“I have never seen a dumber war”: Timur Olevsky and Sergei Loiko about what is happening in Ukraine. "Paper. How many people are working on the program
Timur Olevsky DR
After the Ekho Moskvy radio station, journalist Timur Olevsky changed his work at the Dozhd TV channel to the Current Time project, at the same time changing Moscow to Prague. Elena Servettaz, as part of the project, found out from Timur Olevsky what topics other than “Crimea is ours” might be of interest to the Russian-speaking audience, how to work abroad and not cut ties with the homeland, and why a real journalistic “exodus” from Russia is still far away.
RFI: Let's start in order: how did it happen that from Russia through Ukraine you got to a radio station with American funding?
Pretty random. I did not imagine that I would end up in Prague and start working on the Present Tense. On one of my business trips to Donetsk, I met the employees of the radio station, and they invited me to take part in a television project. At first it seemed to me that moving from Russia to another country was too abrupt a change in my fate, even if I would make news, as I thought then, about Russia.
It's always strange when you do something without being on the scene. But it's actually an interesting experiment. This is professional news, professional journalistic investigations dedicated not only to Russia, but also to the countries of the former Soviet Union. There is a program in Ukraine, Georgia, Russia, we are watched in the Baltic states, respectively, the range of our interests is greater than Russia.
We do not make stories based on the descriptions of people who have heard something somewhere, we have our own correspondents who respond with their reputation
Timur Olevsky
Here, being in the center of the newsroom where we work, we collect information from our correspondents, build an agenda that seems interesting to us. And it turns out to be a very interesting story, because it turned out that when you are outside and look from the side, then some things are visible, maybe even better. So I ended up in Prague on the project "Present Time", where I now lead several programs.
On this occasion, many journalists are accused that, they say, you are in Paris/London/Prague/Washington and talk about what is happening in Crimea. This is the lightest reproach, it lies on the surface. Don't you think that in this way we are returning to the Soviet Union, when a person had no choice, and if he had, then between the BBC, which was jammed, Voice of America, Radio Liberty, RFI?
I will answer this very simply. We go out in Ukraine on the channel of our big information partner, they put our programs on the air grid, and they are shown completely openly. Our programs, including about Ukraine, are also popular, and in Ukraine there are no problems with access to information.
There are a lot of good media, a lot of good journalists, and different points vision sound on the air. If you manage to do interesting things that find their audience even in such a competitive information field, then it works quite well.
We do not make stories based on the descriptions of people who have heard something somewhere, we have our own correspondents who are responsible with their reputation for those messages, those reports that they make. But in Russia the situation is slightly different. In Russia, there are not so many media outlets that are not related to the Kremlin agenda, they can be counted on the fingers: it is “ New Newspaper”,“ Rain ”, partly RBC, partly“ Ekho Moskvy ”.
Everyone is interested in what is happening in America, but few people are interested in what is happening in Tajikistan or Kyrgyzstan.
Timur Olevsky
It seems to me that it is completely normal when another Russian-language media appears, which gives different points of view, talking about Russia and those countries that the federal Russian media always talk about quite charged.
Does it bring us back to the times of the USSR? In the case of Ukraine, this does not in any way return us to the times of the Soviet Union, in Russia, probably, partly yes. But still, there is a difference, because people who left to work for Svoboda or, for example, to Paris 30 years ago hardly thought that they would ever be able to return to their homeland.
Here we work not in exile and not in emigration. We travel to the countries from which we came, we keep in touch with the people who stayed there. Not all of my family, for example, moved to Prague, my wife continues to work in Moscow. That is, we do not break ties with our homeland, that's the point.
That is, it is probably too early to talk about some outcome of journalists? I just remember how Evgenia Markovna Albats said in one of the programs that yes, perhaps this is the exodus of journalists.
Yes, there is such a trend. But, firstly, Roman Super is in Russia, he is my colleague at Radio Liberty, he works in the Moscow bureau. And the outcome ... This is partly true, I guess. I am not speaking for myself now, I will try to generalize, maybe for my colleagues. For some, the issue is an acute shortage of jobs in publications with the professional standard to which they are accustomed.
We know that quite a few publications have been reformatted in Russia, they were bought out by managers who somehow did not want to spoil relations with the presidential administration, or simply closed for various reasons. After all, there is a crisis in the country, and for some, leaving for another country is an opportunity to simply survive in the profession.
In my case, the question was completely different. I had the choice to work on Dozhd (TK Dozhd) or on Present Tense, but I have a slightly different range of tasks than on Dozhd. I am not just a reporter-leader, but in a sense, with my colleagues, I take part in the layout of the information picture of the day, and this is a very curious experience.
So how Chief Editor?
Timur Olevsky on Maidan DR
I'm not the editor-in-chief, by no means. I am a co-author of my program, and this is curious. The project I'm working on is still television in the traditional way of how it should be done. Our resources, of course, cannot be compared with federal Russian TV channels, but we have an idea of how it should look like.
And then, it is always interesting to work on a new project. A project that is rising from scratch - and Current Time (“Present Time”) existed for only a year before I arrived there, that is, this is practically the start of the project.
To participate in something that is done with your own hands, together with colleagues with whom you share certain beliefs and points of view, is a very curious challenge, an experience that will definitely come in handy later.
In Prague, I often say out loud that I will one day return to Russia, and I should not be ashamed of what I have given here to the audience, readers and, in general, Russian citizens who can appreciate my work so as not to professionally drop some things . Anything can happen to any journalist - this is understandable. We try to think about it.
The viewer of the Dozhd TV channel remembered you, first of all, as one of the best reporters in Russia of recent times. In Current Time, you most likely will not have the opportunity to shoot and make such reports for which Timur Olevsky was remembered by everyone. You won't get bored?
That's flattering, thanks for kind words. It was very difficult in the beginning because, of course, I am a reporter, and when I was offered to work as a presenter, for me it meant learning something completely new in the profession. Plus, learn to trust correspondents, because it’s one thing - you yourself speak and are responsible only for your words, and another thing - you sit and comprehend the information, figure out how to present it more interesting, and you need to trust people who do the same thing that they did just recently I.
