there is no indication that this is impossible, therefore, apparently, there will be some kind of comfortable prison, it turns out, but i would not even consider this situation from the position of the interests of our country, i would not exaggerate the significance of trump’s likely victory or biden’s victory in some way. then from the scenarios, we with the united states, and we have repeatedly talked about this here in this studio, are in a structural confrontation, it can change the intensity, but it will not go away regardless of who is at the helm of the united states, and some important initiatives that are dangerous for us were taken during the presidency of donald trump, andrei arkadyevich spoke about this in this studio not so long ago, but for us it is important that what is happening is a great disorganization of the american political foreign policy process, because the democrats are now using the

maximum ... will allow us to do that we cannot play with the polarization of american society, that we cannot risk civil war, this was the understanding when we talk about what biden is trying to do in relation to russia, it seems to me that it is useful to look at what he is trying to do in relation to trump, well , you already understand, there are no taboos, there is nothing, there is nothing prohibited, so you can... an employee of the department of justice under biden and for some unknown reason just recently it was for high-ranking reasons that he left there and went to a position in one particular district. although before

that he had just been a high-ranking federal official, this is how it is done, i want to ask you, evgeniy petrovich, you are an addition to your military expertise, you did a lot of diplomacy, you know america well, this is what we see now, does it surprise you, or is this something that we have been dealing with for many years, we just maybe didn’t notice it to such an extent, no, you know , i... this surprises me very much, because to be honest, i was sure that if they didn’t acquit, then in any case the jury would split this whole thing, then there would be a new trial, if there was one, that is, somehow this the case should have been, well, because in fact, well, i agree, but no, no, there is no crime, the fact that there is, so to speak, one witness, and a witness repeatedly caught in lies, who, so to speak, had a clear...

interest that stole from the same trump out of these 130 thousand, it turns out he pocketed 60.00 there, well, in general, a completely indecent witness, now the matter is acquiring such a character that indeed, the leading candidate from the republican party could simply be sent to prison, i think that this will not happen, but they are trying seriously, yes, but in my opinion this is already the end of the jokes, it’s not here ...

really a universal dead end, it’s not only connected with military actions, but with this too, this so-called rule of law, which we were talking about so pathetically just now, but 136 years in this particular case, or 700 or something, all together, and so it’s against biden , excuse me, the same thing there has been complicated for 400 years, it seems to me, that is, they have all arrived, they are in a dead end, they are looking for a way out of this dead end at the expense of us, everyone else living on this planet, this cannot be allowed to them, this is the last phrase that... i wanted you to repeat, being at a dead end, they are looking for a way out at the expense of us, not only the russians, but at the expense of all of us, they are looking for a way out, we are faced with such an interesting situation, this is what

is really opposing us, it was a big game, we will meet tomorrow on the air. the captivating sweetness of his poems will pass through centuries of hanging distance, in it the glory of youth will sigh, silent sadness will be consoled and playful joy will reflect. to the poet's anniversary. get away from the stereotype, which in the old days was stubbornly put into one’s head like this, pushkin is a friend of the decembrists, that’s it, that’s where it all ended, naturally, he was a friend of the decembrists,

his friends were pushchin, and kuchelbecker, and many other decembrists, but pushkin grew up, changed, and some elementary... slogans, freedom, equality, brotherhood, no longer satisfied him, so he had some - additional questions, what kind of freedom, what kind of equality, here’s the second one, well, you and i have already talked about the history of the decembrists, these were people who certainly tried to do something for the benefit of russia and the russian people, but at the same time, of course, they relied, for the most part, on western experience, but as for alexander sergeevich, the late alexander sergeevich, judging by what we have at our

disposal, well, let’s say, rather coolly, he remembers this much less often,

i don’t want to exchange him for the fourth, for goodness’ sake they’re not looking, well, it’s like a joke, but as they say, every joke has a grain of joke, well, as for pavel, there ’s nothing special to say, pavel hated catherine’s entire legacy, including fashion, so the fact that he made a remark to little sasha’s nanny, this it is clear that it concerns alexander pavlovich, alexander i. then pushkin wrote very evil epigrams on him, well-known, unlike even the west, which honored the tsar for the victory over napoleon, pushkin, well, at best, considered him a crafty and hypocritical person, and as for the victory over

napoleon, he has phrase: accidentally warmed by glory, one can argue with pushkin’s position on this matter, but... one way or another , the attitude towards alexander i was exactly like that, with nicholas i everything is much more complicated, because in addition to the personality itself.

