countries of the former CIS that are trying to distance themselves from Russia. Previously, the Estonian security police accused him of being an instrument of political influence of the Russian Federation. Regnum editor-in-chief Modest Kolerov is prohibited from entering the territory of the Baltic countries. The agency's position regarding the countries of the former CIS and other nations was also criticized in Tatarstan and Turkmenistan.

On March 29, the REGNUM agency hosted round table, dedicated to the challenges facing Russian society, rallies on March 26.

Round table participants:

• Kolerov Modest Alekseevich - Chief Editor IA REGNUM
• Mamikonyan Maria Rachievna - Chairman of the Parents' All-Russian Resistance
• Kurginyan Sergey Ervandovich - leader of the "Essence of Time" movement
• Barsukov Oleg Vasilievich - lawyer
• Kovalenin Alexander Viktorovich - political scientist
• Zharov Maxim Viktorovich - political scientist
• Luchin Alexander Nikolaevich - political scientist
• Zhuravlev Dmitry Anatolyevich - CEO Institute of Regional Problems
• Yusupovsky Alexander Maksimovich - political scientist
• Neizhmakov Mikhail Igorevich - political scientist
• Eskin Avigdor - publicist and public figure

Transcript of the speech by the leader of the “Essence of Time” movement Sergei Kurginyan:

Well, first of all, I must remind those gathered (because those gathered here may have already forgotten) that the collapse of the Soviet Union also began with the fight against corruption. There were two notorious heroes of this struggle: Gdlyan and Ivanov, who raised the masses to fight the “terrible corrupt official Ligachev.” There were no traces of Ligachev’s corruption.

By the way, I must say that when I was in hot spot called “Nagorno-Karabakh”, Volsky’s group (Volsky, Nefyodov) was already sitting there, everything was already boiling there and there was a long discussion about whether to reward me with a ration from the group of the CPSU Central Committee or not? At that moment, the food was very cheap and tasty in some cooperatives and so on, when I was separated from the whole group and brought to eat this ration, it turned out that there was saury soup (the kind that canned), fried potatoes with a bad cutlet and compote. When it turned out that I did not eat soup, one of the members of the delegation greedily ate it, which was clear that he was hungry.

I said: “Why are you hiding in these very premises of yours and pretending that you are eating sturgeon, eels, caviar, oysters? Sit down in the clearing and show everyone what you are eating. It's just elementary. And everything will be different." This was perceived as blasphemy due to this closed system.

So, it means that Gdlyan and Ivanov encouraged everyone to fight corruption, and Yeltsin walked in the boots of the Skorokhod [factory] and even rode a tram or trolleybus, and so on and so forth. And everyone, so to speak, passionately growled about this, like “hurray-hurray.” So?

Well, everything seems to be fine. Only then did Yeltsin create one of the most powerful clans, which did not have running boots, but yachts and private planes and everything else. And Gdlyan and Ivanov... When we looked into this specifically, it became clear that all decisions on how to convict corrupt officials were made in the apartments of Uzbek thieves in law. And the point was simply that the GB was concerned about the beginning of the shadow economy and the guilds and used thieves in law to suppress this guild movement and, accordingly, the thieves in law pointed to specific addresses, to which these committee affairs then went.

That is, in fact, the road to hell is very often paved with good intentions - anti-corruption, for example. And this is not the hell of some change of political figure. But in the end, as Savinkov once said: “I don’t care who exactly goes to Yar - ... a prince or a drunken sailor ...: after all, it’s not about Yar.<...>I don’t care whose power it is... - the Lubyanka or the security department.” And so on.

Well, another ruler will sit, but we don’t know how to do that. In our country, when they do this, they destroy the state at the same time. I was absolutely not against Yeltsin becoming the President of the Soviet Union instead of Gorbachev. Well, Yeltsin and Yeltsin, he was such a completely tough guy. Maybe he would have built something there, but at the same time our country fell apart. She washed herself with blood, tens of millions found themselves homeless. And Ivanov was not a corrupt official. But they were already playing with gangs, they were already using political orders. But how did it end?

It ended in a colossal global catastrophe. If now all this is needed only in order to exchange someone for someone like, well, Medvedev for Kudrin, or someone else, then what do we have to do with it? Well, let them change it. But if we are talking about the fact that all this is leading to the collapse of Russia and catastrophe (and we somehow don’t know how to separate one from the other, we don’t know how to work in the space of power so as not to hurt the state at the same time), then then excuse me, the state is mine. It is not Putin’s, not Medvedev’s, not Navalny’s or anyone else’s, it is mine personally, as a citizen, and people like me. I won’t let it be destroyed a second time. Because I understand perfectly well that life sucks, absolutely sucks. But if this country falls apart, they will not live poorly, but terribly.

I understand perfectly well that they are stealing, but if it falls apart, they will steal ten times more at each individual point. And in general, nothing can be corrected in the system if the state collapses. Modernization cannot be carried out in conditions of the collapse of the state. First you strengthen the state, then carry out whatever you want.

The question is this. If this is, as was said, the ship sails simply and someone sorts things out: “Who will steer?” and whether the course will be the same or slightly different - I’m not interested. But if we are talking about a torpedo coming at the ship, then it must be detonated with a counter-torpedo. And even if the ship goes to some rock, and it runs into it in a couple of years, it’s all the same. First detonate the torpedo, and then turn it around. In any case, we cannot once again, as it was in 1917, work for any transformation through the collapse of the state. Because if the collapse of the state begins, American helicopters and everything else will hover over our territory and there will be no Budyonny’s cavalry. Everything will be completely different. This task is incredibly responsible.

From my point of view, everything that happens to Navalny cannot be considered as happening only to Navalny. Firstly, Navalny himself does not have such resources. He cannot raise such a rally. The rally is still cold. There are not as many of these young people as they say. Not much, you can count it. There are a lot of “brothers” in Vladivostok and elsewhere - it’s easy to see who came up with this matter. I don’t want to say at all that there is no reason not to be indignant about what happened. Reasons before and more. But this centralized management of a large structure raises the question: “Whose structure is this?” The fact that she is not Navalny is clear. This time.