At first it was difficult for me to survive this psychological moment, but I am learning. This, in fact, is that part of the new in the profession that I am now discovering and studying for myself. I don’t know if it will always be like this, I still remain a correspondent in my heart, it seems to me, and someday I will break into some kind of business trip.
What can not but please your viewers. We have already begun to outline the geography of the places where they watch "Present Tense", as far as I understand, there is also Central Asia ...
And this is a very large part of the audience. I can say with great pride for this project that they make such amazing stories there, the existence of which people in Russia do not suspect at all. This is the whole world.
In Russia, as in Ukraine, and, probably, in any post-Soviet country the circle of interests closes around their own state or their own politics, economy, and few people follow what is happening, it would seem, with their neighbors. Everyone is interested in what is happening in America, but few people are interested in what is happening, say, in Tajikistan or Kyrgyzstan.
Because of this, some stories are missed that are interesting in themselves simply because they influence us - big stories that we didn't even know existed.
On my Facebook, I often post links to the reports of my colleagues from the project “Currently. Asia" simply because it is very curious.
In addition, we have our own pride. Our colleagues from the Pakistani edition of Svoboda made a video. At first glance, there is nothing special about him - an elderly man earns his whole life by carrying very heavy bags in a market in Peshawar, and talks about how he does this in order to earn money, and not beg. I think this story is hard to pass by. She unexpectedly collected one and a half million views on social networks. Such a number of views of a simple human story is hard to imagine, it impressed me, I realized that such stories are of interest to everyone.
Current Time wants to show a picture with other stories “from the republics”, as they say, and not just the news, like somewhere in Moscow, sorry, “watermelon traders smashed something” or robbed someone.
Of course, it seems to me that in Russia it is important to know how people live in the countries from which they come, for example, to Russia.
In addition, this is just a very interesting informational material, these stories can be thought about, discussed. I also liked one story - it did not get one and a half million - in small town Naryn in the north of Kyrgyzstan has retained a trolleybus fleet, in which, in my opinion, there is only one trolleybus. It was left only because the children ride it to school, and if they go on foot, they can be attacked by wolves and jackals.
It is impossible to find out about this in any other way than to make a report about it and show it. I think this is very interesting. It was interesting to me myself - I didn’t know anything about Naryn. Of course, I knew some things about the countries I visited, but, naturally, I lacked the skills to get to such human stories, such details, and now I enjoy it.
Your viewer from TV channel "Rain", the listener of "Echo of Moscow", did he switch with you to "Present Tense", or are they already other people?
Hard to say. If we are talking about Russia, then, probably, the audience of the Dozhd TV channel and the audience of Present Time overlap in many ways. As for the Ekho Moskvy radio station, probably not.
The audience of the radio station "Echo of Moscow" - people who are not so good at speaking for the most part social networks. It seems to me that, firstly, they listen to the station itself, and secondly, it has an established audience. Often these are people who do not get information from sources other than Ekho Moskvy, or at least I get that impression.
Still, Echo of Moscow and Dozhd differ greatly, especially now, they differed in their worldview, assessment of reality, some events taking place in the country - the editorial offices themselves and, accordingly, their audiences. The audiences of Dozhd and Ekho have never completely overlapped, and over time, the audience of Ekho Moskvy, as it seems to me, drifts following some official agenda.
Echo of Moscow, although it continues to be a radio station where people speak different opinions, but pro-state opinions are becoming more and more aggressively visible, respectively, they dominate simply because they sound brighter. But this is a difficult question.
In the small town of Naryn in northern Kyrgyzstan, a trolleybus fleet has been preserved, in which there is only one trolleybus. It was left only because the children ride it to school, and if they go on foot, they can be attacked by wolves and jackals.
Timur Olevsky
You see, it was still important for me, and it is important for us now, to maintain a balance of presentation of information with different parties. I, like any person, have my own values, in my case, related to humanitarian things, very understandable, but often forgotten in Russia, such as the value human life, the dignity of the individual.
I always keep this in mind when I make my stories. But these are good values, this does not mean that you need to distort information or not give someone the opportunity to speak. You just need to understand that ultimately people should respect each other.
When the whole story with Ukraine began, officials from Brussels and Washington spoke out about the need to fight back against Russian disinformation. You are now talking about balance and information that is presented from different angles. Don't you think that this particular position of the EU and the US was defeated in the story with Ukraine, because, in fact, there was no rebuff to Russian disinformation?
In fact, when the story with Ukraine began, talk about the need to give some kind of rebuff was just beginning. Then no international involvement in coverage Ukrainian events did not have. There were only Russian media, therefore, it seems to me that neither Europe nor America were ready for the fact that a real information war would begin around the events in Ukraine.
On the other hand, rebuff is a crafty thing, because propaganda is charged information, and counter-propaganda is information no less charged. We are not engaged in counter-propaganda, it is uninteresting and unprofessional to engage in it, we are engaged in information.
Oddly enough, good journalism always fights back against propaganda. Not counter-propaganda, which uses the same methods, but on the other hand, twisting information to present black to white. Objective information usually breaks the lies of propaganda. Another question is that this happens more slowly, because propaganda always gives a short-term and strong effect. It is necessary to accustom people for a long time and with high quality to search for information, analyze it, how an informational plot should look like and why you should not immediately trust a charged source that uses catchy words that have nothing to do with the vocabulary of professional journalism.
It seems to me that now Europe is ready and is trying to engage in counter-propaganda, but I think it will soon be clear that there can be no counter-lie for lies. There can only be truth to a lie, and the truth implies professionalism and standards.
Timur Olevsky, the only Russian journalist accredited in both Donetsk and Kyiv who was able to talk to the detainees Kostroma paratroopers who are now in a pre-trial detention center in Kyiv.
Olevsky: Hello, I'm Timur Olevsky, a journalist from the Dozhd TV channel from Russia. I was allowed to talk to you. If one of you does not want to answer some questions, if you do not want to, do not answer. You were videotaped.
Savosteev: The first video didn't record me.
Olevsky: Which of you were recorded? Please tell us how it was.
Postman: Yes, the video was recorded. Where, we don't know for sure. At least they didn't tell us where it was. The video was recorded without pressure on us. When we told everything, discussed what was happening, how it was, we shot a video of our own desire. The second video was recorded by the Kharkiv SBU, also without any pressure. After they fed us, questioned us, they took us outside and asked our parents to see, introduce ourselves, show that we are alive and well.
