you give me some work here and otherwise i just died and stalin and answered him, and stalin answered him. all this happened in april 1930, and april 18 was good friday, which is interesting, and in bulgakov's apartment, uh, the bell rings, this is stalin saying, unfortunately, we do not have a transcript of this conversation. and we can’t say exactly what stalin bulgakov was talking about, we know about the content of this conversation. from the memoirs of two women , bulgakov’s second wife, evgenievna’s love, and here is the future third wife, and elena sergeevna a. but if try to summarize, then the meaning was such that stalin asked if you were not very tired, comrade bulgakov and beyond. here i am saying, unfortunately, we do not know exactly this dialogue, but further, as if stalin asks bulgakov so what do you still want? go abroad. and now,

apparently, stalin is so shot conversation. and besides, it was very unexpected for bulgakov. he did not expect this call. and bulgakov lost the phrase. well, such a beautiful fatherly patriotic one, who will argue with her, but the meaning of the phrase was such that i thought a lot. now i understand that the place of a russian writer in russia belongs to me. there is nowhere to work. and where would you like to work, comrade bulgakov but at the moscow art theater, but they don’t take me there. and you call there again, comrade. bulgakov bulgakov calls you the next day. they say to him, where do you go there? come soon, there is an agreement passport data snilsn. everything means we sign uh, we make out so since 1930, mikhail bulgakov, who before that was such a free man. e freelance artist speak modern language. he becomes an employee of this state corporation, which was called the moscow art theater and his life is very, but

bulgakov continues to write dramatically, and plays and, in particular, he writes uh, a play about pushkin is absolutely wonderful. the play is called the last days. then he writes a completely wonderful play, which everyone, of course, knows, it is called ivan vasilyevich, and with this ivan vasilyevich it is very interesting. originally bulgakovskaya the play was called bliss and it has the same story, as it were, the story , which means the inventor of the time machine work who is present with him next to him, but if in the famous film they go to the past during the time of ivan the terrible, then bulgakov they travel first to the past then into the future, they fall right into communism, but the fact is that when bulgakov brought this bliss in one of the theaters , even members of the party told him from us. i don't know what communism will be like. and here you are trying to reason, and then he bulgakov her so

half truncated, only the historical part remained, which it gave at the satire theater and in 1935, in my opinion, rehearsals of this performance began and finally, thanks to gorky, gorky unexpectedly allowed the hut to have a house painter here at the request of bulgakov and thus 19306 was supposed to become for bulgakov such a grandiose return to the soviet stage. what our hero is incredibly strong, and dreamed we continue. this is a podcast life of the wonderful and i'm alexey varlamov with you and we are talking about mikhail bulgakov, and the premiere of molière i play. it's not that it failed, but it turned out that there were several performances. then there was an article in the newspaper. true, which was called outward brilliance and false content in this article, if bulgakov was criticized as a play without an ideological idea, the soviet audience

does not need such a play, and it is incomprehensible that it is so, sort of, like a beautiful spectacular costumes for the scenery, and the content of molière is shown . like some kind of philistine, somehow entangled in his own, but petty passions of a person. in general, i did not understand. bulgakov mariera meaning uh, was like that and immediately removed this play. what when did it happen? well how was to say that he was angry mean? to say nothing, he simply did not understand anything bulgakov did not take into account a simple thing. please, it's true. not just an article , an editorial was published, expressing the opinion of all the editorial boards and, again, in the newspaper. true, it is more powerful than 500 articles written in the twenties. yes, this is a verdict and, uh, smart people and stanislavsky nemerovich-danchenko. bulgakov perfectly understood this, but did not want to accept it soon. he himself is a house quarreled, but at the same time ivan vasilyevich was removed at the satire theater at the vakhtangov theater

they filmed the last days bulgakov became toxic , it was simply dangerous to deal with him. and that's when bulgakov returns to writing a novel. a master and margarita in my opinion a book. well, how can i say margarita it's clear everyone has their own idea is stupid to impose their own, but it seems to me very sad. this is a very sad book. because if the white guard is a novel about the birth. those that were the master and margaritas is a book about easter that did not come, that is, bulgakov is actually very honest, it seems to me, this is the power of evil a and the weakness of good that he saw around him. this became the basis, uh, the basis of this novel, but bulgakov's latest work this is not a novel by the master margarita, although he wrote it