Second. Will someone explain to me why this “tuning at the zoo” is needed? What does Navalny want? The movie he made is junk. I am convinced that what is happening in the country great amount abominations, including the biggest ones. But the movie is junk. It's cheap. She is offensive to society.

If you want to talk about the things that are going on, then let’s talk seriously. But not on this kind of junk. For some reason this film was forbidden to discuss. In what sense is it prohibited? In the sense that the central channels, which are in the hands of the system, did not discuss this. And why? Why? What's going on in the Danish kingdom? “There is some kind of rot in the Danish state.” Moreover, before this happened, those people who, at the very least, had trained for decades to discuss corruption and anti-corruption stories, for example, Andrei Karaulov, were removed from the state airwaves. Whether Andrey does it worse or better - but he does it. Doesn't it seem strange to you that he was taken off the air just before Navalny's film appeared?

It worked, and an anti-Navalnov film was made - it was shown on the Internet. And the strength of the state has so far been in the state media. Then the question arises: what, Prime Minister Medvedev is a man, just like us, with two arms, two legs, he is also affected by original sin, like everyone else sitting here. Maybe he’s doing something, well, let’s discuss what the problem is? This is not a sacred figure, this is a politician. The same as everyone else. Navalny has filed charges, well, let's discuss! What's the matter, I don't understand? You make this, since it’s already started, an element of the agenda, you propose this topic for objective consideration to ten or twelve people, and Navalny will then not put up his candidacy for the gold medalists, let alone for the presidency! but this is not happening! Why isn't this happening, citizens?! What's the matter? What's the problem?

If you want to know, in the Orange affairs of 2012, it was of great importance that a certain number of guys from the Internet began to come up with cameras and film something in American embassies and so on. There was some kind of counter-information wave. Why is there no information wave? Why does Navalny dominate? Why? What, no one understands that you can’t buy sneakers using such complicated methods? Why are you going crazy about this? Do you understand that there is simply “scorched” material there? Absolutely!

Tuscan vineyards are a loss-making product. If someone wants to get rich, then not in the Tuscan vineyards! I can name 10-12 products on which they get rich. And so on and so forth. Well, let's discuss this! We are people! If Medvedev is to blame, let him answer - he is not the hero of my novel at all. But if he is not guilty, say something, because this is not about Medvedev, but about the truth! Why this topic was banned, and thus given to Navalny in the most delicious way. Who did it? The CIA didn't do this. No. And not MOSAD, and not MI6. Someone here did it! Who? Who?

Further. Why was the film "Dimon" created? Target? What is the goal? Does he want to take it off? But they don’t shoot like that. It is absolutely clear, and, by the way, one of our liberal politicians used the services of one opposition party, and they were economically profitable. When Yeltsin wanted to remove him, he negotiated with this party so that the party would demand that he be dismissed. And from that moment on, Yeltsin did not remove it. This happened three or four times. People got rich from this during the Yeltsin era. This means that if Medvedev gave Navalny money for this film, then I understand everything. Arose problematic situation, they say: “Come on, scold me, my position will become stronger.” But these rallies are not beneficial to him! This is too much. So who does it? For what? Medvedev is absolutely safe here. No one can deal with Medvedev like that! They are dealing with something else. And who?

Third question. There were rallies. Do you want to discuss them? Discuss. Do you want not to discuss them? Keep quiet. But remember that you exist in an information environment when your card is only openness. If the country does not have an intellectual and political activist who is able to defeat all these Navalny ones in information battles, the Navalny ones will still come to power. But there is such an asset! Why is he inactive? Does he not understand that what is at stake is not some petty political intrigue, but something else?

Further. Why was this banned? People want to come out and say that corrupt officials - well, to hell with them, let them come out. Why was this banned? Why, instead of all this being allowed and discussed, it was banned and not discussed? Well, I already acted as a young politician during the era of Perestroika, I remember all this. Then it was all called Alexander Nikolaevich Yakovlev. Yes? Well, excuse me, are you telling us directly who is organizing this farce? Why ban this?

Further next question. Okay, you've banned it. But then that's it. If this is prohibited, wet it. You have enough strength. Children? Put two, it doesn’t matter who it is, a guardsman or someone else, take the child gently in your paws and carry him to his parents, without a single injury and without any arrests. Get everyone else wet. Warning - get wet. How America will do it, how France will do it, how England will do it, or anyone else. Or don't prohibit it. It’s completely unclear why you banned it. But if you have banned, then the government must... everyone must understand that it is the government that has banned it. Dot. But the worst thing is when they prohibit and allow at the same time. This is where the system begins to break down. And everyone understands this in any way. You forbid something to a child - punish it, or don’t forbid it.

Further, all this talk about how, “tell your parents not to take them out.” Do you remember this joke? “Children, don’t take the kettle, don’t pour water into it, don’t pour it on the socket, don’t put your fingers in it,” my mother said as she left for work. “That’s an idea,” the children said. Any propaganda on the principle of “don’t go out because this and that” means that he will come out. You tell him... What, they don’t understand? What's going on in our society? The same applies to the state, not the authorities. This is something else.

Now, further. If he is a very small person, and he is not strongly led, then he has now, of course, received some share of the resource that was allocated for this great event. And at least $10 million was allocated for this event. Where? From a camel. Where is it allocated from? Selected from there. But not less than 10 million dollars.

Let's figure it out. Let's figure out where. I just know how much it costs. And I know what Vladivostok is. We understand that such things are not done for free. And when they are done for free, the situation in the country is different and the expressions on their faces are different. It's not worth it bro leather jacket and doesn’t say: “Medvedeva to answer!” Medvedev - to answer! This brother was brought in.

Eskin Avigdor, publicist and public figure: In August 1991, how much did it cost?