Olevsky: One of you in the video was in civilian clothes. Why were you in civilian clothes? Your mother, with whom I spoke in Kostroma, was just asking about this. She didn't understand it. She suggested that you suffered because of it.
Savosteev: No, everything was fine. It's just that the camouflage was very badly torn after the explosion. Remained in the same condition. To keep warm at night, people gave a sweater.
Olevsky: And when did you realize who detained you?
Savosteev: When we were captured, they explained to us that we were on Ukrainian territory and we are in captivity. None of us knew that we were on Ukrainian territory.
Olevsky: We don't understand how it even happened. There are various assumptions, including that there was a fight. How did it happen? Can you tell if you want?
Savosteev: Almost everyone from my platoon is sitting here. Our task was to advance in a convoy in the rear guard. That is, we had to cover the Crimea, escort the convoy to the exercises.
Olevsky: Are you treated like prisoners, like arrested people?
Generals: We are treated very well. The food here is very good.
Olevsky: Have you been given legal status?
Generals: No.
Olevsky: You still don't know who you are here as?
Generals: No. We are being interrogated as witnesses. According to the material of the interrogations, as they interrogated us directly here in Kyiv, my investigator said: "I want to interrogate you as a witness." I was interrogated as a witness. All were interrogated as witnesses.
Olevsky: If it's not a secret, were any of you asked about the events in Crimea during interrogations?
Postman: We were directly asked if we were in the Crimea. How can we be asked about the consequences if, for example, we were not there? They asked if they were there, to which they heard the answer: “No, we were not there.” So how can we tell something about Crimea?
Savosteev: As we were told, we will be handed over to our parents. Parents will come here and pick us up.
Generals: I have now communicated with the investigator, but this will be done after Russian side will give his consent. The Ukrainian government is ready, it will be done as a gesture good will in relation to the parents. Who is here, who got into this mess, we basically understood what really happened. Roughly speaking, a Ukrainian pilot has been captured, she will now be judged, no one will judge us here, although in principle we ...
Olevsky: Sorry for the question. When you were taught back in Kostroma, or no matter where, they probably explained to you political situation. How were the events in Ukraine explained to you? Unless it's a military secret, of course.
Postman: Explained what we saw on the news. And about the news that is shown in Russia, you must forget what exactly is shown there.
- You did not question this information in any way?
Postman: It was not possible to expose it, because we did not know what was happening here, so we believed what was shown on the news.
- Did you understand that you were going to Ukraine?
Postman: No. We were on our way to battalion-tactical exercises in the Rostov Region.
Savosteev: We were told that we were going to battalion tactical exercises. Everyone thought that these would be real exercises, because at intervals of several days other servicemen left for the same exercises, only in Chebakul. We constantly held some kind of exercises, a few days before our departure we arrived only from the exercises, from the field exit, and according to the plan, we were supposed to have the following exercises. They go one after the other. We were told that exercises would be held only in Rostov.
“However, four contractors got out of order when they said they would have to go to Rostov.
Postman: It was the contractors who had just arrived, we can say that they did not serve even a week.
Savosteev: Only those who came who passed the probationary period. Understand for yourself that you are half a civilian, and not everyone wants to go somewhere for three months.
Postman: An example of this, we were leaving for Tambov, we were also alerted, we left for three months. We also flew to Pskov for exercises, for tactical exercises of the same battalions. In principle, nothing new happened, all the same constructions, all the same preparations, relocations.
Savosteev: Everything was as usual. All the same boxes with a base: knives, axes, saws, matches. Ordinary life activity. Nothing was prepared either for war or for anything.
Olevsky: And among your group, which ended up here, were the dead?
Postman: We cannot answer this for you. We have one wounded, he was burned in the tank. He is now in the best surgery in Ukraine.
Savosteev: We were told that he is now in the Russian Federation for treatment, that everything is fine with him.
Olevsky: While you were here or on the way to the isolation ward, did you meet any other detained Russian military?
Postman: No.
Olevsky: Have you been contacted by your command?
Savosteev: No.
Olevsky: And you didn't get in touch?
Olevsky: That is, the official channels are not working yet?
Olevsky: Are any of you afraid of some claims from the leadership of the Russian Federation or the command due to the fact that you were captured, as is sometimes reported in some Russian TV channels?
- Wait and see.
- When you return home, will you return to the unit?
Postman: No.
Olevsky: Why not?
Postman: You will have to come for military tickets, for phones, for sim cards, for things. At least, after everything that happened, few people want to continue to serve. Teachings are not teachings, but having got into such troubles, I personally am reluctant to put pressure on my parents with all this that is obtained here. I'm leaving for exercises, no matter Sandy it's in Yaroslavl region, 30 kilometers from Kostroma, from the regiment or where, parents are always on their nerves, what is happening, where I am, how, what. At least I'm connected there. And there, having left, having lost contact, I imagine what is happening with parents in Russia now.
Olevsky: After you called, it got easier, actually.
Postman: It became easier. But still, parents are on their nerves because of this. And I just don't want my parents to continue to be nervous.
So it's just the parents?
Postman: Well, yes, it’s only about the parents, and I myself don’t want to get into such a mess again, not knowing whose fault it is.
Mitrofanov: Miraculously, we survived when the blast wave pushed you all out of the tank. Then the shelling began.
- Do you understand who fired, from which side?
Mitrofanov: No, you couldn't raise your head.
Postman: At that moment, you think about how not to get under this shelling, you don’t think about where they are shooting from.
Olevsky: Was there some kind of warning, flare?
Postman: No. We just stopped to establish contact with the battalion commander.
Mitrofanov: The commanders themselves did not know. We got lost there. At the crossroads, they drove back and forth, watching the wheels of the caterpillar pass. Didn't see anything where to go. We got lost.
- At what point did it happen? Was this before the fight started? When did you get lost?