almost until his death. the most recent work. bulgakov is a play batum. a play dedicated to the young stalin, and very often biographers of bulgakov, historians and literature, they write about this plot with some kind of regret. well, that's what lived bulgakov worthy life of a free independent. as far as it was possible in those conditions by a person, and in the end i stumbled. i made some kind of compromise and wrote. here is the play is simple. why why? here, from my point of view, to argue, so this means absolutely not to take into account bulgakov's psychology. here is bulgakov indeed, he was a man, compared with akhmatova , let's say. on andreevna, life was much more difficult than bulgakov's. well, not to mention the fact that she had a son held hostage, not to mention the fact that she did not have a comfortable apartment, not to mention the fact that her family life was far from well-being, like bulgakov’s, what she had, how i would have been

a wealthy person, all these fairy tales that he was poor are fairy tales. he received a lot for your house, then ours. in the bolshoi theater, but nonetheless . so she did not consider herself the most unfortunate, but he believed, that's why , because from my point of view, akhmatova had already lived for eternity. she knew that she was akhmatova and no matter how they spread rot, no matter how hard it was for her, sooner or later everything would fall into place and a monument would be erected and it would be published and her will honor, and she is a girl, yes, of these times, but bulgakov could not do that. he would not be at all surprised that here i am telling millions of people about him. he is known and loved to be read. uh, they put on films, performances, write dissertations , translate them into foreign languages. this is a huge glory that fell on him after his death. it wouldn't surprise him at all. she would anger him. she would piss him off. and that's not even my guess. there is a correspondence between bulgakov and his young friend. e

sergei ermolinsky, where bulgakov prospered they write in black and white that unctuous voices are heard around me, do not worry, after your death. everything will be printed. he was furious at these words. he wanted to get here and now here in bulgator a very important detail, a very important psychological detail that must be taken into account just when we say why he had such an unfortunate life. in a sense, he himself made it unsuccessful for himself, as it seems to me, the story of bulgakov is in many ways such an ancient tragedy. yes, this is how in an ancient tragedy the hero enters into duel fate, and loses. here is a story, a bulgak about this story of such a lifetime loss. fate, really. here is the same novel by master margarita, why did he begin to write it? it is quite clear that you will do something with this roman in the thirtieth fifth sixth seventh year, where will you carry him? it is clear that this novel is such

a testament to you and me, in the broadest sense of the word, but what does he care about our adoration with you? he wanted now, he wanted now to receive recognition. glory, he was poisoned. here this is thirst for applause, and she really was very characteristic of him. and she really poisoned his life, and why am i talking about this, because it was precisely this that was the motive for writing the play for the trampoline, because he wanted to break from this play to the modern audience. he did not care, they would not accuse him of kalinism . it's all secondary. he wanted to get his here and now, and i must say that elena sergeevna that's why she doesn't love her. some bloggers when he wrote the play batum. here she encouraged him. here she is on every step she said, misha did a good job. misha write. misha come on, the play was written and the play. they brought you the moscow art theater to your hut, your hand is splashing. everything is there. distributed and or sergeevna, she

foresees that there will be a grandiose success. she's already distributing. you can see it in her diary. uh, there are counterfeit tickets, which of the guests, where will they sit at the premiere. but bulgakov is more wary of some premonitions. well, it can be assumed that he knows one more very important thing if he was preparing for the anniversary, stalin's thirty-ninth year. i am bulgakov understood, when will the prime minister, stalin will come, and they will meet, right? here is his dream, his wish. here's a fixed idea to talk, talk to stalin with steel yes, this will happen. well, further. i say, unfortunately it went or fortunately, because it's hard to say, but in any case, what happened next everything went far wrong, which means august 14, 1939. bulgakov, several more mukhavkovsky theatrical artists went to batum. and in order to see on the spot some things necessary for a. e scenery for costumes and so on. well, at the same time

it was such a fun ride and everyone was in a good mood. but when the train reached the station, serpukhov , the postwoman came in and said, who is the accountant to you telegram bulgakov immediately understood everything that the accountant is bulgakov and in the telegram it was written that the need for a trip disappeared. come back telegram was from the theatre, what happened stalin read the play and, according to legend , said it was not so, and in general he did not bless and, in general, banned this play. again, historians, commentators. biographers they argue that stalin did not like this play. uh, they see some secret meanings in it , they see some figs in their pockets, and there is a version that stalin's youth was rather doubtful and he did not want to be converted. by this period of his life there are other versions, no matter how it makes no sense to discuss them

