[000:00:00;00] ladies who speak a lot and speak for a very long time in support of ukraine in particular, engage in education, this is anne applebaum, the historian and croatian writer slavenka drakulic, and here are ms. slovenka and ms. anne, they stated that in fact we are wrong when so sharply radically, we are talking about the russians, we need to rely on them, that there is dissidence there. there are still good people there, and that's why we need to have a dialogue with them and somehow try to be friends, so that we can be together, well, you understand everything, so that we can unite together and in every way to oppose this putin's regime, at the end of this discussion, two audience members from the hall asked questions, and i would not say that it was a direct conflict-conflict, but such a tense situation arose because, for example

, my colleague yana brinzeeva, a journalist in the hall, asked a question , the issue was that ms. slavenka had written her last book, and yana said that it was such a cold shower for her, because there the author described the russian mother of a fallen soldier and the ukrainian mother of a fallen soldier, and actually put they are about one plane, let's listen to this question, i.e. at the extreme point and so and so becomes a mother... who lost her son, lost her son, but the russian woman and the russian man could not come, could not kill, then do they have a common experience, then or when we are talking about the fact that this experience is shared, are we not blurring the line between good and evil, well, now let's listen to what ms. slavenka answered, by the way, it is a very common situation when foreigners, and this happens quite often in the russian media,

when... you know the search, here it is from ukrainian from the side of the victim, from the russian side of the victim, let's look at these people and understand that war is the same for everyone, well , let's listen to the writer's answer, and i also do not agree with you that the mother of a young russian man who was accused of war crimes, that she might have influenced his attitude, his ... actions, or his decision to join the army, the emphasis in this story is on the mother who loses her son, and that's what puts them in a similar, similar situation , and even more tension occurred when they were also staged from the hall the question is already anne applebown, and the viewer, she said that she had a lot of russian friends, she lived somewhere abroad, and all these

russian friends. who called themselves liberals, but they did not even ask after the start of the full-scale invasion how she was, if she was alive, instead, they began to worry not about solving the situation, but if they would remove responsibility from themselves, if they would also impose the status of victims on themselves, which mrs. anna, i think i reacted enough, but she didn't like the question, and here i'm imagining it again... developed this problem of ours, so when our speakers, cultural diplomats talk about how they are trying to prove something to someone abroad, and they are called radical, too emotional, that you are traumatized, in general, it is racism to reduce the entire russian nation to some absolutely dekun there, uncivilized people who cannot change, and here is mrs. ann, let's finally listen to what she said, i prefer that we stay on the plane of ideas, there may

be another idea. of russia, the nation that is based on the values ​​that you adopted in ukraine and i refuse, i refuse to accept that someone inherits evil through mother's milk or any such formula like that, i think it is very important for ukrainians to remember that, you can be russia, but have other ideas about your country, well, about the whole situation... we will talk about this situation in more detail , we have discussed it before and will discuss it more than once, we will discuss the issue of communication, how can we continue to convince people, foreigners, especially those who support us, and not to confuse them trust, not to destroy this friendship between us, how to prove our agenda, our

opinion, which, let's be honest, is not heard in intellectual circles, in particular, we will talk with my colleague, journalist, and poet olena huseynova. elena, hello, hello, now we will fight again, yes, say that no one understands us, but ... the situation seems to me on the one hand, sometimes i fall into a rut, but when i hear such things, especially when foreigners, support those whom we call good russians, i.e when we understand that these people are not oppositionists, and we caught them more than once on some completely stupid theses, like yulia latynina, who once again wrote some nonsense on twitter, but still, if we talk about mrs. applebaum herself, she is a person who is very aware of our situation, she is not a person who does not know at all what is happening here in ukraine, and she is also you, well, as it turned out, in many moments, in key issues, does not

support us, and that is why i have a question, er, why do you think that foreigners still do not they understand us in this fairly radical negative attitude towards russians, hello. hello, and i want to say right away for the audience that, unfortunately, i cannot assess what happened at the discussion you are talking about, because in book form, journalists, as a rule and generally people who work in the book field, they er, create these events to a large extent, which are attended by er , consumers of the book cultural product, and i missed this discussion, because at this moment... the radioculture studio was writing to the outgoing person, another colleague of ours, from great britain, charlotte higgens, she is the main cultural columnist of the guardians, she has written a lot in her life,

for example about classical music, but if you write about classical music, then obviously you are working with a russian cultural product and working with those who promote it, represent it , who's talking about him, and charlotte are very consistent in saying things that are important to us , she's actually been saying since the beginning of the full-scale invasion that this is a culture war, and the war is not over territory, it's not over resources, it's about topics culture and for culture, this is our cultural war, she very quickly begins to analyze the post-colonial contexts of this war and our anti-imperial resistance on the pages of the guardian. and i, she is quite so radical, she says, for example, don't try with ukrainians, writes in one of the texts to talk