Savosteev: We arrived at a crossroads. How it began: the column stopped, the company commander ordered to return for the lagging vehicle. I am the commander of a combat vehicle, and Commander Khodov and I were ordered to return for the lagging vehicle. I followed his order, commander Khodov and I deployed two vehicles, returned to the railway crossing, where we had to pick up a vehicle of the same BMP with personnel. We picked it up, returned to the indicated point where the convoy stood, the convoy was gone, the convoy left. Having traveled maybe 500 meters, we climbed a hill, the commander constantly got in touch, but there was no connection with anyone. We tried to visually find the column, but we also failed, because the wind, the fields were burning all around, it was impossible to see anything.
We turned first to the left, after driving for some time, turned around. The commander was in touch all this time, but no one answered the call. We turned around in the opposite direction and drove back to this intersection, turned right, that is, on the way back, where we came from, we thought that the column itself turned around and left. But there was no column. Then the commander ordered to deploy the machines. When we reached the intersection, we turned right. Having traveled about 200-300 meters, the commander tried all this time to get in touch. Three cars stood up, he began to get in touch, because he thought that maybe because of the hum of cars or something he simply couldn’t hear.
And at that moment there was the first explosion, but the shell exploded nearby. He did not hook anyone, he just exploded nearby. We all jumped from the cars and took up all-round defense. Half of the personnel, just like me, we took from the combat vehicles. And immediately after him there was a second explosion, the explosion hit the tank directly. Where exactly, I cannot say, I have not determined. And everyone was scattered from this combat vehicle, I don’t know how far. I was thrown away from the tank. After lying somewhere, I didn’t notice, but for about 10 minutes, for sure, waking up, I just crawled.
Where did you crawl? The first is away from the combat vehicle, because the ammunition load began to work on the vehicle. I crawled 100-150 meters, maybe 200, and I saw that there were a couple of people next to me. We started going out together. A machine gun immediately began to work on us. We crawled across the field with sunflowers, if we raised our heads a little, it was immediately clear that the queues were coming, the sunflowers were falling, the tops of the sunflowers. At this time, artillery was constantly working. From which side she hit, understand, at that moment you don’t look from which side the shells are flying at you. You just understand that you need to survive, and you just crawl.
There was a field there, it was half mowed, and there was a copse of the field. We began to run across this copse and saw that our servicemen were also running along the edge of the road. We started moving towards this intersection. Running there, we saw that there were trenches. Something like a dugout was made there. I was immediately told that the driver of the car that exploded was alive and the gunner. The gunner is sitting here that they are alive, but the driver is very badly burned. Running up to him, I saw that the gunner managed to give him the first medical care. I examined him, he was in a state of shock, his face was burned, his hands - it was terrible to look there. Everyone was scared, everyone was lost. What to do, what actions, what was happening, no one could understand. We should have had exercises, there were no such exercises in any of the exercises.
I saw that there were no officers, and took over the command. He ordered to go to a depth of 200 meters, take up all-round defense and help the wounded to the end. And I myself, with the sergeant-general, we remained at the crossroads to wait for the rest of the personnel who remained there, maybe there are some alive, to return and pick them up. Two passed us combat vehicles in that direction, towards the burning tank. They gave the muster signal and stopped several times. We understood that they were taking away those who remained there. If people were still alive there, they understood this and returned to the car.
After circling there for a while, they returned to this intersection, and, having passed us, they may not have noticed us, but one driver saw us. At a certain moment, when he drove a little further, we waved to him that he had to drive further, that there were personnel sitting in the depths of the forest. Maybe he somehow misunderstood me. Most likely, he was also frightened, because no one took part in any hostilities with us.
We began to move, we returned to the personnel and made a decision, as the mechanic became very ill, he began to moan, asked for water. Understand, dirt, dust, earth, it was necessary to save him. We started to get out of there. They began to go on combat patrol, as we were taught. Some of us, perhaps, understood that this was not according to the law of the doctrine.
When we reached the bridge, we saw several servicemen, people in military uniform with weapon. Seeing our wounded, they immediately approached us and offered to help the wounded. We agreed, because he had already begun to lose consciousness, the shock began to recede and the pain he had, most likely, was unbearable. They asked who was older, I said that I was. I was escorted to their headquarters, like a barn. There were servicemen already with stripes, but the stripes were not ours. And there they explained to me that we are on Ukrainian territory, we are in captivity. And then we got here.
- Were you detained by force or not?
Savosteev: No.
- And what do you think, what happened there, that the command did not get in touch, how do you explain this? Because it looks like a betrayal, as if you were abandoned.
- Maybe there was just no connection, maybe there was something with the radio station. A lot of things can be.
Savosteev: We were not seized by force, just no one explained anything to us about what was to happen. Nobody told us that we were going to war. We were told that we were in training. Understand, in exercises we shoot at cardboard targets, not at people. These are different things. This moment was no different. And the fact that people came out and helped the wounded, I think that anyone would have helped.
- Maybe someone wants to say something himself without question.
Savosteev: Mom, dad, don't worry, I'm fine. Everything will be fine. Everything will be fine, mom.
Mitrofanov: I want to tell my parents, mom, dad, my girlfriend Katenka, I love you very much, I will come soon. Don't worry. Who will be responsible for all this?
- We don't know.
- No one knows. They wrote an appeal to the President, to the Ministry of Defense.
Olevsky: They get many different answers. But it seems to me that you do not need all these answers now, they are very different. You need to go back, and when you return, you yourself will read everything that anyone said about you these days and what they promised their parents. You have such mothers that it is impossible to intimidate them, in my opinion. The only thing I understand is that they are a little misinformed. And a lot of relatives of fellow soldiers now go to the unit and check the lists of their loved ones, because they have no connection with them.
Postman: And it won't.
Olevsky: Why won't it?
Postman: because mobile phones we were taken away on the second day, being in the echelon. We left mobile phones, and since then the connection has simply been cut off.
Olevsky: Well, they are very worried, they are told that the unit is in Rostov. And they don't know the details yet.
Savosteev: What about us?
Olevsky: Nothing bad is said about you.
Savosteev: No. How did we get here, how did we appear?
Olevsky: They say that you got lost during the exercises, accidentally crossed the border.
— It was 20 kilometers.
— How do you like it in Kyiv?
— good cities, everyone walks peacefully.
When did you have time to see the cities?
Mitrofanov: We were driving from Kharkov.
- Many began to wonder how you managed to see the city.
Postman: That video where we walk one at a time, this is the Kharkov SBU. And after this video, literally in 3-4 hours we were sent here.