, the fact remains that the play was banned. and this was the blow that bulgakov could no longer withstand. well, he just couldn't. after that, he, a, becomes seriously ill, and a few months later, in march 1940, more precisely, 10 march 1940, but mikhailov afanasyevich did not, and he died on sunday. but it was n't easy, sunday. it was forgiveness sunday. and for everyone who likes to criticize bulgakov sometimes from christian church positions. it seems to me that this fact, and it is necessary to take into account, and also take into account. what a huge price they pay, a truly brilliant person for his gift for his talent, with what blood all these lines and all these books and performances and companies

that still delight and delight us, how they will delight and delight our descendants. thank you, i was with you and alexey varlamov is a podcast of a wonderful life. to paraphrase a little bismarck politics, like diplomacy, is the art of the possible. hello today, we have gathered our thoughts about what is happening with international relations fyodor aleksandrovich lukyanov , international observer andrey andreyevich sushentsov. i am vladimir igoyda, a historian and political scientist at the house of culture of the faculty of international relations at mgimo. hello gentlemen. hello there is such a thing as historical distance and

it is customary to say so a little academically looking up, that until some time has passed it is very difficult to assess the situation in which you find yourself. how much is the law. as far as the lack of historical distance. today it allows us to answer the question that i boldly put in the title of our podcast. what is happening with international relations? it seems to me that the historical distance allows you to look just differently, but this does not mean that being, uh, inside the process, it is impossible to analyze it differently, well, as the inhabitants of the roman empire of its era say disintegration have no idea that it is disintegrating drevnegreta. didn't know they were ancient. and even the participants of the first world war. they didn’t know that it was called global later, and therefore, of course, comprehension, uh, which events are built into the historical line , happens later probably, but on the other hand,

here we are now, if that’s how we live here and now it seems to me that at least for people who do it professionally. now it is more or less clear where we are going to build. we don't know what it is ends, that is, we do not know the consequences of the consequences do not know. and what is it already more or less, understand? i think that the period of uncertainty that many experts, including those that have been disturbing for the last 20 years, has ended and some clarity has come, at least the dynamics of international events have high inertia. and the fact that in the future there will be history there in half a century, let's say textbooks on the history of international relations of this period will be written and some date will be named the starting point of the current processes. there in the mid-nineties of the last century. the beginning of the formation of a polycentric order, russian-chinese american relations, a bet on nato expansion for

a unipolar moment and the accumulation of contradictions, which ended up at the beginning of the third decade, and first in the xxi century in ukraine a. then, somewhere else, they stood up to see such a systemic crisis, which who knows can last for a single decade. edward carr describes retrospectively. true, the interwar period between the first and second world wars called its long crisis and it is possible that we are entering such a long rather long phase in which there are no events of such jerks that change qualitatively and quickly. ah, international relations. how did it happen, for example, the second world war in a relatively historically short period of sharp re -laying of all the foundations of international relations , the military, legal , ideological, and the formation of a stable framework for several decades. and we are in the middle of a slow process in

which all these foundations are also under question under certain pressure and inertia of these processes. god forbid, it would be a slow , long, yet fast reloading means some kind of catastrophe. uh, slow transformation allows you to gather up already. i mean hmm so slow. i think this is debatable. i agree that it has been accumulating for a long time, but when the accumulated has already detonated, now everything is happening extremely quickly, much faster than one would think. and i also thought about the uh question about the historical distance distance does one important thing that we cannot do today. it removes the unnecessary, because these are three things that are happening now and we think are extremely important at a historical distance. they will disappear. you just won't. well, somewhere there small letters. and now we can't appreciate it. this is what makes a historic event. i want to offer you, but a certain cross-cutting thought,

which for me seems extremely important and expensive, even let's say life, as a theory, it lends itself to rational construction life, as a reality, does not lend itself to the rational. so you said that well , more or less, everything is clear, in the late eighties in the early nineties it also seemed that everything was clear. period of historical optimism. bipo crash. the system of international relations the confrontation is over everything means democracy has won the world will become stable predictable wonderful bright end of history then nothing worked with all the stops, but about how you wonderfully said historical optimism was replaced by misanthropic pessimism. yes and here exploded, burst. that's all the same, how rational is the design of forecasting. in general, perhaps you correctly remembered the turn of the eighties and nineties and really then distinguish on the line, the perception was that it seemed that we

understand what will happen next. well, because it wouldn’t just be, but we just know that nothing else can be, she has laid a track, than regardless of the relationship, whether we like her or not, there is nowhere to go. and the same phenomenon. uh, apply globalization has long been thought to be globalization. here it is, and in which everything is and nothing more can be. we can hate it, but it is, but it is necessary. due that not to us, but there were people who already then said something else and it is easy to find people who said no. e lord, it doesn’t happen like that and it won’t happen like that, but here comes the next question. and uh, how should intellectual and scientific and other communication be built in general, so as not to succumb to this wave, because this is also relevant now fedor very aptly noted that uh, we need certainty and this