Kurginyan Sergey Ervandovich, leader of the “Essence of Time” movement: In August 1991 it was worth almost nothing. In August '91... It's not August '91.

Now I ask you. Here, there is such a Mr. Belkovsky. He joked about the fact that according to the Zoroastrian calendar, a coup should begin at the end of March. As for the Zoroastrian calendar, we are separate... But it is absolutely clear, and recently he said: “Well, the Zoroastrian calendar is still a couple of days late,” - that Mr. Belkovsky knew about this event about 3 months in advance. From whom? From whom did he know this? And what he knew is obvious.

By the way, I am Avigdor, I exist here to ask questions. If I start answering them simultaneously, I will, so to speak, in this way usurp the functions, so to speak, of the entire system.

Now about the system. We are dealing with a situation of a certain operation of the system. The system can work in four ways: it can work against itself, and this is perestroika; she can be inactive, and this is apathy, impotence, passiveness; she can work roughly and she can work finely. What is the system doing now?

From my point of view, a process has begun in which the system works against the leader, in a significant part of it. And we need to figure out which one. This event could not occur unless at least a significant part of the system was working against the leader. And we see this all the time. We cannot help but appreciate very highly that the President of Russia in last moment, making adjustments or turning everything upside down, or, more precisely, upside down backwards with these spanking laws, changed something, stopped the “Contingent” and so on. But before that, the system had already taken 12, 15, 20 steps towards ensuring that there would be juvenile justice in the country, despite the fact that Putin firmly said that there would not be one. Vaska listens and eats. And she was absolutely furious that steps were taken to stop this whole thing. This classic example how the system works against the leader.

This means that the process of such work has begun. This is one component. Some are working against it, while others are passive or in such foolishness that is worse than passive. And we will ask again: “Stupidity or treason?” It's the wrong way to pose the question. Both stupidity and treason. And impotence, and mediocrity, and provocation. Without this, what has happened now could not have happened.

And therefore (as I stated at the moment when everything was paralyzed and this orange wave was going on several years ago, so I say now) civil society has its own object of protection - the state. We will not hand over this state for demolition. And we are not at all interested, no, we are interested, but nothing more than what exactly the system thinks and whether it thinks at all. She has brain liquefaction, she is filled with provocation. It's clear that the things I'm talking about are counterproductive. They don't work that way. Therefore, if civil society wants to protect the state from Navalny and the company, and this is about this, and not about the fight against corruption, then we need to act.

In the near future, the “Essence of Time” movement and the RVS will convene an emergency congress at which we will discuss these actions. This will have nothing to do with the system whose characteristics I have described. And if this system so wants to destroy the state, then in the part in which it wants this, it is as much our enemy as Navalny. I don't want to say that it is possible to make the state good. I want to say that it should exist, at least in the form in which it is, and then slowly improve. And, so to speak, we will not allow anyone to work through its collapse. At least we will fight against the fact that this is happening.

If some part of the elite or, perhaps, the authorities - I don’t know - still wants to defend the state, you are welcome. Then we have to see it. Why do they keep their desire top secret? What kind of liability is this? What happened then? At that time, we did not fully say what exactly was happening at the moment when we turned on. Why weren’t all television channels heated up and simply explained to voters that there are primary protocols of election commissions, initial protocols at polling stations, that these protocols are easy to collect and summarize. And that either opposition parties participated in the forgery (you understand, right?), or this forgery is revealed in one minute (well, I don’t know, ten days). Why didn’t they talk about this, didn’t they shout? Why was television silent? Why were they fooling citizens who believed that some wizard Churov at the top could do something electronically? They do this not at the top, but at the bottom. I'm not saying they don't do it. This is done at these primary polling stations. Well, there are operations that allow you to put each protocol together and check whether this is true or not.

"Oh, they're forcing us." Sorry, in Latin America they died so that the protocols were correct. And democratic changes took place. Why didn’t they say this then, where were these movements that were preparing, preparing, preparing before this? What happened then? And what would have happened after some time if we had not started gathering at VDNKh? And I'll tell you what would have happened. Larger figures would have come to Bolotnaya, that’s all. And they were already preparing. And from that moment on, the process would become irreversible.

Therefore, I do not say Ukraine is not Ukraine. I do not trace the threads of connections between Maria Gaidar and Navalny (although they are obvious) or Oshurkov. Because now I’ll talk about what else is happening in Ukraine. But if I were a director and the Ukrainians needed to do something with the Russians given what is happening now, then it would only be riots in Moscow and some others, there, locally, in the Donbass and that’s all. Then they win. Otherwise, it's the end. So the question is that this is essentially an act of systemic hybrid warfare. And the fact that inside this war there are young people who, so to speak, want something, they are itching, they want sneakers or they want the meaning of life, or both... I sat and thought - this is Saltykov-Shchedrin, what- I really, really wanted: “either the Constitution or stellate sturgeon with horseradish.” Whether they want the Constitution, stellate sturgeon with horseradish, everything together, or just to splurge - this is a real living phenomenon, it always exists. The question is who is riding him. This is the same as saying: “How do you destroy a bridge? Using the bridge’s own vibrations or using forced vibrations?” Only through a combination of one and the other. So there are natural oscillations in any system. The question is who works for these forcing oscillations of the system, and who works against them. And the fact that there are living real processes... It doesn’t happen like this: they give everyone money, they come out - it’s not true.

Next, another week or a week and a half will pass and we will name the organizations that were at the core of this matter. At the core of such things there are always two organizations usually working. Not only here. And finally, wait for these revolutions... Yes, that's why there is a core there. Yes, there are young people, there is anyone. There you can see from the faces that there is a core. You see, well, here’s a cell, what is the nucleus and the periphery. Well, if there is no periphery, then there is no cell, but if there is no nucleus, then neither. Why don’t we discuss the phenomenon as professionals, as a phenomenon that has a core and a periphery, but believe that these are either noble youth or agents of American imperialism. This is wrong. It's a combination of things...