that one autocrat, another autocrat is one thing, but the political platform itself, so to speak, autocracy, has it already worked out its resource, or can it also serve to benefit russia, and finally, are russia and the russian people even ready for this radical change ? political system, strictly speaking, all these questions, as i imagine in mikhailovsky , were spinning in pushkin’s head, so to speak, and

like any person, he matured gradually, and rethought a lot, here is pushkin wrote that blazhin, who was young from a young age, who matured into old age, pushkin matured in mikhailovsky, this meeting of nikolai and pushkin, during this audience, here they both, if not... to say closer, well, closer to each other, and the personality of nikolai himself, she, too, may have some special sympathy there. it wasn’t, but nevertheless, here are pushkin’s lines: no, i’m not a flatterer, when i offer free praise to the tsar, i boldly express my feelings, i speak my heart with my tongue, i simply fell in love with him, he cheerfully, honestly rules us, russia, suddenly he revived with war, hopes, labors, well, it’s clear what kind of war, then

further, oh no, although youth is boiling in him, but the spirit of the sovereign is not cruel in him, to him... whoever he punishes clearly, he creates the secret of mercy, here again, the topic of the decembrists immediately flashes through, because pushkin will always call on nicholas for mercy towards the decembrists, here this is another hint, in this case the first, yes, but then there will be more, pushkin’s attitude towards the autocracy has definitely changed, in this you are completely are right, if at the beginning there is contentment, only there is over the royal head suffering has not come to the people, where powerful laws are firmly combined with holy freedom...

to set nicholas as an example of peter in the stations of the twenty-sixth year, be proud of your family resemblance, be like your ancestor in everything, how tirelessly firm he is, and how not

evil he is in memory , again a hint that the decembrists should be pardoned, per peter the great, also a famous poem by pushkin, where he calls to spare the scabby, to spare the decembrists, but it must be said that nicholas i did not correspond to this image of the merciful tsar, and pushkin was here, well, they were here personal moments related to the fact that pushkin received nikolai’s promise that nikolai would be his censor, in the end it was other people, the chief of the third department, benkendor, and, accordingly, people from the gendarme corps, such as dubelt, for example, that’s all- still a little different than the personal tsarist censorship. yes, relations with the tsar, poet, tsar, yes, here, here is an equal conversation, which pushkin imagined at the beginning, but it did not take place, after all, so in pushkin’s diary on may 21, 1934 nikolai will write, in it a lot from the ensign and a little from peter the great, and then he added an opinion, captain of metropolitics, emperor nicholas is more positive, he has false ideas, like

his brother, meaning alexander i, but he is less fantastic, nicholas, who is with us. soviet times were depicted as a completely unambiguous figure, but the figure was still quite complex. anna fedorovna tyucheva, maid of honor, who left a wonderful diary, a unique historical source, a very valuable source, wrote about nicholas i like this: nicholas i was a don quixote autocracy don quixote was terrible and malicious, because he possessed omnipotence, which allowed him to subordinate everything to his fantastic outdated theory and trample underfoot the most legitimate aspirations and rights of his age. at the same time, she wrote in nikolai:

and the fact that the government is the main bearer of enlightenment is a very important factor for him, no matter what, but still, well, there is a well-known expression, pushkin is our everything. repeats it continuously, but at the same time does not take into account the fact that this formula,