the intellectual construction of our life in the late eighties in the early nineties was based on the experience of the end of the second world war, when for the first time humanity consciously approached the results of a catastrophic conflict and said and now we will come up with a stable world that will work according to the rules that we will propose in the key document of the organization united nations and stabilize this framework. perhaps for a long time. this is an alliance of the five main countries, they will support this framework and indeed. eh, except the periphery, er, of international relations, this framework held on for quite a long time at the end of the eighties, there was, apparently , the same mm hope that now we are building the same stable world on slightly different foundations. this is the substrate of liberal ideology, which means american values, universal values , american financial other infrastructure is universal and we will now live in peace and happiness, but we must remember that the episode of the end of

world war ii is exceptional in world history, if you look at the previous episode, let's say the end of the first world war. such an attempt was unsuccessful , we could not rationally build a system that would work and be stably maintained, previous similar attempts, conscious conservation, an established order. they were extremely short-lived international relations. i just wanted to ask you about my norm of rivalry or the leader, yes, here is this idea that you have already met. he says that the world today is returning to international relations to its historical norm. yes, then yes, but do i understand correctly that, relatively speaking, i recently listened to the lectures of our wonderful antiquity scholar. surikov about the peloponnesian war. and i thought so, here it is. what time am i talking about now, really this is the same ancient greece or some, but are there such things in which this is normativity on the material of the pyloponnesian war. actually, the classics about the theory of international relations derive the main maximums. this concept of its

realism in international relations, when countries compete with each other for their interests, their national understanding. it is in each case very individual criteria of common sense are also very individual to them must be treated. eh, respectfully. uh, that is, our concept of common sense is not at all necessary. the same in germany, the same in the usa, the same in china , in india, and this requires respect. and i think that cognitive realism allows you to more, or something, firmly stand on your feet, comprehending , what is happening, what do you think, well , anyway, it creates the illusion that you are the real one on your feet. i would like here develop. i think andrei said a very important thing. it is important for understanding today that the second world war really had a very strong influence on our consciousness, meanwhile it really was unique in many ways and it ended too, unusual, in general, there are not so many wars in the history of mankind that would end in

the complete defeat of one of the parties completely the destruction of germany in its former form did not become japan in its former form. well, you can say, too , there she is later, well, this left a very big imprint on further understanding, when the cold war ended , the same feeling arose, only this complete rout, as they thought. i have comprehended not a country, but a certain system of thought, a certain worldview, all worldviews, except for one , and now this is from the number of the view. it didn't even win. it just proved that others are not needed. that's all we have today is the consequences of such an end to this very one or an interruption of the cold war, but this began to change rather quickly. this is the idea of ​​the victory of the worldview. this is what will provide. that's what, we have already said, yes to change. it has become. rather, the idea that the worldview did not defeat others began

to change later than the signs of this appeared. well, for a very long time they tried to pretend that they were some kind. well, costs in the way of the right goal. well, although i don’t know yet, there, if we talk about the academic space, then already in the sixties the concept of political culture appeared there, yes, which simply told us that institutions and processes. they will be completely different. operate political institutions in different political cultures, what you said. yes, i hope, well, you know me here. er, maybe i'm not quite. here i understand, here is the question, when we associate with the same ancient greeks. yes , indeed, some basic things are basic patterns, they do not change, but this here is the context, life is about the context. yes, he was fundamentally different. well, that is, military operations there during the a war of athens and sparta . they did not lead to similar results at all, not in human casualties, in anything it was fundamentally another world, like the laws would be different, but the consequences are for everything

that hits the nerves. yes, what makes a person, uh, a person exists rational. yes, they were fundamentally different, some historians of antiquity. it is said that even there there are hoplite battles. in general, they are more of a sport, for example, they reminded them of the victims there , there could be dozens. sometimes even a few and actually some others were pushed back , they ran away, we won. then and here they are, so to speak, running around there throughout civilization. i think it just evolved on two tracks simultaneously brutalization and humanization. they walked, as it were, together at first . hmm, more and more cruel forms of confrontation and some kind of attempts to curb it. and about , uh, how the nature of war is changing. right now at 23. there's a lot to discuss here on this subject. where it moves forward back to the side, because, well, those, uh, military operations that we are now witnessing , generally speaking, no one has been preparing for them