By the way, I want to say that these organizations that participated in this also participated in quite constructive events in a number of Eastern European countries. Therefore, I cannot blame them for always acting in someone else's interests. This is a more complex picture. It must be restored and presented to society. Calmly discussed.

And of course, I only believe in extreme openness. The utmost openness of such a discussion is the only cure for everything that is happening. He says correctly: “Let’s tell people the truth,” that’s right, so let’s tell it.

And what else is there hope for? Russian society? That, oddly enough, it is still more complex and smarter. They are trying to make it stupid and simple, but it resists. Therefore, it is not true that our citizens are not able to understand complex things. They are very able to understand them and really want to understand. And once all these things are revealed and discussed, a different landscape will emerge. So, in order to prevent this landscape from arising, they want to remove everything that is ready for such discussions.

This is either suppressed or removed in order to free up the hands of the bulk. And I remember it. I remember this. If in the newspaper Pravda or in the newspaper Izvestia it was possible to describe the background to the actions of Yeltsin or some Gdlyan and Ivanov, then for God’s sake. But do you know what it was called? Anti-perestroika activists, don’t dare undermine our Perestroika! All government system slowed down any discussion. Then it turned out that the only one who has... And she herself opened up opportunities for discussion to destructive anti-state elements. She is herself. Who can remove responsibility for the collapse of the Soviet Union from the CPSU or place it only on Gorbachev? What about the people who voted for the abolition of Article 6 of the Constitution? Only Gorbachev was there, or what? There, the Congress of People's Deputies refused to vote for it. Then the Plenum was convened, and the Plenum almost unanimously voted “For”, i.e. for its destruction. Then everyone found themselves in an incomprehensible position.

From the first strokes of this completely new phenomenon, I share what I see in them with alarm. I’m not saying that since there is such anxiety, then everything will develop this way. Let's see how it develops. And most importantly, let’s not just watch, but participate. Unlike that era, when I, so to speak, hoped for the CPSU and everything else, this time I only hope for the “Essence of Time” movement and the Revolutionary Military Revolution, for other healthy patriotic forces and simply urge them to join their a campaign to protect statehood from destructors, without in any way looking back at the system. Someone from the system wants to connect - let him connect. If he doesn't want to, that's his problem. The state is ours, not the systems. And if she decided to ruin him again, then she’ll have her hands cut for it. Because this is fraught with enormous national grief.

Well, what can we say? What we have known for a long time, we have been saying for a long time, is that we have neglected and missed this whole topic related to the upbringing and formation of the personality of children. Nobody really does this: parents mostly have no time, and this endless focus of adults on the material aspects of life, survival (and somewhere - enhanced well-being, and so on) - it leads to the fact that children are not really cared for . And they have before their eyes that image of the world, that pattern of behavior that the family and society as a whole present. But it doesn’t suit them - all this, because they are looking for some greater truth, more meaning. Now there have already been several extremely alarmed broadcasts about these death publics and so on (death groups).

Everyone was discussing how to deal with this using repressive measures: how to make noise in the networks, how to punish those who do this (and they do this on purpose), and how not to tell children to join such groups, and generally limit their access to the network. It is almost impossible to limit anything now. In general, prohibitive measures - we all know - are far from the best. Of course, something needs to be banned, and someone needs to be punished, but to think that this can solve the problem is quite naive. Children want meaning.

As soon as you start in an adult audience on some television programs, where there is a heated and very concerned discussion, unusual, so to speak, for a talk show (because a children's topic, naturally, worries everyone extremely, especially when it suddenly arises from such an angle: suicides or, as it will be now - I think we don’t have anything good ahead in this regard), as soon as you start talking about the fact that, as Blok wrote, Youth is retribution, and that society has lost its children and is now beginning the price to pay for indifference to how they grow is, frankly speaking, no understanding arises among colleagues who discuss this topic of great concern to them. Because it seems that this is all some kind of literature, that this is not about that. But in fact, this is exactly what it’s about.

And we all know that it was simply forbidden to engage in education at school. This does not mean that they were not engaged in it through television, through everything else that society offered. We studied, and how. We have a generation (probably already the second generation) of children who enter adulthood undeveloped as individuals. Adulthood offers not only all sorts of nasty temptations, but also in some way gives the opportunity to respond to this seeking, wanting to somehow express itself youthful principle. And what happens? That absolutely wild teenagers, unformed as individuals, fall into this crowd, they are terribly easy to manipulate - and we have what we saw on the Maidan three years ago and what we are already beginning to see here.

Then it seemed that this would not happen here, that it could not happen, that society would come to its senses in time and do something. But, condemning in every possible way what was happening there, being horrified, realizing that the children were being manipulated, we still did nothing. Moreover, here I am even more outraged by the passivity of not the state, not those authorities that should deal with children, teenagers, but adults in general, parents. Because the salvation of drowning people, alas, as always, is in the hands of the drowning people themselves. We grew up in a time when there were some extracurricular activities that we all attended. Actually, we didn’t visit them - we were captivated by them.

We went hiking, we went to clubs and sections, and all this was life. Now life has moved online, and children, having no living alternative to this virtual life, naturally turn out to be a wonderful object for any manipulation. Until adults, parents, take care of this issue themselves, nothing will change. And it seems to me that it’s time to take our heads in our hands and start doing something ourselves. It was said here that the go-ahead was not given to those patriotic organizations that should have responded. Yes, it was not given.

But somewhere, it seems, towards Friday evening, a certain signal reached us, which said that we should parent organizations somehow prevent what is about to happen, apparently, and this will be completely unhealthy, and it is necessary that parents do not tell their children to go out to the square these days. When I heard this, I was very surprised, because it is absolutely clear that you tell them “don’t go,” and in response they will say to you: “Why, I’m already big, I’ll go.” But the main thing is that these are not things that can be done on orders from above. I said: “Listen, we have been writing on this topic for four days now, talking, publishing articles, we are considering this issue, in principle, not in the form of “don’t go, I won’t let you go,” we are trying to break through to the consciousness of adults, first of all, who themselves They will already find out what to do with their children, what to say to them, what words to say.” But this eternal desire to hear instructions from above (and for some it is, so to speak, delayed, and then they say not the most pedagogically intelligent things) - this, of course, is also terrible. And here we must again understand that only we ourselves can do something. That's all, perhaps.