the changing government, very often adjusts, so to say, to suit his own size, and from all this he simply crosses out some part, well, we said that for some time he was exclusively a friend of the decembrists, while everything else seemed to be left aside. here we know such a very liberal work of a birthing journey from st. petersburg to moscow, and some thoughts became a manifesto of such a liberal intelligentsia, well, the phrases i looked around my soul became wounded by human suffering, such an amazing campaign in... our studio cats, dogs, birds, everyone who lives in your homes, what are the benefits of pets for each of

us, an amazing topic, let's talk about this and much more, in the program, live healthy, tomorrow on the first, for the poet's anniversary, pushkin is really not just our everything , but this is what is possible, does it again again, it is clear to a foreign viewer, what is also clear to a russian viewer, who will definitely come to the familiar name, the first film based on pushkin was made in 1907, moreover, it was a sound film, the queen of spades bondarchuk , of course, takes boris godunov himself plays boris gudunov, what is this? they make luxurious clothes for the boyars, trying to reproduce the clothes of that time. pushkin as a space industry enriches. civil proceedings, something like that, yes podcast lab, tomorrow on the first,

it will be hot, what, where, when, summer series of games, on sunday on the first, this is a podcast russia and the west on the swing of history, today our focus is alexander sergeevich pushkin. hello, knowing well about this work of the birth one, we rarely remember, so to speak, unfinished, true, a work by pushkin, a journey from moscow to st. petersburg. and, i would say, pushkin is a brilliant stylist, and so in this work he doesn’t... punitively, as if, directly, oppose radishchi’s book, he does, he took this book with him, and

in fact, along the way, this means that he speaks critically, on many points he criticizes radishchev, he defends moscow, radishchev spoke in favor of st. petersburg, he defends. an english lord, introducing himself to his king, kneels and kisses his hand; this does not prevent him from being in opposition, if he so desires. wants, we sign every day

as our most humble servants, well, signature, your humble servant, yes, it was customary then, but at the same time, as pushkin says, and no one concludes from this that we are asking to become commercial merchants, there is in this work... hair they will stand on end, how many disgusting tortures, incomprehensible torments, what cold barbarity on the one hand, on the other, what

terrible poverty? this is an attempt to complicate the overly simplified image of the poet, to return, as it were , everything to ours, what was intended from this, so to say, seized. it seems to me that pushkin’s attitude towards stealing is somewhat more complicated, but i’ll start them a little from afar. in 1825, pushkin wrote a comment on the annals of tacetus, where

he spoke sharply of the roman writer for his one-sided criticism of tiberius, for the fact that tiberius was exclusively a fiend of evil, and pushkin strives for maximum objectivity and the purely anti-despotic rhetoric of tacetus, who at the same time ignores state merits of tiberius, but he is not satisfied, but they exist, they exist, of course, that is, for him he just an executioner of everything, in the 1830s pushkin in... again turns to anals, only now he does not destroy the desire for freedom for the sake of historicism, tats is close to him again, as once in decembrist times, as in 1822 , because that he constantly returned to this figure, pushkin generally has such a rethinking of specific texts, and a rather characteristic story, so, but he is close to him not in his historical views now, but as a person who is trying to speak out against the tide of history, which preserves the ideal a free individual, this is a slightly different

view. already the third opinion, pushkin does not just justify autocracy and, in contrast , promotes the independence of the individual, this is the idea according to which the individual must resist the pressure of power, not dissolve before power, the same idea is in the article about radishchev, which he wrote for a contemporary, which was prohibited, there ’s this thing, when pushkin writes about radishchev, here you need to try very hard to do it, to separate where he writes about radishchev for the sake of censorship, because radishchev’s work... remained prohibited, and where he is trying to somehow push through a conversation about radishcheva, after all, a very important figure for russian culture, for the self-awareness of the same decembrists, for the self-awareness of pushkin himself there and so on, yes, where he writes for the sake of censorship , dragging through some thoughts of the parent, some ideas, there, for example, in a conversation about marriages, for example, on a trip from moscow to st. petersburg, yes, but he writes there that forced marriages remain an evil, but i’m not quoting verbatim, but close to the text,