for many, many years or even decades, it was believed that this was impossible. it remained in the 20th century. well, please. we have gathered today thoughts about what is happening with international relations in the modern world , fedor aleksandrovich lukyanov, international observer andrey andreevich sunzhentsov, to the kants of the faculty of international relations to the hero. i am vladimir jehovah continues andrey andreevich when you talk about the school of realism. yes, there are other schools, but some kind of productive dialogue is possible between them, and how practical it is for real diplomacy. i believe more meaningful for real diplomacy. this is an experience national experience experience. elite existence in that international environment, which in reality we observed a lot of experiments in the nineties and two thousand years, especially from small countries that recently gained independence, which tried to import foreign policy along with sometimes a diaspora of

textbook professors, there are separate caucasian republics suddenly themselves they presented some kind of small western european country with a different neighborhood belt with a different economic environment, which with other threats security and tried to behave differently. yes, countries invent themselves in their circumstances. but hmm, remember that each country is an experiment and the final is open for it and the elite, testing the boundaries of the possible. they are this experiment. here they test the strength of the state. how did the experiment survive if it went through a series of major trials of invasions of the revolution of economic turmoil. uh, some catastrophic natural events and so on and so forth are from the side of the state. with let's say what micronesia yes absolutely a special foreign policy environment there is a state in africa there is a state in southeast asia of latin america for each of them in general the world looks a little different and for them, uh, some universals, about which we are talking about here, now they can

wear their own shade, but if we talk about the basic, uh, postulates of the struggle for influence for the status of military-political rivalry, then in general they develop approximately according to the same rules. there are laws, like, uh, in an electrical outlet. there is a sense. if there is something, it means to climb with a sharp nail, then from there to strike a current and small countries, some of them had the misfortune to experience for themselves. what is it exactly, or tok e, in the 21st century, is still going to the outlet. yes, it's still getting worse. and this invention of the bicycle brings them back a little, uh, to reality and to the tradition of a realistic understanding of what your foreign policy potential is, your resources. you must articulate your interests. and this is always very subjective. you can express it in many different ways, and together it puts us all together. well, on there is a certain ruler in terms of the degree of realism of your policy, for example, the country is a small

country in the middle east, israel, which, in terms of the totality of its foreign policy resources and experience, has been foreign policy in its short period of existence. can give a head start. uh, many long-standing countries. yes, they went through a lot of crises on their own, from them they came up and continue to lead such an active external political line and what is called they play for their own e, for their vital interests constantly on the eve, uh, and the measure of their eh is such a tendency to fall into an illusion, it is very low, strange in another international environment, where they can afford an experiment less threatening. and tell me, but, uh, again, the changing context and conditions in which we exist, here is the information society, and about the influence. e of the new information space on domestic politics, well , dissertation diplomas are already being defended, with some i even had a chance to get acquainted. and in general, with all the critical attitude to the fact that trying to analyze, so to speak, but this

influence exists. here is the changed information environment. what impact does it have, and again on international relations, if at all, it has to what andrey just said in many ways. well, if in the most applied, then let's say the work of a diplomat has become absolutely unbearable, that is, classical approaches, that is, these means yes, because we know from books, but there is nothing of this and there is no discreteness and confidentiality. no, the other way around than you spit out something so fried faster than you, it seems, how much more happened. well, this is such a surface, but the essence on it seems to me directly related to, uh, the previous question about realism. and constructivism, which, generally speaking , is correct, andrey named a small country that he imagined himself to be an eastern european region. here is now, unfortunately, a long- dead, accidentally bright, witty person.

such was the entrepreneur in socks and banduki, yes, who left for that very country in the middle of the 2000s as a minister, went reforms. he then formulated brilliantly. here is this phenomenon, when relations with russia began to strain there, then the boycott of the embargo and so on, and he said at some meeting. listen, let's imagine that there is a sea there is no russia there is a sea. we don't look at it at all. we live like this is the squintsen. let's pretend that none of this exists. and it seems to me that this is the triumph of such an approach, which admits that one can imagine that there really is a sea. this is a product of the information age, because informational ira it actually constructs everything around us. we are disorientated to a greater extent, it turns out. well, it’s further disorienting from the beginning, then you get used to it, you already understand what it is. and where is she not to start diving into this sea? just andrei andreevich correct me. if i misunderstood you, somewhere i

met the idea that this is one of the characteristics of the information society, when you feel like a participant, yes, in terms of international relations. this is a complete illusion, because, of course, no actor international relations. there, an ordinary observer is not here in domestic politics, after all, this is a little bit wrong. or i'm wrong. well, how else to interpret this wave, when people celebrate some event on themselves. uh, on social media they put certain images on their picture. avatar they perceive themselves as participants in this process. this affected my feelings of thinking i imagine myself as an actor, then these many are not actions. many people on the dashboard pressed the button, sympathy solidarity that's due to something like terrorist attacks, let's say, yes. or vice versa, there is some kind of celebration there, but a major conflict. here is the united states of great britain, some western others are adept at information warfare. countries. they are now, uh, very good at directing, uh, the flow