about the mysterious russian soul, because they will immediately say the word shit to you, and, and she does it fearlessly, here i am i fearlessly asked her, and she said: "no, all my, i'm my support for ukraine." and theses that i express, in particular, which about russian culture and the relationship of ukrainian russian culture never provoked aggression, and that the only aggression that she experienced, but it was actually this almost bullying campaign, when she tweeted that she started learning ukrainian , and then suddenly on twitter there were very, very many comments and very aggressive ones. regarding the fact that she supports the fascists there, and around this in a certain type of speech, yes, functioning, structuring speech, it all revolved around,

and while she was saying this, she was so very it was an ironic conversation, she was joking about herself, but there was a lot of self-irony, but then suddenly, she stopped being self-ironic, i understood that she had experienced, certain... pain, and she suddenly started talking about it, that it was extraordinary unpleasant, but, but i immediately thought that i have nothing to complain about, because my friends in ukraine are going through worse things, but what does this mean, why i mention it now, it means that part of the information space that functions in - westerns for westerns, and in western europe. in velika britain or america, it is saturated with someone with a very clear agenda, that is, the algorithms are somehow adjusted, or there is some kind

of bot farm there, which is managed when, a visible journalist talks about the fact that she started learning the ukrainian language, and this is not just talking, that this is a colonial war, this is to become one of the experts, this is to demonstrate a very mature attitude towards this culture, this is to accept it, to make it a culture to a large extent, yes, there are people who are ready to attack this decision. and it says that this space, it is very complex, and probably we we still do not fully understand it, we do not fully understand how anti-ukrainian narratives and pro-russian narratives are created , function and spread in the information space in european countries, in great britain or in the united states or in asia or in latin america, taking into account that is a lot of countries, if

we concentrate in communication on european countries, okay, on the united states, but if we talk about the conventional global south, we didn’t even talk about any issues there. asia, and some other things, but here are a few writers who are currently in the book form, they are now discussing on the sidelines their trains to the countries of the global south, that is, this is the kind of work that, in particular, our colleagues in the book form are also working on, and what they, to put it in a general way, what are they doing there, what did they see there, that there is no communication with us at all , these are trips that are just being prepared, so we will wait, but iryna tsylyk returned from mexico, and she generously shared her observations, but i to the point that we do not understand how this information circulates, in me there is a feeling that we do not fully understand, and sometimes we do not understand at all, how this or that of our thesis, which we publicly... voice for

the western communities, in the western media, or in the american, or british, or even not in western, generally global, non-ukrainian, in the outside world, we do not know what it causes, what structures begin to work , how it begins to be interpreted, where it is spoken about, where it is written about, what kind of context it acquires and grows, and that , that, there was an area where the discussion took place. with where we didn't get along with apple, or where we didn't get along with slavenka drakulich , this is a signal, i think, very dangerous, it means, i think, that we have to understand what's going on in this communication field, and a and until we understand, we have no tools with which we can fearlessly go into this field, because saying what you think and what really is is a good thing, but... if we

get into a situation, in to which our words change, our words, overinterpreted, or from our sentences, for example, when quoting, in some western media loses the part no, no, or some other things happen, or some very specific context is added , then by being honest and saying... very necessary things, we can probably do something, the result of which we can't measure, uh, yes, or the result, which we will not like, because every time, uh, when our speakers try to convey this thesis to the na na these on this panel, it was the same, well, actually about the fact that russia cannot be changed, there must, well, no one understands what must be done,

but these people are... in many cases incurable, here the speakers try to explain it, some from a political point of view, some from a philosophical point of view, and this topic is not accepted, even by people who sympathize with us, because it seems like such deaconry , how can you all on rhetoric is dangerous, but i don't know if you hear that the rhetoric that some nation is incurable, it is dangerous, and obviously, again, i'm not ready to analyze this discussion, because it should ... to find time to listen to her, and this is also a good moment, which we can say, you didn't miss all these discussions, you saved the moment , friends, when you can return to them, they are all recorded, er, they will be, there will be access to them, and it will be possible to listen to it all again, because this is a conjunction, it even i am confused, and if i try to imagine that it is not me who hears him, but some conventional researcher of totalitarian crimes who writes books about it. let's not even, well conditionally yes, if i try

to listen with such an ear, then this thesis is even more dangerous, at least it sounds peresian, and, therefore, i would, for me, the question of what is happening to russian culture, it is open, and for me too, i am very confused that this could be allowed, what happened in, let's say, in the third year of 90, that it is so easily happened. and that after, let's say, parliamentarianism disappeared from the history of russian politics, no one started something that could bring this parliament back, or that demonstrated the understanding of the community that they had lost something, something irreparably important, or when, her chechen military campaign began