responding to the corresponding chapter. from books of the one who gave birth, and yet in this article for a contemporary there is sympathy for radishchev and a desire to convey some news about him, so he writes: we never considered radishchev a great man, his act always seemed to us a crime, inexcusable , and the trip to moscow is a very mediocre book, but with all that we cannot help but recognize him as a criminal with the extraordinary spirit of a political fanatic. erring, of course, but acting with amazing selflessness and a kind of knightly conscience. that's what's important. by the way, pushkin is precisely why the question of knightly conscience and self-sacrifice occupies his pedigree, because in the past the poet’s ancestors, as he wrote, were spoiled by their stubborn spirit, when his ancestors, for example, spoke out against peter, but he was generally for peter, sort of. , but at the same time, the fact that they dared to resist the autocrat for...

the knee, but he broke russia over the knee not only, not so much as a result of his peculiar character, of course, but because it would be... necessary for russia, russia lagged behind europe needed it, so to say, to move forward, even despite the fact that you, so to speak, quoted from pushkin, laziness and inability, the reluctance of the people to move forward, in this case the state should be a kind of pusher, or something, yes, a locomotive that drags along society, i’m talking about peter, there were in our history.

time shouts forward, as if into revolution, yes, and those who slow down development, it punishes both of them, everything must be done on time, speaking about these deep-seated processes, it must be said that pushkin in relation to the west, i was irritated by this phenomenon, which can be called later in relation to pushkin’s times, by the term bourgeoisification of morals, in the movement to the first place of coristi, one can recall the stingy knight, by the way , yes... in this regard, but besides this there is quite a lot of pushkin writes in epigrams about literary businessmen, he saw the penetration of bourgeois relations into literature, and although pushkin is the creator, one of the creators of the profession of a professional writer, i apologize for the taftology that earns

literature, for whom literature is not some kind of hobby, like the former nobles, like derzhavin, fonvizin, and so on, but a person who is professionally engaged in literature is some kind of serf, in general , yes, who... you can so to speak, to give a sop to the front. pushkin makes the profession of a writer, a respected, significant profession, he says that you can earn money with this, but at the same time the bourgeoisification of morals, well , remember his famous, yes, that inspiration is not for sale, you can sell a manuscript, and so those who sell inspiration evoke contempt in him, he writes epigrams in this regard on bulgarin, and even on a trip from moscow to st. petersburg he characterizes such bourgeois standards as follows: in literature: now the last list. ready for any kind of private meanness, loudly preaches independence and writes nameless libels about the people before whom he spreads out in their office. in addition, for some time now literature has become a profitable craft for us, by the way, through the efforts of alexander sergeevich himself. and the public is able to give more

money, rather than than his excellency so-and-so or his excellency so-and-so. be that as it may, i repeat that form means nothing. lomonosov and crepe are worthy of the respect of all honest people, despite their humble dedications. and gentlemen n. i mean bulgarin, who is still contemptuous, despite... the fact that in their books they preach independence and that they dedicate their writings not to a kind and intelligent nobleman, but to some scoundrel liar like them. this is the combination of bourgeois morals with pushkin is categorically not satisfied with literature, he cannot stand philistinism, he cannot stand philistinism in the abusive sense of the word philistinism. the british government has been infecting its citizens with the human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis c for 20 years. risha suna is still the country's prime minister. apologized for what he had done, but time has come to an end, and he is attacking the liborists, they are to blame for the emergence of hiv and hepatitis of british subjects money is the main incentive, he is already richer than the king, and there is no cake in this pie

will refuse under no circumstances. illegal migration has placed an unbearable burden on our entire security system. suna says that russia is also to blame for this, it simply trades people, at the same time, of course, there is drug trafficking, the state has always been a state. artificial englishmen, dolls of the heir tutti, tomorrow on the first. fine art is confined to a small circle of professionals, money is paid for it, big money, sometimes very big, but almost no one sees it, that is, if i can’t imagine a person who, without knowing anything, suddenly becomes an artist, and i believe that

every person will become an artist, absolutely, if he treats this freely, your exhibition should perform the same function as a politician’s speech, so it should be addressed to a specific viewer, a specific group and produce some kind of then the result. clothes are one of the optimal means of self-expression, but in everyday life people rarely take advantage of this opportunity. i began to think how i can do the same thing so that... for me, fashion is a reflection of time, a reflection of all types of art, the artist, shapes time, he gives time, form. matador on friday on the first.