of emotional reactions of citizens, english-speaking in the west and other regions of the world, to the way they need to perceive what is happening in ukraine , moreover, an intuitive person. maybe understand that this is the picture that he contemplates, it does not correspond to his deep intuition about what is happening, but since there are very logical, seemingly such constructions in a synonymous row, they are intellectually located. e opportunities to disagree with this. and i think that this is just another one of the means of international relations that you need to understand well and gradually master this tool. works and swims in this environment. well, that is, one way or another, it still affects. it seems to me that it affects more than us. i would like, than we think, i remembered not so long ago there was such an incident. in general, at the meeting of the twenty in indonesia filmed it. uh, operators, therefore,

lagged behind in the public domain, a very funny skirmish between the representative of the prc, xi jinping. and, for example, canadian minister justin trudeau, but the day before they had negotiations. well, normal negotiations with closed doors and xi jinping contrary to chinese tradition in general. it was at the reception. he approached the labor and said what kind of disgrace it was, why what we discussed yesterday today in your newspapers is not done the way it is, and the labors are looking at it. he sincerely does not understand. what is the problem grandfather in general, why why is this happening not because the labor idiot is there or he is a boor, just for him, like the whole generation of politics. especially. he's pretty good. young well, sort of, well, he's young so he's oriented legitimation is a constant reporting to the public what i'm doing? look here. so i talked with see, here i am , this is what we discussed. here i am to him and this one , contrary to the whole tradition. here, and the axis

is classic, but between us, we talked with you, this is confidential, but serious things and here is this clash. and this is just a consequence of the fact that the very people who put up avatars, they influence, because they form a mass, which the politician , somewhat conditionally speaking, china has sounded. let's talk about the east a few words. let's say sergeevich lavrov speaking here, and at the un recently said yes to the western minority, which should be more attentive to the majority. i remember talking to you, and on similar topics he said that we are all the time. well, it was a few years ago we were talking to the west, eh the chinese do not understand this and do not really like it. what awaits us here? i think our challenge is that the chinese and indians of another non-west perceive the russian western confrontation as an episode of struggle within the west, and we need to work with this perception to show that we are not the west, that we are there in the north let's say or what, we are the leader this

world majority or someone else original state civilization written the same lot of concepts. well, let's say yes, but this is the perception in which they feel what is happening, in fact. it's making conflict civilization within itself about, in general, not even ideological essences, but there is a dispute between economic entities. although uh westerners are trying to present it as an ideological struggle. on the contrary, we will need to show that what is happening goes beyond the struggle. so inside western civilization. this is essentially such a long confrontation about the principles, uh, on which international relations in the 21st century will be built unipolar and polycentric. and here, of course, we are like-minded if india is from china and of course, what is happening, the main new feature is that in 500 years, in reality, significant centers of economic political war of gravity arise. in the east, the east becomes for us an important and

large new value that we need to know. today we have gathered with thoughts about what is happening with international relations in the modern world fedor aleksandrovich lukyanov international observer andrey andreevich sushentsov of the deans of the faculty of international relations is a hero, and vladimir is left yes, we continue we often talk about how, here in this new emerging system of international relations. what is the place of russia or what should be the place of russia, as theologians would say, but in fact i want to ask you what the place should not be. that's who we definitely don't need to become. here in this new emerging network. we cannot become a second-tier power. we are in the current border, as a country has existed since about the period of peter i but here we are, as a large large state, a large center of gravity in the north of eurasia is obliged

to be in the top three of the top five, and the world powers to maintain subjectivity in the struggle of these great countries. we roughly understand how demographics will develop until the middle of the century, how economic trends will look like uh? we hope, more or less predictably, now politics will line up on the horizon. there, for a decade or two, russia must retain its subjectivity. it must be a strategically sovereign country that excludes the possibility of dependencies. from whomever you were to keep this autonomy possible choosing the opportunity to blaze your own destiny for the twenty-first century. i would say the same thing in a different way, we can't be anything addition to avoid dependence , it's impossible to always be in something. so dependence here is precisely the task, so that then there would already be more, so that different dependencies would balance each other, because if you say so, well, in the most caricature form , the raw material appendage of the west turns into