campaign, yes, i too, there were much more reactions, but nevertheless, they did not turn into something that would give signals to the community, and i am more confused that russian poetry, yes, because i think about us, thinking about what made it possible for this dialog within ukrainian society, for example, i think about poetry that was not political in the 90s, it was very, it was love lyrics very often, or just poetry that echoed what we lived in . on some existential questions and contexts, but what should happen happened, with in the language, uh, there was this rift where you saw real life coming through a lot of things, let's say through the darkrooms, the ones that were

there in the 90s on television, and this rift in the language, there, that only art can do writing and poetry, first of all, he gave the territory of freedom from which such dialogues began are already imperceptible, it seems to me that a lot of things begin in poetry, in particular in fiction, in principle, and for me the question is why all these quite successful russian writers with large editions of books, from large audiences who came to listen to their poetry, could not untangle this territory of language enough for any events to take place there. processes and whether it is obvious that this is due to the fact that this is a culture in which violence has a special status, and, and this is obviously a problem, of russian culture, how to work with it, and we do not see, i do not see, at least, that work

with this took place, or it would have been somehow effective, i have said this many times that for me, the territory is russian, for me, the military who cross the border, there is a private with ukraine and they enter ukrainian cities and commit russian war crimes, a little, they scare me a little less than russian intellectuals, who were unable to create such a space in culture for these people, where they could protect themselves from the need to go to war. criminals, i don't know if that phrase was clear, me, me too, by the way, it confuses me, because when i see people, the russian military, they're just there , it's clear what they're doing, yes, especially those under the influence of propaganda, and when you come into contact with the people you can meet there

interpreted as intellectuals, with educated people who speak different languages, who know literature, philosophy, and so on, and you understand that they do not really understand what they are talking about, it becomes a little bit like that these, military, russian soldiers who enter ukraine, this is a person they did not watch out for, they are like those who work with the word, with culture, with education, with media, they who are responsible for this entire space, they are all this this person should have been vaccinated so that he knew exactly what not to do it is possible, and she could resist. and what is happening now is a whole class of people who did not watch out for those, for whom they were supposed to, whom they should watch out for by virtue of their profession, but at the same time, alenko, look, we have talked more than once about the fact that our influence will lose for now, yes, well, if we talk about

culture, about some intellectual things, after all, they are now stronger than us, well , if only because they have been engaged in this consistently for a long time, they have built for themselves. the names, while we were sitting here, were brewing and generally on culture was not taken into account, because it is something out of time, it is some kind of bullshit, yes, we had bows at the end, at the end of news releases, if we are talking about journalism, you take off the bow, that is oksana zabuchka, that is our bow , but they were engaged in this, so, accordingly, masha hesan herself already has a name that is loud enough and she has influence, and we are just starting to do it, just... we are starting to make up for it, how do you see this process , if we take the last one and a half years, yes, when we were sloppy, forgive me, there is progress, we gain weight on the international. i think that we broke up in the 14th year, after all , we started a little bit, you think, and i think that even more, that is, in the 14th year we

broke up at the level of institutions, we began to build them, on 22 -th year, these were still young institutions, which for part of these almost ten, almost eight years at that time were engaged simply in their framework, and, just to understand the structure of these institutions, big actions. it could not be yet, because these are newborn institutions that were supposed to be engaged this soft power, communications to the outside, representation of ukrainian culture, development of discourse, these are all very young , the platforms and people who are engaged in it have only just begun to engage in this, but we must not forget everything that happened in 1991 and it was based on personal charisma, well, it’s a hundred, because quite recently we have one of these institutions, the ukrainian institute, they opened

a representative office in paris, and a person who deals with this in particular told me that in fact we were almost invisible in france has all these the years of our independence, let's say, slovianka drakulich, who comes to ukraine, is slovianka drakulich, whom oksana zabushko met in the 90s at one of the festivals, and the fact that the slovenian woman did not lose contact with her whenever possible to publish her book and for her to come to ukraine, she continued this dialogue, it obviously depends on how they met, or claudia date, a german translator who made incredible efforts for the presence of ukrainian culture, in general, for many, many years in a row, without having no institutional support, but after february 24, 2022, the efforts were simply incredible , just to translate, to make this tape in ukrainian in the german news, for those

who came, she was the translator of yuriy andruhovych, everyone in one way or another, obviously this in some private things, but everything was explained as it was explained and led us to where it led, we are very young in this sense, we are very young in the way we present ourselves, how we talk about ourselves, and we do not understand, i it seems that we do not understand how it is arranged, and from the fact that we do not understand, how this information space is arranged, and we don't have a lot of resources in the end , we lose because we don't do this post-production, and how there is production, then post-production, and then distribution, and this is about cinema, when says, so here we are, in my opinion, a little better than a simple ancestor. us with distribution , we still have problems, and here we are talking about an idea, an