Mitrofanov: There is no Maidan, everything lives quietly.
- Do you somehow explain to yourself why you were sent, people who do not have such experience?
We cannot understand this. Why, if war is needed, cannon fodder is sent? There is no other way to call us.
- Well, yes, they didn’t explain to you why you were going.
Postman: And if they started to explain and say that we are going to war or so on, I am 90% sure that most of the regiment would have failed. If they had said that there would be a dismissal, it would have made no difference to everyone, they would have said: “Fire, but I will go home.” Most of them would never go anywhere.
All are married, all with children.
Postman: In fact of the matter.
TV channel "Rain" again got into trouble with work on foreign states- His journalist Timur Olevsky, as the press found out, "actively cooperated with the Ukrainian security forces and Poroshenko's officials.
Earlier, as part of an investigation conducted by political scientist Ilya Ukhov, German reports were found by him. Judging by them, TC "Dozhd", for example, was chosen for cooperation for its "anti-Kremlin position". Even earlier, publications on the official resources of British and American foundations showed that Dozhd was engaged in propaganda for Great Britain and the United States for a lot of money.
As Ruposters notes, on March 30, the Rossiya TV channel’s Special Correspondent project aired telephone conversations in which the ex-journalist for Echo and Dozhd, and now an employee of the American Radio Liberty, worked very closely with the Ukrainian power bloc and administration of the President of Ukraine.
Recall that initially Olevsky's negotiations were published by Cyberberkut - they took place in 2015.
"One of Olevsky's interlocutors was Anton Gerashchenko, adviser to the Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine. In a conversation with him, Olevsky promised to support the Ukrainian information campaign on the Internet and accepted the invitation to "interrogate" the Russians detained in the territory of the LPR," the portal says.
The media also cite the talks themselves:
Gerashchenko: Hello, hello Timur.
Olevsky: Yes, hello!
Gerashchenko: You can come and interrogate them ["GRU fighters"], I think we'll organize it. Second, you can show the video of the interrogation right now. And we are dispersing it now on Russian social networks. Please help!
Olevsky: We will do that. This is important to me. Give me relatives urgently.
But that's not all. A recording was shown in which one of Dozhd's leading employees communicates with the head of the information policy department of the President of Ukraine, Andriy Zhigulin. He frankly calls for Dozhd to be involved in the promotion of the story with the "GRU special forces."
"In the conversation, Olevsky actually reports to Zhigulin on the coverage of the situation with the detained Alexandrov and Erofeev," the Ruposters investigators were astounded.
Zhigulin: I want to connect you about these comrades who were detained.
Olevsky: I need to connect with them.
Zhigulin: I have a request to your channel that you unwind the story from the other side.
Olevsky: We are now calling Russian ministry defense, because we, like ... We are now trying to find out from them, well, x *** you are silent, that these are yours. We are waiting for what they will say, we do not know anything about it at all, that they are not ours. And I need the coordinates of the parents. Now if official representative, for example, the presidential administration said that we had already contacted the parents of these attack aircraft, and we invite them to Kyiv to visit their children. We immediately give it to the news. This is an act of goodwill, and then we legalize the parents. After that we can call them. This is the fucking bomb!
Zhigulin: OK I understood.
The authors of the material notice that during the entire time of the negotiations, Olevsky never asked if Ukraine had evidence that the captured Russian army- about which he wrote and spoke so much in the media.
"Timur Olevsky long time worked at the Ekho Moskvy radio station, then began working as a correspondent for the Dozhd TV channel. While working on television, he covered military operations in the Donbass, including from the side of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. In July 2015, Olevsky announced that he had signed a one-year contract with Radio Liberty and left for Prague, where he works in the American Internet project Current Time, Ruposters says.
Recall that earlier, within the framework of the reports of the German corporation, it turned out that the most active partners for it are RBC, Dozhd, Newsru.com and Lenta.ru websites. In addition to this, the report also includes a figure in another 41 edition, but the names of these media are not indicated.
Also last year, these media from Britain and the United States. It was about five hundred million dollars.
Always doubt. Both in what you are told and in what you do. Constantly weigh your words against ethics. Measure the good or bad of what you do. Always try to put yourself in the shoes of the people who are reading or listening to you to see if you are making your point clearly enough. Ask yourself: are you falling in defense of one of the parties? And if you do, then why? The most important thing is to constantly answer ethical questions within yourself. These doubts give rise to search.
Put yourself in the place of the people who are the least protected in the story you are telling. For example, if I find myself in a war, which is now going on between Russia and Ukraine, being a Russian journalist, i.e. a person living in a country that is a party to the conflict, the only position that allows you to tell something from there and be relatively objective is to tell from the position of local residents - people who are unwitting participants in the events. It is necessary to understand how they live, to try to live part of their life. No need to talk about the war in the war. Talk about its consequences.
Do not reveal your sources under any circumstances. I have the right to present information from a source that does not want to be disclosed for various reasons, and not to give out this source. I have the right to tell something, having, for example, a record of a conversation with this source. If I am forced by the court to reveal the source to prove my words, even under the threat that I will be sentenced to a fine, convicted or my words will be disavowed, I will never hand over this source. A journalist, especially a journalist from Russia, cannot under any circumstances betray his sources to the current government.
Use multiple sources to verify information, which you give out, except for the one that you saw yourself. Information that you saw with your own eyes can only be given as you saw it, without judgment.
A journalist is obliged to speak about the crimes of his country immediately. Journalists are often accused of betrayal because they allegedly do not take a pro-Russian position on issues that relate to the country's security, loyalty to the authorities, etc. This is deeply wrong. Suppose there is an opportunity to prove that the Boeing was shot down by Russia. A Russian journalist is obliged to prove it, if it is true. He must do this for one simple reason - the truth will still be known. But the debt that arises before the inhabitants of Russia will increase every day the more, the longer this truth is not voiced, experienced and lived. If ten people are not imprisoned for a crime now, in the future this will materially and morally affect the entire nation: there will be problems with traveling abroad, the perception of our people, problems with issuing loans, etc. Therefore, I think this position is super-patriotic!