a raw material appendage of china, this can be internally pleasant for a number of reasons, but this does not change the essence, but both russia and raw materials glory to the west, god still did not become completely, and the second will not happen, therefore, this is independence and the opportunity to always carry out some kind of maneuver. this is a must thing. but this is actually what andrei said, but purely like this, philistine. it seems to me that in no case should you fuss, because when such a country is gigantic, and in fact, possessing everything. whatever possible it starts to fuss about there suddenly react to the fact that in general such countries should never react and enter. for example, well, i don't know, but i'm always surprised when journalists call me and start asking questions. and here is an example, the minister of slovenia said, this one, well, baby, he or there is some kind of congressman, this is what we have. it is mainly

related to the west. nobody ever asks. but in vietnam they said something, like this is the elimination of a certain complex, which in fact no longer has any basis. but it, apparently, was laid down. that is precisely the years of confidence that our development can only be catching up, therefore, even if in slovenia blurted out something, then we need to somehow, perhaps, sharply give an angry rebuff, but anyway, it seems to me that this vanity is distracting in the first place. secondly, it is belittled this is not necessary, i remembered this wonderful one, what is it called? meme? yes, when two buddhist monks of some kind are sitting there, and they say that they say i look at how the trees grow. he says you're all in a rush. yes, the topic is very important and interesting for me. here in this new history, the emerging system of international relations. religion as a worldview what role can the basis play? we can probably say cautiously that religion is returning from the periphery of socio-political relations

to its center, our colleagues from mgimo even talk about the webonization of religion, that is, the use of religion as a weapon. here is what awaits advanced western neurolinguistic techniques in this sense. directly hmm work, but with the spiritual space of a person, forming images and perceptions, prompting him to action, prompting him to indifferent perception of what is happening and carving an emotion emotions are the fuel of action due to the fact that the techniques of working with e, the human soul construction, they become more perfect. i think there are a lot of instrumental approaches to getting people motivated nadia and sometimes covering up. it's the religions you're talking about what they call religious motivations, yes, religious motivations are pseudo-religious motivations. yes, i do not rule out that religion in the east, including, can become such an active force

that will uh, well, motivate certain political programs there, india gave such an example, especially since there is no such differentiation that we are accustomed to in the western world. yes, that is, religion as a socially autonomous phenomenon. it's still the first thing. uh, western heritage is yes give or take society. well, firstly , there is not a single moment in the history of mankind when we could rigidly divide. this is where religion ends. this is where the power politics and stuff has always been used and will be used. and what about will it? uh, prop religion and some new era? i think so, because that in general it’s very bad with the support ones, they all leave the ideologies, crumble, bring them to the turn of the absurdity. at first, we watched for a long time when this caricatured absurdity was brought up. uh, from the left with a tourist ideology. now liberal. right now, the main thing is not to allow

the conservative ideology to be brought to the same absurdity, and even, god forbid, with the help of religion, from which it is also possible to build such a monster, although in general. this is a very healthy approach to life, which is why i think that religion is both alive and growing. creativity of the spirit is absolutely necessary. but if someone tries to use religion as a bridle for progress, so that society develops, so to speak. this, i think, will not lead to anything good and nothing will come of it will be the last one. i have a question for you, it is such an educational dimension, it’s just saying these cards in your hands, taking into account what we managed to say today and in general everything that is happening for what and how it is necessary to prepare a diplomat first of all today, i believe that the fundamental basis. in approach to the training of diplomats is rooted in knowledge of history and the formation of empathy in relation to the structure that you are engaged in through knowledge of the languages ​​​​of its culture, traditions and

the ability to uh, interact with uh, a representative of another country, in a way that is interesting to you , this is the fundamental basis on which the russian soviet then again the russian tradition was historically based and i believe that we must preserve and develop it. we are now conducting a study of ways to train diplomats in the 20 leading countries of the world and there completely paradoxical. we observe you compare how and compare of course yes, your own approach with how it is done in the whole world. and there are amazing things there, for example, in some of the countries there is no textbook on the history of international relations , where foreign languages ​​are not studied. i think that this is not necessary for admission to the diss in the service, in general, special education, guys. pif for a type of service then undergoes a one-year retraining course, in our opinion, these countries are losing time in preparation diplomats, because it is expensive of course, it takes 6 years to train a deep fundamental specialist in regional studies with knowledge of the language

and understanding of history, and he will not necessarily make a good diplomat. but at least he has a cause-and-effect connection to what's going on in the world. they will be properly arranged, but will not be inclined to experiment with the new, which we must do in the training of a diplomat. this is to strengthen their ability to interact and communicate in this new environment, where you need to take the initiative to convince firmly to defend one's own position, one's own platform, to interact in the discussion so that your point of view is precisely your point of view that looks like the closest approximation to common sense. here are the medians, common sense with that. it seems to me that there are complexities of large information spaces. well, i work at the school of economics. uh, we don't train diplomats. we are preparing other international specialists. yes, yes. and andrey said the right thing. i also tell my students all the time that there should be a picture picture whole world. this is how the cause of the investigative