idea that seems to us to be saving and so working, on some international platforms, and we can express it, but formalize it further, so that it becomes, i will say this word now, but probably a better word , viral and visible, which everyone would like to support, we do not have enough resources, already resources for it to enter everyone in everyone to everyone in my head, and in every tv, in every morning newspaper, we don't have enough of them, and i'm not sure, but i have a feeling that those who work for russian culture have more of this resource and skill, ah , yes, such a thought occurred to me too, but i just see that we are working, we are advancing, i think we are not very that's enough, we talked with you before the broadcast, er, a discussion, first a professional, closed one, then a wider one, and we have literally five minutes left, and i want

to talk with you specifically about the perception of literature in the middle of the country, that's why that it has intensified, and those literary scandals that constantly happen in our country, on the one hand, they confuse me, on the other hand, they make me happy, because so many people who were never interested in ukrainian literature at all, even started reading, went to read kurkov after this recent scandal , you are on in the eyeliner said that if you have never been to the book arsenal, then it looks like a sea of ​​people, events, a sea of ​​people there, has not always been there, that is, it is actually such a discovery, recent, such large audiences at poetry events, at literary readings, at the discussions, i really see, if not for the first time, such attention, such a desire to hear, such a desire to discuss. gathering, i had not seen it before, and it seems to me that execution is the reverse side of this, and if everyone came and listened,

read some writer, then in moment... when more complicated things happen, such ambiguous theses are expressed, the audience of this ambiguity is also not the same as it was 10, 10 years ago, when it was you, me and some other friend of ours and her friend, and so now all these people who come to listen to poetry readings, or a literary discussion, or a cultural discussion, they then follow all the rest of the context, and the degree is a little different here. this is certainly simple, and we are still a little too ourselves, not us, globally, we are with you, yes, but the community reacts a little too sharply, i mentioned it, korkov korkov, and despite the fact that i do not , i do not understand his decision, but, masha, it is about our viewers, i will tell you what it is about,

i will remind you, maybe you heard, mr. andrii agreed to the discussion ... with masha heson, masha heson is a journalist, my god, i am with those non-binary people in the ukrainian language, they should be called, in the process of working out, yes to binary people, they should say, but it is not clear how the journalists then, in one word, these are journalists who made a whole mess in in may, around, well, the refusal, around the decision of our ukrainians... who came to new york for the festival, did not refuse to participate in this festival, because russian, various representatives took part there, and the organizers had to apologize to our ukrainians and to ask for a way out, it was the russians and masha hesson, who moderated and were supposed to moderate this discussion of theirs, were very indignant and began everywhere on sufficiently authoritative platforms to talk about cruel

ukrainian authors who insult their russian colleagues like this. masha guesen's reaction was that we got memeuranian cruel writers, cruel ukrainian writers, and this meme, he, was not born from the wit of masha gesen , he was born from the mockery of a comment made by anton chipai, who said that he, as a military man, was signing a document that he would not to have contacts with citizens of russia, and this phrase was before... distorted, changed, turned into an unreliable one, with which, they say , our writers are forbidden, and this kind of game with information, it seems to me the most terrible, and, and we do not understand, like this happening and we now what i'm talking about we can't control it and we can't the situation what's done actually we

can't show it in the media we still don't have the channels enough allies , and precisely because what masha hessen did led to another fake , regarding a very transparent and very understandable situation in which ukrainian writers were involved, that is why she, they seem to me, are not the interlocutors with whom you can be on one panel, but despite the fact that i don't understand andriy kurkov's position. i think he didn't do anything that would cause such a wave of hate, eh, there is that, there is rhetoric that andriy cheh chose, and it was exactly what it could have been, and it is the rhetoric of the srach, which appeared afterwards, which already spoke about the fact that we will not be able to come to an understanding, or in the end understand why andriy made such a decision, because between us, who have questions, and andriy, who can give

answer, there is this wave, and what should we do? so that the waves do not prevent us from understanding each other, because it is obviously a matter of communication with colleagues from russia, with russians, it must find some form, but while this senseless aggressive wave will grow between the one who wants to ask and the one who is ready to answer, nothing will happen, and here is an interesting question, where does it come from this wave, and i am a person who survived the russian wave. it seems to me that we need to think about whether there is also some structure or configuration of the information space that we do not notice, and where we are also its masters, which supports all this, olenko, thank you, we talked about the lviv book forum, i will also say about these literary events, on the one hand, yes, they