Respect the audience. Always assume that your audience is smarter than you. You should never think that you are smarter than the audience. Give people the opportunity to draw their own conclusions and make decisions in their own assessment, no matter how scary it is that people will misunderstand. They always understand better than a journalist, and they always understand better than the authorities. This is trivially proven by the fact that people who listen to or read you often have a fundamental education better than yours.
No related news found.
In October 2016, the program "An Hour with Timur Olevsky" was aired on the new channel "Current Time". This channel is a joint project of Radio Liberty/Free Europe and Voice of America funded by the US Congress. The channel's editorial office is located in Prague and employs many journalists who have left Russia. The program is, in essence, calling card channel, and its face is the presenter Timur Olevsky, in the past - a correspondent for Ekho Moskvy and a journalist for Dozhd. Olevsky came to Ukraine for the presentation of the channel and to work "in the field" - to make a special issue of the program, completely dedicated to Ukraine. "Media Detector" talked to the presenter about emigration, journalistic duty, "Voices", toxic content and - inevitably - about the borders of the Russian Federation.
- Timur, the daily hourly program is not an easy project. How is your work organized?
- We have flyers twice a day - after the transfer at night and the next day. In addition to Present Time, the channel airs five news programs. Before starting work, we listen to the editor-in-chief of the daily news program, who tells us about what important events occurred - and we build on this information.
In addition, we have three editors-in-chief, with whom we come up with the topics of our future reports. Saken Aimurzaev oversees Ukrainian topics and works with Ukrainian correspondents - I am proud to work with him, he is an excellent, knowledgeable journalist. Kirill Mikhailov is engaged Russian themes, he is also the head of the Present Time program, and we make all decisions on the release together. Russian correspondents are handled by my colleague Renat Davletgildeev, a fairly well-known journalist in Russia, we started together at Dozhd, where he was my boss and taught me a lot. Finally, reports from the Baltic countries are produced by Sergei Hirshfeld, who is from Latvia, moved to us from Israel, where he worked on Channel 9.
- How many people are working on the program?
- I have 15 people working for my program in the office and many correspondents in the field. We have the opportunity to work not only with staff correspondents, but also with freelancers who are also our regular contributors.
Why does the channel have news programs separately from Asia, separately from the Baltic countries, separately from America, but there is no separate Ukraine or Ukraine united with anyone but Russia?
- This is my favorite question. I even hope that you will ask “why do we need to know Russian news at all”. And I will gladly answer it. I understand very well that Russia is causing Ukraine pain, suffering, hatred, grief - and this gives rise to a natural desire to shut down and not know anything about this country. But Russia does not cease to influence Ukraine, even if Ukraine does not want it. At the same time, Russia is doing about the same thing as under Yanukovych, but now it is acting a little more subtle - because Yanukovych was a simpler person. The journalists who worked before the Maidan, they weren't afraid to talk about Russia, were they? And thanks to the fact that they talked about it, Ukraine knew what they were doing to it, and could resist it.
Now in Russia the policy of communication with Ukraine has changed, a lot of new people have come, whom no one knows here, except for those who follow the news. Through federal channels in Russia they continue to tell what kind of fascists are here - but this is informational noise, and real things are done in quiet offices with the help of these inconspicuous people. And if it suddenly happens that Ukraine closes its eyes and does not want to know how these people work and what they do, then it will lose. information war- because they will do everything in the dark with her. And that is exactly what they are trying to achieve, in fact.
Here's an example for you. I was told a story that I have not yet verified, so I will now retell it, but so far it has nothing to do with the news. They say that one very large Moscow business group, which I don’t want to name, may be facing problems with the transportation of coal from the occupied Donbas to the non-occupied one. But it is so large that it works quite officially in Ukraine.
- Like Alfa Group?
- Like her. And the blockade makes it possible to reduce the value of the assets that she is going to purchase from Akhmetov. Maybe it's not true. Or maybe it turns out that Poroshenko or Groysman, opposing the blockade, do not play along with the interests of the Ukrainian oligarchs, and thus protect themselves from Moscow business, but at the same time they cannot say about it. But if we do not talk about what is happening right now, one morning we will wake up and find out that everything has already happened. And this is the simplest example of why it is important to know the news about Russia.
I watched a certain number of programs, and it seems to me that the agenda from Russia prevails in them. You are still more focused on the Russian audience, making a channel for countries former USSR Or are you targeting a different audience?
- We want - and I aspire to this - to show Eastern Europe as a whole. But in different programs the country is given as much space as it happened on that day. There were days when we only made news about Ukraine. You say that we have a lot of Russia in the program, but I always have the feeling that we have a lot of Ukraine. Firstly, because a lot of interesting things are happening here now, and secondly, because there are a lot of journalists in Ukraine, and they have something to talk about. It is much more difficult to dig in Russia - Russia is now very closed. Although the Ukrainian government is now also closing down, but not so much: here it is still possible, albeit difficult, to trace all the fundamental personnel changes. It is much more difficult to work in Russia - we have to use our reputation to offer viewers information based on sources that, for the most part, do not want to reveal their name.
Of course, we want to make a program that could form a picture of what is happening in the entire Eastern Europe during the week. But for now, our information programs are divided into Asian, European and Baltic ones. At the same time, my program is not regional: it is the quintessence of what, in our opinion, most of all influenced everyone. The layout of the program now consists of two blocks: the topic, which we cover in as much detail as possible, and the news, which occupy the second part of the program. For each main topic, we naturally prepare a large number of references, we delve into it as far as possible in half an hour, find out the history, etc.
For example, at the height of the blockade, when Groysman asked to convene a meeting of the National Security and Defense Council, we were already preparing a program on this topic. We had all parties on the air, including representatives of DTEK. Of course, I try to test these people with my questions on the air - and how they answer is on the conscience of the speakers. And although writing journalists are always higher, stronger than television ones, in this case I have one single advantage over journalists who write: you can see How these people are in charge. Sometimes it's better and more important than what what they say.
You insist that Present Time is not propaganda, not counter-propaganda, but objective journalism. How far can one go in respecting the requirement of objectivity and giving the word "other side"? For example, someone believes that Zakhar Prilepin is just the “other side”. Should his opinion also be broadcast? Do you consider it necessary to give the floor to the propagandist?
- By the way, I called Zakhar Prilepin on the air. And I definitely would not give him the opportunity to give a lecture on Russian patriotism in the Donbass on the air. He refused.