connection, how one affects the other, because the problem of many people and even world leaders. uh, that's what they have pictures. no, they act. here they are momentarily solving problems. and in fact, for a long time it was thought that this was normal? why is everything? right now, the world is so complicated that it is very easy to get confused, get lost and lose, in general, a compass , that this one here, especially the abundance of information, in the same you absolutely do not understand where, where, where the ends search and so, therefore we need a base representation, as in general, here is a structural representation, and then already, well, everyone will be in force. to fill this structure with current events with the strength of your abilities and knowledge. but here is the whole picture from here. actually, we need a theory. why do they often ask, especially with our students there? well, what for, i need this, if i then go to the corporation to deal with oil, well, the fact is that anger is also taken from the

same international relations that i sang as a hint of the war, which means, in general, they have not changed much. yes, as i recently one student not from our university. hmm, who is also going to go somewhere to the corporation and said that 8 million people live in india, so in general, it is clear that i think it will be difficult for him to run a successful business. thank you very much, dear friends, fedornov, international observers andrey shushentsev deans. faculty, there is international relations of germany about vladimir yagoda. we gathered today to think about what is happening with international relations. hi all. this is a podcast of memories 20 years later, in which i am the host konstantin mikhailov my star guests, let's discuss 2005 this time, which songs were at the peak

of the charts, which television project started on channel one today as a guest? i have yulia savicheva, a beautiful girl, a talented singer, a participant in the tv project star factory 2 and the eurovision song contest 2004. well, plus 2005. there was a series with the participation of her song, do not be born beautiful. yes, i called him do not be born gadziy. what just did not name and konstantin burdaev. he is kostya green hello kostyanovich. i managed the group, bro. yes, the lead singer of the brothers grimm remember in 2005. just you participated in maksidom 2005. i participated in the maksidrome. we participated in the film don't be born godzilla. as a matter of fact, everything was also then we had something in common in this film, doing something. and in this film we sang the song heart in one episode there, yes, that is, yes, i was sitting on the piano, as he was a young hairy one, yet, uh, played soulful singing this song. that was

the thing. yes, i listen to the serial history is a very, very profitable thing. we recently met with jennifix at the end of the film, how poper, uh, his team after he managed in the song for the tv series soldiers television great power great power, especially when this song for the tv series and yulia's song, i myself remember her no, dragged along. thank you, but on the one hand, the series yes is understandable. visions it eats into the head, but it still matters the song itself, what it is, after all, all sorts of remakes are still being made on it, remixes, young people are dragged from it, surprisingly, i didn’t think that there would be such a continuation of the banquet of a song, if the heart lives love and it has become my calling card. well there's another song up high of course, with which i started uh my big way, uh, and it is also one of

my title songs. but now, if all this is love, this is something separate, this is some kind of separate planet that i think will outlive us. tell everyone, and on the song the wind in the eclip was filmed on a chromac, because you are standing there against the backdrop of the theater, either big, but highly interesting, that's how no one called her parents yet. for some reason i thought this was a freudian mistake, because we recently spoke with a nun with a singer. just remembered that moment at the factory once sang along with her. call me, call me that, call me the wind, the wind, just the wind, and remember what it was. well, almost like that. here you are, you are still such a girl, compared to a child. yes, you 're great, it's the voice, but here's the freedom of communication, maybe with the public mona of course , she was already more experienced. of course, how do you feel? somehow oh, i generally remember that factory period, and for me this is on the one

hand. it’s even extremely difficult, but on the other hand it’s so interesting, and there we growing up we are growing up in front of everyone in the whole country. and it saved me, maybe my youth is just like that, even childishness and rose-colored glasses in front of my eyes. here it helped. for me, you immediately appeared. i caught ours like this. well, you know, then it was fashionable, and for some reason i then fell in love with truly alternative music, some kind of turning point. it happened to me after the song high and everything started. well, plus that's natural hair. i have straight lines. well, actually there is a similarity in the face. i even have my child anya

when she sees avril lavigne's bread oh, mom, she says, she went so really there is some kind of similarity. me you are not alone always together. do not forget. flame of fire where are you and i? time for you i'm

flying in myself i'll fly away to you. to the sky for the star high

sky high it's easy, don't forget. my heart my songs forever with you. at night

where are you and i? i don't know. in you, to the sky behind the star, high

and quiet sings to the sky, high and quiet sings it is easy

on earth