Mamikonyan Maria Rachievna, Chairman public organization family protection "Parental All-Russian Resistance":
Can I add one thing here? The fact is that in St. Petersburg two years ago we had a large scandalous story, which was related to our project “Steps of History”. Here it was said that we need to educate using positive examples, and not on the fact that everything is one continuous horror, our history and so on. Of course, this is a self-evident thing, but for some reason almost no one does it. That’s when we started doing this and started producing such a large colorful poster “Steps of History”. Once a week, each school - there are a lot of these schools around the country - receives these posters, where children can get acquainted with Russian [history], with its events, with the people who created this history, with Russian culture, and so on.

In schools, it must be said, they are being torn apart because teachers have not understood for a long time how to raise children, but here the children themselves see, they have a huge interest in history, and there are opportunities to make lessons more meaningful in terms of personal education.
So, in St. Petersburg, some, so to speak, well-known very liberal comrades - Vishnevsky, Reznik, deputies - started persecuting this project, they began to say that this was some kind of dirty piece of paper, very dangerous. Unfortunately, we don't have a screen today - it's wonderful, beautiful poster, 4 pieces come out a month, and to call it a “dirty leaf” would have taken a lot of effort.
So, this means what happens next: we are doing this, and someone is doing exactly the opposite at the same time. And what Oleg Vasilyevich brought today, which we, again, cannot show here - such an interesting drawing, one of the drawings at the children’s drawing competition against corruption, is the whole program of patriotic education.

Yesterday I conveyed this to Elena Borisovna Mizulina, because she is now seriously involved in issues of family and children. And in Lately has done a lot so that society is finally faced with the truth about what is happening in this direction. And she took it today plenary session in the Federation Council she showed this drawing, which Oleg Barsukov was just talking about, in which all sorts of monstrous scenes with corrupt officials, with handcuffs, with bars, and a pyramid, at the very base of which the most corrupt power is, of course, Russia.

Maybe, of course, this is true, but why tell fifth graders this? So, all this was drawn by a child’s hand, Elena Borisovna showed it all, and immediately received an answer from Senator Narusova that this is patriotic education, this is civic-patriotic education, but how could it be otherwise? And the question arises: Mrs. Narusova knows that people are usually brought up on positive examples, and not on negative ones? Apparently, there are problems with pedagogical ideas. You see, this is being pushed in as civic-patriotic education, but it should be exactly the opposite. So is this done by accident or due to someone’s malicious intent? What we have now is the result of systematic work. recent years or is this some kind of natural phenomenon in which young people suddenly appeared like this?

REGNUM is one of the five (RIA, RBC, REGNUM, Interfax, TASS) largest Russian federal news agencies, disseminating news from Russia and neighboring countries. The scope of its broadcasting covers all regions of Russia and neighboring countries of Europe, Central Asia and Transcaucasia. About the agency's information policy, its journalistic and civic position says Modest Kolerov, editor-in-chief of REGNUM news agency.

– Modest Alekseevich, all media published information that a Russian court sentenced Savchenko to 22 years in prison. Despite the fact that evidence of her guilt has been presented, the Americans say that Savchenko must be released urgently. On what basis is a case transferred from a legal channel to a political one?

– On the basis that the United States considers itself the only authority in the world that determines who is guilty and who is not. If Savchenko had committed all proven crimes in the United States against American citizens, the court would have given her not 22 years, but 122 years in prison. The United States perceives the Savchenko case as one of the instruments of pressure on Russia. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and the Russian Foreign Ministry made it clear that, firstly, nothing threatens Savchenko’s health, and secondly, this issue is not being discussed with anyone outside Russia and will not be discussed.

The essence of the US claims in judicial matters, as well as in human rights issues, is clearly demonstrated by the famous Jackson-Vanik amendment of 1974, which is still in force in relation to Russia (an amendment to the US Trade Act that restricts trade with countries that prevent emigration, as well as violate other human rights – Ed.). This amendment was adopted in order to facilitate the emigration of Jews from the USSR. There is no Soviet Union, you can leave the country without hindrance, and the amendment continues to apply because it is a very convenient tool for putting pressure on Russia.

Double standards no longer surprise anyone. And their best demonstration is that when the United States imposed sanctions against Russia in defense of who knows what, they did not touch the rocket engines that are produced in Russia and which the United States uses, because they cannot produce them themselves. They didn’t ban space flights to the ISS either, because they don’t have the ISS themselves.

– Could the issue with Savchenko be resolved differently?

– If she admits her guilt and if, through the mediation of the United States or Germany, an appropriate agreement is reached with Kiev, then she can be exchanged. But she will have to admit her guilt.

– You are well versed in the problems of the South Caucasus, why did this region initially attract your attention?

– First of all, I would like to draw the attention of dear readers of your publication to the fact that the REGNUM agency avoids using the geographical concept “South Caucasus”. For us, this is Transcaucasia, as it was in the days Tsarist Russia, V Soviet Russia, in Russia today. South Caucasus is an Ottoman term, it was brought to Turkey, an allied country with Germany, by the Germans. And we don’t want to adjust our worldview to someone else’s geography, because what you call your home is how it lives. I am deeply convinced that geographical concepts influence the fate of peoples.