happiness, this is home, these are loved ones, relatives, a synonym for the word harmony, oh, this is communication with children, their energy, i am recharged, it’s definitely great, we are often confused, if someone sees us, everyone says, oh, twins, take care of yours children, raise them with dignity, honestly, nobility, and be an example to them, our main family values. it is mandatory to tell each other the truth, to always listen to each other, to always understand, we were raised in such a way that we would always help people, our life is more comfortable because we are kinder, we want to confess our love to our native country, country, we love you, we continue the conversation about the figure of the great russian poet. alexander sergeevich pushkin. pushkin writes an article by john

tanner, dedicated to a work of art, where he accuses democracy in america, with amazement they saw democracy in its disgusting cynicism, in cruel prejudices, in its intolerable tyranny, everything noble, selfless, all-elevating the human soul, suppressed by the inexorable selfishness and passion for contentment, in parentheses comfort in english, and he writes about the picture of the united states, which was set as an example, and he writes about '. you need to understand that russian literature, it also existed in the 19th century, to a large

extent in the 20th century under conditions of censorship, therefore our writers have language skills, starting long before pushkin, yes, krylov, derzhavin and so on, yes, skills from the language were very strong, yes, well, let’s go back to the decembrists for a second, because the decembrists, among them there were a lot disagreements, they discussed a lot. and they diverged, and yet, so to speak, such a fundamental thesis, which still united them, was a movement, as it were, towards freedom, yes, that’s it, although, well, if you remember the same pestel, then in order to achieve freedom, he assumed a dictatorship , a very tough dictatorship, and for several generations, so that the spirit would disappear altogether.

that the majority of the decembrists also did not understand such drastic changes in the political system in russia at that time, well, they could hardly do without dictatorship,

but the more he becomes disillusioned with nicholas, the more he again defends the ideal of a free personality, even in the genre... he chooses at the end of his life this monument, yes, his famous poem, he is also ambivalent about power, a brilliant bronze horseman, where on the one hand is peter, yes, this is still the engine of progress, on the other hand, it begins with what, yes, on the shore of deserted waves, yes, he stood full of the thoughts of the great , and then this power, this ruler,

tramples the little man, eugene , this ambivalence of power, pushkin grasps and defends it, which he comes to at the end of his life, there is his also not the most famous poem from spendemonti, i will not quote it in full, but a few fragments, it is short, very worthy of attention: for power, for levrea, do not bend no conscience, no thoughts, no neck, this is the most important thing, the ideal of a free personality, here we see that both narrowly understood liberal ideals and monarchical ideals are in general equally far from the poet and - pushkin here, one might say, is polemicizing partly with the decembrists, with monarchists, remains in his own position, according to which, in general, the highest judge is, this, this is a poet, this is a free person, he was, of course, a great poet,

undoubtedly, of course, a patriot, but if we say anything in conclusion our topic, then...

how to somehow combine it into a single whole, well, i don’t know, i’m not sure that alexander sergeevich, if he had lived longer, would have found the answer to this, because so far no answer has been found to this question who, if you ask the question of whether pushkin was a westerner, then in in the literary and poetic sense, of course , the west, and of course, byron, the slavs, and, accordingly, it is known from what source what happened, yes, and so on, but at the same time , alexander ivanovich hertsin was also right, who stated that in response to the challenge of peter, the westernizing challenge peter, russia responded with the genius of pushkin. pushkin is a synthetic genius who synthesized russian tradition, yes, with western tradition. pushkin, of course, is truly

a patriot, for pushkin a child of the twelfth year, he himself wrote about it, and for him it is fundamentally important: patriotic war twelfth year, he, among the slanderers of russia, sharply responds to those who ...