- You risked losing your audience in Ukraine.
- Of course, this is my risk. And therefore, if I call on the air people who take the side of war, the side of terrorism, I prepare for these interviews very seriously. But Zakhar Prilepin, if he appeared on the air, would definitely not be alone - he would talk to a person who could answer him from Ukraine. If such a person had not agreed to broadcast with Prilepin, then the interview would have been impossible.
Yes, we broadcast quotes from Prilepin on the air. Why did we do it? It is very important. It was a quote, one paragraph, in which there was an informational message, for the sake of which Prilepin, it seems to me, arranged a PR campaign with a battalion in the Donbass. If one sentence to formulate his message, he said: "Come to Donbass again." This is all that viewers of my program both in Russia and Ukraine need to know - people are again being recruited to the Donbass. You can not think about it, you can say that he is bad, but you and I must understand that the situation is escalating, that more and more people are called to fight with Ukraine, who will die there one time.
I don't know if you found the material offensive to Ukraine, but, in my opinion, it was more informational. I understand what information is and how it should be used to save oneself and the country. And when they tell me that we cannot quote people like Prilepin - although he takes up very little time in our program - I want to ask: since when did Ukrainians become afraid of information? It has never happened and never will, I don't think. I don't agree with the position of the President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko, who speaks about malicious sites that should be banned. Because he will forbid and he will choose. It is very convenient.
And we will be following this process very closely. We will see when this mechanism will work, which sites are closed, what information was on them, and we will analyze it and talk about it. It seems to me that Ukrainians should understand what will be left behind them, and what is being done so that they do not find out about it.
- We will be watching too. But your remark that Ukrainians are afraid of information is somewhat incorrect. The problem is not information, but facts and propaganda. Prilepin's appeal will be conveyed on FM waves and Russian TV channels without any cuts. So broadcasting this call is also somewhat strange for you.
- And we will not show his call. We will retell it in two lines, clearing it of the toxic propaganda component. Prilepin made a statement, similar to a speech by a political worker at the front, for five pages - of which the news is contained in only one sentence: he wants people to come back to fight there. And that's exactly what we had in the program. And what, in Ukraine, this was not reported in the news?
- Of course they did. Submission question. And, of course, we have news from Russia - the problem is that now not only the messages of Russian writers need to be cleaned of the toxic component, but also the messages official bodies RF. For example, recently there was news that the Russian Foreign Ministry launched a page on its website where "exposure fakes Western media ". Such news cannot be given in the media without a huge analytical report about how many fakes, half-truths and manipulations the Russian Foreign Ministry itself launched into the information space.
- Yes, it is very important. Therefore, for example, I would not give this news at all if we did not expand it into a big topic. Simply, so to speak, we cannot throw it on the air and leave. I have a colleague Viktor Kulganek - this is our main director, but we work with him in many respects as co-authors, he is a very talented person in television. He always scolds me in this: he believes that we cannot say things that seem clear to us, obvious, without saying the whole story to the viewer. He also believes that if we cannot explain everything in two paragraphs, we should either make a big topic or not make a news item at all. He is right, of course, and we try to do so. Another question is that there is news - and there is not news. And the fact that the Russian Foreign Ministry will fight fakes on its page is not news at all. It's nothing at all. If we assume that the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation is not a media outlet and a source of information.
- The source is - in fact of its official status.
- Yes, but in fact, as a journalist, I should only be interested in what concerns the work of the Foreign Ministry on the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. And exposing fakes is not a function of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. But, of course, they want to be not just a site that highlights the activities of the department, but to be the media. Like many other departments of the Russian Federation - the Investigative Committee wants to be a newspaper, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs too, the FSB also really wants to be a media outlet, but so far it acts as anonymous sources - by the nature of their service they cannot be a media outlet.
- Your Presidential Administration, apparently, is also striving to become a news agency.
- Our AP is actually the media. They all want to be newspapers. But we are interested in what they do, not what they say. By the way, this is about the question of how we choose topics: we often make topics later than everyone else, because it is important for us to provide a complete picture. And we are not in a hurry.
In one episode, you spent three minutes at a NASA press conference about the discovery of exoplanets. And fifteen minutes - Arkady Babchenko's departure from Russia. With all due respect to Babchenko, after all, space is somehow more people are interested. And you can make at least an hour-long program with explanations, graphs, a canvas about aliens and Copernicus.
- It was not my program, but I understand the logic of the people who made it while I was away from Prague. The discovery of three exoplanets 42 light-years from Earth does not affect the life of people today. But, of course, at least out of respect for scientific research, they could not fail to indicate this at the beginning of the program. And by the way, the news about the found three planets from my point of view does not deserve an hour program. In fact, they didn't find anything!
But everyone was excited. And you could talk about everything, including Copernicus, wormholes and the prospects for the colonization of Mars.
- Yes they were. And I'm glad that humanity spends money not only on bad things, but also on searching for other planets or launching telescopes. And I wish it did it more often. But if I made a program about this, I would expand it into a topic about how science helps to make people better. But the found three planets are news for three minutes.
But the departure of Babchenko is this topic. His departure is important because it is interesting why Russia receives threats. Why is this important to understand? On the face of it, he appears to be receiving threats for considering Crimea to be Ukraine, not Russia. But that's not the reason. It seems to me that Arkady got it because he touches on topics that people consider sacred for themselves, but it is surprising that this sacredness extends to some very everyday things that do not imply this. It is interesting that Babchenko (after the posts about the death of Churkin and the death of the aircraft of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. - DM) and several other acquaintances of mine were literally poured with hatred by people who are very critical of Putin. And this is a very important thing that happened to Russian society: it separated its homeland from Putin, but at the same time accepted the homeland with all the Putinism that is in it. And they are ready to defend such a homeland even from doubts, not only from criticism, in a way that is not typical XXI century. I know why it happened. This happened, of course, because it is impossible to live in a country and understand every day that it is wrong.
- Of course, you can not be ashamed forever.
- Yes. And, of course, you begin to accept the situation and painfully defend it - and in a way that you would never have done before.
- We, it seems to me, also have a similar situation.