If you recognize yourself - using Russian terminology in Russian - as part of Transcaucasia, this does not contradict your independence. If you recognize yourself as part of the South Caucasus, you thereby confirm the Ottoman view of the Caucasus as an object of expansion and claims. Behind the ideology Greater Caucasus There have always been not internal, but external imperialist interests - to unite the entire Caucasus with one iron hand, regardless of the will of the peoples living there. In addition, with its history and culture, the Caucasus does not fit into the concept of North or South. Where to draw the southern border of Transcaucasia? What to do with Van, Lazistan, etc.? Therefore, let’s be clear right away: we are talking about Transcaucasia.

For the first time, REGNUM professionally paid attention to the Transcaucasus in 2003, when the agency began continuous broadcasting from Armenia and about Armenia, as well as from Karabakh and about Karabakh. REGNUM was the first and still remains one of the few Russian news agencies that determined Nagorno-Karabakh’s place among independent states and immediately included it as a separate line in the “geographical menu” of states on its website.

– REGNUM recognizes the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh?

- Yes, all these years.

Let's return to your question. It is no secret that in many post-Soviet countries the name “republic” is still in use. In Azerbaijan, in Kyrgyzstan, in Kazakhstan, in Armenia they say “in our republic” and do not say “in our country” - the way they should say in modern conditions, if you really respect your independence. This inertia was also present when we began broadcasting from Transcaucasia. It was important for us to understand what we consider the boundaries of the information space within the new borders of Russia. At that time there was a war in Chechnya, the struggle for the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. And we came to the conclusion that if they become “extreme” for us, then we will not understand at least half of what is happening in the region. And if they are the edge of our attention, then a moment may come when this edge moves further into Russia.

In order to understand what is happening in Russia and around it, you need to survey the country within its borders pre-revolutionary Russia– this is the first thing. Secondly, even this view is insufficient. We need to look even more broadly, from the point of view of the “second echelon” of borders, where not only Belarus, but also Poland, not only Ukraine, but also Hungary, Romania, not only Transcaucasia, but also Turkey, Iran. Today there is a very rapid destruction of the political geography of the Near and Middle East. Just as the ebb of the sea reveals sunken ships, so today the living cemeteries and living ruins of the Ottoman and Persian empires are exposed. And we can't ignore it.

My keen and critical interest in Transcaucasia is also explained by personal reasons: six years ago I found my happiness in Yerevan, and now our children are beginning to teach Armenian language. Two languages ​​are like two hearts – that’s good.

– In one of your interviews, you said that all countries in the region are preparing for war, what is the deterrent?

– Understanding that the war will be catastrophic economic consequences, will destroy established transport and transit communications, business ties, and in the conditions of the global crisis, the payment for it will become unbearably heavy. At the same time, political adventurism, militarism, and aggressiveness in the region have not decreased. And the recent events in Nagorno-Karabakh have clearly demonstrated this.

– What is the purpose of the resumption of hostilities in Nagorno-Karabakh?

– By resuming the war in Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan is fulfilling its allied duty to Turkey - striking Russia in the back, opening a “second front” against it. Azerbaijan’s actions can also be regarded as a military response to the readiness of the United States and Russia to introduce the NKR as an independent party to the settlement in the “Minsk process.” Having started military operations in Nagorno-Karabakh, the leadership of Azerbaijan also pursued the internal political goal of mobilizing the population around Ilham Aliyev.

– For what reason does the international community maintain parity in conditions when it is obvious that aggression comes from Azerbaijan?

– Maintaining parity by the world community is the best it can do. After all, the USA, France and Russia are mediators in resolving the problem. And among other countries, the majority are supporters of Azerbaijan, which includes the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh.

– According to what scenario, in your opinion, can events develop?

– Consequences of this military operation Baku is difficult: there is not even 1 percent of faith left in it, the process of peaceful settlement has been destroyed. Innocent people died - civilians, young soldiers and officers on both sides died. The fragile stability that was achieved was destroyed for many years to come. However, the acute phase of the war stopped, because the blitzkrieg for Azerbaijan failed.

– In the event of a further escalation of hostilities in Nagorno-Karabakh, what could be the actions of the CSTO?

– Azerbaijan’s attack on Nagorno-Karabakh does not provide a formal reason for intervention by member countries of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), although all the necessary explanations on this issue from the CSTO, including from the mouth Secretary General Nikolai Bordyuzha, were given. Nagorno-Karabakh is perceived by the CSTO as a security zone and a zone of its responsibility, although formally NKR is not included in the territory of the CSTO.

– In this case, CSTO member Armenia can intervene...

“She will intervene, but, as was the case in the case of shelling of Armenian border villages by Azerbaijan, Armenia did not request the CSTO’s help. But this assistance is not automatically provided. Armenia has enough strength to stop a large-scale resumption of war, and if this is not enough, the CSTO will certainly provide assistance. It's about, of course, about Russia, and not, for example, Kazakhstan or Belarus.

– The NKR is not recognized de jure. Do you think the NKR has become a de facto state?

- Yes, definitely. The statehood of Nagorno-Karabakh has taken place. The legitimacy of this statehood has been repeatedly confirmed in direct and free elections, it relies on the current economic system, which is becoming increasingly self-sufficient. Moreover, politic system Nagorno-Karabakh is the result of very serious political competition.

The established statehood of Nagorno-Karabakh is also confirmed by the discussion of its state structure. Observers say that if Armenia constitutionally moved to the form parliamentary republic, then Nagorno-Karabakh should also switch to it. Such a discussion would be pointless if government structure Nagorno-Karabakh was not a fact and would not have its own characteristics.

– What are these features?

– In Nagorno-Karabakh, in my opinion, no one would seriously think about discussing constitutional reform if it did not exist in Armenia. The presidential republic in Nagorno-Karabakh, I believe, does not need constitutional reform.

Of course, anyone who tries to harm independence in Nagorno-Karabakh will have all his arms and legs torn off by the people themselves, but in the conditions of a front-line state, a parliamentary system of government, where the prime minister appointed by parliament becomes the central person, is a kind of luxury. In a front-line state, the president is the supreme commander-in-chief, the commander, the main person. But the very discussion of this issue confirms the fact of statehood, and the NKR will make a decision independently.

– How do you assess the relationship between Armenia and Georgia? What could be the consequences of Georgia's accession to NATO for Armenia, what is it persistently seeking?

– Firstly, if Georgia joins NATO within its new borders, this will mean that NATO recognizes these borders, that the territorial integrity of Georgia for NATO is what it is today, that is, without Abkhazia and South Ossetia. I admit that Armenia has still not recognized Nagorno-Karabakh also because it fears a nervous reaction from Georgia, since there is an analogy with its territorial losses. If Georgia is accepted into NATO, this problem will be resolved. This will give Russia a “green light” on the issue of internationalizing the recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. At the same time, Javakhetia (Javakhk) will forever remain part of Georgia without autonomy (a historical and geographical region in the south of the Republic of Georgia, populated predominantly by Armenians - Ed.).

In addition, if Georgia joins the North Atlantic bloc, NATO facilities in the country that already exist will only be officially named - a huge morgue built by NATO in Kobuleti, military bases created by the Turks, Dutch and Germans.

Russia is not going to fight with Georgia, that is, with NATO. You need to consider the situation by raising your head from the plate and seeing the edge of the table. And on the edge of the table is the collapse of Turkey, as a result of which sooner or later there will be a new state on the borders of Georgia and Armenia - Kurdistan, and not Turkey at all.

– This is in the future, but today Georgian integration into the Turkish economy and politics is so great that one gets the impression that it is gradually becoming part of Turkey. Don't you think so?

– Georgia voluntarily chose the fate of kebab on a skewer between Turkey and Azerbaijan. Communications, transit, regions with a heterogeneous population are tearing apart, stretching, and piercing Georgia through and through.

We are well aware of the economic expansion of Turkey and Azerbaijan in Georgia. Georgia, with its rapid, one might say, wild transition under the control of Euro-Atlantic structures, wants to solve two problems at once - to protect itself from the “Russian danger” and to get rid of real danger from Turkey and Azerbaijan. All main highways, energy networks, pipelines on the territory of Georgia do not belong to it. And she believes that by inviting Euro-Atlantic bureaucrats, who also stand above Turkey, she will be able to protect herself and her national interest.

– It seems that in Georgia they already understand this, but they can’t do anything...

– When Stalin in the early 1920s began a polemic with those who wanted to create the Soviet Union from “titular” republics, where all power would be given to the “titular” nations, he cited Tiflis (Tbilisi) and Georgia as examples. As a person who knows the reality of Transcaucasia very well, he said that it is impossible to create a Georgian political monopoly in Tiflis, where 35% of the population is Armenians. This voice is forgotten. I do not consider myself a fan of Stalin, but it is obvious that he was head and shoulders above everyone who surrounded him.

When Saakashvili, as president, expressed the idea of ​​​​the possibility of creating a customs union between Georgia and Armenia on the way to a confederation, I took this very seriously. This opportunity solved for Armenia the problems of Javakhetia, access to the sea, Tbilisi Armenians, and the preservation of historical cultural heritage. And for Georgia it’s a question of interaction with Russia, because being in good relations with Armenia and being on bad terms with Russia is impossible. It was a strong move, albeit a utopian one...

Signals coming from Georgia in parallel with NATO rhetoric indicate that the situation in the country has changed compared to the mood of 2008, when everyone was on Saakashvili’s side. We'll have to find mutual language. But we must proceed from the fact that the issue of “loss” of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is an unresolved problem for Georgians. Therefore, this topic will be present in any long-term historical dialogue Russia and Georgia. And in this situation, Armenia can become a “translator” between Russia and Georgia and help shape the agenda for negotiations “for three”.

– The information war between Armenia and Azerbaijan is gaining momentum, what is the position of the Russian media in this confrontation and REGNUM in particular?

– For all those professionally involved in the analysis of current media and political activity Azerbaijan in Russia is obvious. A number of people close to the ruling spheres, a number of lobbyists openly declare Azerbaijan their best friend, while, as evidenced by publications on the Internet, these individuals always have a business interest there. Their public actions in Moscow are of a nature openly subservient to the authorities in Baku.

It is also obvious that there is whole line funds mass media and other institutions in Russia that receive financial support from Azerbaijan. And they don't hide it. One Russian news publication is so afraid of displeasing its Azerbaijani sponsors that it does not even recognize the independence of either Abkhazia or South Ossetia, which Russia has recognized as a state.

– How do the officials look at it? government agencies?

– They prefer not to notice. The Azerbaijani lobby in Russia is very strong, it is much stronger than the Armenian one. But it “hangs in the air”; it is part of the “sawing” business, and not public sympathy.

But let's return to the media. I cannot name a single Russian media that is on the Armenian side not out of conviction, but because of money. I doubt that in Armenia there is an appropriate budget for this, similar to that in Azerbaijan - as far as I can tell, it simply does not exist. At the same time, some, and especially Baku propaganda, accuse REGNUM of being pro-Armenian. But who can say that REGNUM is silent about the acute problems in Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh?

– Some experts think that Azerbaijan is winning the information war...

- Is he winning? Several years ago a sociological survey was conducted about the opinion Russian citizens regarding the status of Nagorno-Karabakh. 65% of respondents were in favor of its independence. It turns out that Azerbaijani propaganda is losing...

– Russians know history well, a sense of historical justice is inherent in them...

– If Armenia conducted appropriate propaganda, this figure would be 99%. However, this is a matter for Armenia and its authorities. As for the ability of the Russian people to consolidate, their sense of historical justice, let us turn to the data of sociological surveys and the referendum in Crimea, indicators of attitudes towards the sacred May 9th. 95% – for Russian Crimea, 90% – for “ Immortal Regiment" This suggests that in the most important issues the Russian people have God and conscience in their souls.

– What is REGNUM’s position in this information war?

– We are not participating in it. If you want to wage such a war, you must first think about who speaks on your behalf and about what, what symbols are used by government officials in their rhetoric. Our speeches and our symbols are the speeches and symbols of this majority of 90 and 95%. We don't need information scripts, we're just protecting our home.

– How was the REGNUM agency created?

– With my partner Boris Sorkin in April 1999, we founded the first in Russia information Agency, which accumulated all regional news. It was called Regions.ru. Until this moment, such a unified interface did not exist in Russia.

Then we created an information network - Volga-Inform, Sever-Inform and others, which immediately reached the federal level. For that time, this was quite revolutionary, because in those years it was impossible for the regions to break into the center; regional news remained in the regions. And we created a federal platform for them.

In April 2002, all regional branches were merged. We thought for a long time about the name of the new structure. I suggested REGNUM. On Latin this word means “kingdom”, in late Latin it means “empire”, “imperial space”. And this is exactly what we meant. Since 2003, we began to receive news from Armenia, Karabakh, Abkhazia, and Latvia.

– The monthly audience of REGNUM news agency is, according to some sources, more than 4.5 million people. Who are your readers?

– This figure is significantly underestimated. REGNUM's daily audience is about or more than 1 million people. According to outdated data from 2009, our audience is 35+, that is, people aged 35 years and above. Today there is a feeling that she is getting younger. We are read mainly by men and managers. The Russian audience was 65%, today this figure reaches 80%. At the same time, REGNUM has two million monthly readers in Ukraine, a million in Belarus, hundreds of thousands in Germany, the USA, and Israel. This year we will start broadcasting on English language, then in Spanish and also Arabic. We are planning to produce our own video and are preparing for radio broadcasting. Let's return to the production of printed materials.

– Why does such a large, respected news agency still not have its own publication?

– It will appear, but it will not be a newspaper format, although in terms of the amount of information and analytics we can even publish a daily newspaper. True, we simply do not have enough of our own leaders for all these areas.

- In what distinctive feature REGNUM agency, which is in the top 10 news agencies in terms of citations in Russian media?

– In a conscious and open, politically determined position, which is visible, despite the fact that we often have discussions and the fact is that there is a “parliament of opinions.” It is that, while providing a massive amount of information, we adhere to a certain line, which is expressed in a direct statement. This is the voice of free, critical patriotism, a conscious understanding of statehood. This is the voice of the struggle for the independence of peoples against colonialism and compradors, ethnic nationalism and neo-Nazism.

Everyone knows that freedom of the press and comprehensiveness of information are the result only of completeness of data. The reader does not need any informational intricacies; the main thing is the agency’s position on key issues. REGNUM never hides what it thinks, and this is our main difference.

– How many employees does the agency have today?

– 100 in Moscow and up to 400 in total. We value experienced personnel, we do not have an age limit of “up to 35 years”, we value the ability of employees to work around the clock from any geographical location, and we have full-fledged night broadcasting. We recently started working in Africa and set the task of broadcasting from Australia and New Zealand. In a word, we have become big.

The conversation was conducted by Grigory Anisonyan

Why did the writer Alekseevich receive the Nobel Prize?

Nobel laureate in literature Svetlana Alexievich continues to accuse Russia of occupying Crimea and justify the Kyiv authorities. She expressed her position on June 19 in an interview with a REGNUM correspondent.

Regarding the events that led to the change of power in Ukraine, Alexievich stated: “No, it was not a coup. This is nonsense. You watch a lot of TV."
Alexievich stated the following about the pro-fascist orientation of Maidan supporters and repression by the authorities: “Poroshenko and others are not fascists. You understand, they want to separate from Russia and go to Europe. This also exists in the Baltic states. Resistance takes on fierce forms. Then, when they really become an independent and strong state, this will not happen. And now they are tearing down communist monuments, which we should also tear down.”
Murder Ukrainian writer Olesya Buzina Alexievich commented as follows: “But what he said also caused bitterness.”
True, Alexievich recovered in time: “These are not excuses. I just imagine that Ukraine wants to build its own state.”
During the interview, the correspondent pointed to a Gallup study, which found that 83% of Ukrainians think in Russian. When asked whether it is possible to abolish the Russian language taking this into account, Alexievich replied: "No. But maybe for a while, yes, to cement the nation.”
At the end of the interview, commenting on the right of Donbass residents to protest against the abolition of the Russian language and their reluctance to praise Bandera, the writer “reminded” of Russian tanks, Russian weapons, Russian contract soldiers and the downed Boeing: “If it weren’t for your weapons, there would be no war. So don't fool me with this nonsense that fills your head. You succumb so easily to all propaganda. Yes, there is pain, there is fear. But this is on your conscience, on Putin’s conscience. You invaded another country, on what grounds? There are a million pictures on the Internet of Russian equipment going there. Everyone knows who shot down [the Boeing] and everything else. Let's end your idiotic interview already. I no longer have the strength for him. You are just a bunch of propaganda, not a reasonable person."
Let us remind you that Svetlana Alexievich won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 2015 with the wording “for her polyphonic work - a monument to suffering and courage in our time.”

P. S. The REGNUM correspondent asked questions that Alekseevich herself was uncomfortable answering, because she still had remnants of her Soviet conscience, and this irritated her.
It is clear that she was given a prize for her anti-communist views. Monuments to suffering instead of communist ones - is this her ideal? You repent, suffer, but do not be indignant; this turns out to be the essence of Alekseevich’s worldview. Of course, the West will applaud such a position.
Sorry, but at one time these were advanced views, natural development philosophical thought. All the best that is in a person was put at the forefront and this was proclaimed. What Alekseevich or anyone else can offer now is pity for oneself and others or freedom to worship the whims of one’s body. Of course, this direction can be endlessly procrastinated and shown that this is the knowledge of the truth. But practice, as a criterion of truth, shows that the world is sliding towards global aggression under the slogan of everything, against everyone. Her ideological position, in fact, of not resisting the growing evil leads to a world catastrophe, and this “chicken” Alekseevich sees nothing beyond her literary views and Russophobia.