- Of course. And these changes are very important to understand. I constantly read closed blogs in Telegram - this messenger is very popular in Russia - and many people talk there, including about Russia. This reasoning clearly shows, for example, that people who would definitely like a change of power as soon as possible perceive sanctions as a personal problem, and they are annoyed by people who want them to be extended. Because they decided for themselves that Putin is on his own, they are on their own, and the sanctions concern them personally. " We are human and we want to be normal. And the government has gone crazy and drives us into a stall' is what they think. And this is a change that has happened, maybe in the last year.
Actually, isn't this Kashin's thesis that Russia is also an occupied country, only the occupiers are not a foreign state, but power? Shouldn't you be ashamed of her actions?
- But now they are not in occupation - now they are all, except for Putin, together in one trench. It's a psychological change that comes from not being bad every day. And this is precisely the story about Babchenko: we wanted not just to tell that he had left, but to show that these changes had taken place. What Russian society, which went on a march against the war in Ukraine in 2014, and the Russian society of the 2017 model are two completely different societies. And this is important, at least, excuse me, for utilitarian reasons: when and if it happens new war in Donbas, everyone should understand what we are dealing with.
- Did you offer Babchenko a job?
- No. I love Arkady, but I don't see how he can work with us - certainly in my program. I have known Arkady for a long time, I have great respect for him, but my deep conviction is that he is not a journalist at all, but a writer.
- From the side, from here, it seems that now Russian journalism working in exile. You say about yourself that your work in Prague is not emigration. How long do you think this situation will continue? What are you waiting for to come back?
- Actually, I come to Russia regularly. Next time I will go to do a big program, the same as the issue dedicated to Ukraine. In general, we will probably make regular sorties of the leader in different countries. This is first. Secondly, my colleagues continue to work in Russia. When I will return there to work at all, I do not know. While I do not understand where to work, I do not see a channel on which the principles of journalism, which seem very important to me, I could now implement. Working in Russia now will always be a compromise to some extent. For example, I would definitely not go back to Dozhd now.
- Why?
- "Rain" began to play by the rules that the government imposes. These rules are very simple: you must, at a minimum, convey our information without criticizing the way we communicate with you. An example of this is the recent announcement of Putin's fourth term. Journalists were gathered at the first deputy head of the Presidential Administration of the Russian Federation Kiriyenko for a briefing, they read a press release, and they obediently issued it at a certain moment. This obedience is fundamental.
In addition, I now have stylistic contradictions with Dozhd in that they call ghouls on the air. What is correct, in general, is that I also call ghouls on the air, and I am glad when they come, people who are completely unpleasant to me. But the Dozhd journalists talk to them in such a way that the ghouls always have the opportunity to express their point of view without experiencing pressure from the journalists; without the need to explain it and show whether it is wealthy or not. They are very easy to interview. It's not very clear to me.
Do you understand how easy it is for you to object? Any Russian journalist, hearing you, will say: “You left altogether. But we stayed and do what we can.”
- This is true. There are many journalists working in Russia who have not become worse at what they do. And if they left, then Russia would turn, from the point of view of you and me, into North Korea where no one knows what is going on. It just so happens that I work in the electronic media, and not in print - and this is a slightly different demand. And the people who write continue to write, and many of them do a huge, colossal job. Therefore, to say that all Russian journalism in exile is a mistake.
Nevertheless, you criticize journalists working in Russia - and your former colleagues from Ekho Moskvy, and now former colleagues from Dozhd.
- Do you know why I'm talking about this? Because I am absolutely sure that the authorities need journalists. She cannot do without them: she is not enough and rather bored to communicate in the press release genre. And it seems to me that if journalists in Russia found the strength to reverse this agenda, to say “no” to the authorities when it gathers them at a briefing and distributes information, then the media would learn a little more and the principles of work would change a little.
- And again they will tell you: it is good to talk about principles and solidarity from Prague.
- If I were in Russia, and such a press release would come to me, I would best case did not give. And yes, I'm good at reasoning - and that's why I'm in Prague. If I have the opportunity to say in my own words what a journalist in Russia cannot say, because he will fall under the law on anything and will risk his own safety and his own freedom, then I will do it for him. Telling him multiple "thank you" on the air. This is exactly the case when, thanks to the journalists who were at the briefing with Kiriyenko, I was able to find out that they were there and tell about it. And add your own words to their words so that everything is finally clear.
AT Russian media there was another good story: The RBC website published an investigation about Ekaterina Tikhonova, but the article did not say that she was Putin's daughter. They could not give this information - that is, they could, of course, but on the same day RBC would cease to exist. Kashin made this one for them. So, the question is in value: to write about the fact that Tikhonov - Putin's daughter and shut down - or continue to publish their investigations, and someone else will tell for them what they themselves cannot say? Calling on journalists to go to jail as soon as possible is not quite right. At least because they run out quickly. We do not want young and energetic propagandists to take their place, do we? By the way, there are wonderful young journalists in Russia who have come to replace those who left.
The only thing that bothers me about Russia and why I feel comfortable in Prague now is the idea that Russia is a besieged fortress, incomprehensible to the whole world. And that this idea has penetrated into the minds of people to whom it was unusual before. It is very difficult to be in such a difficult atmosphere every day and not agree with it, if the response to the actions of the whole country concerns every person and every journalist. Because he began to earn less and eat worse. And, of course, when he wakes up, he thinks that it is not those who imposed these sanctions that are to blame, but those who attacked Crimea and Donbass. But in the evening, when he is already very hungry, he begins to involuntarily think: “Don’t you understand that I don’t eat? What are you doing with me?" There is no money and there will not be, and the salary of a decent journalist in Moscow has decreased three times compared to 2014. This is significant. The fact that at the same time many retain their common sense and continue to talk about the problems of the country makes me respect. And the fact that they are starting to group around this idea of "Fortress Russia" is simply understandable.
Now, if I lived in Russia, I would earn three times less, and almost certainly I would have to make a choice: I am ready to accept the fact that I need to support “Russia - besieged fortress" or not? Which, in general, is all so proud, only Putin is bad, and if not for him, then we would now turn around. I'm not ready. And I don't like the idea that the Russian people are the people who are always building an empire. She seems blasphemous to me. Although to many people I read, it seems absolutely true. That is why I am not there now, and at the same time I do not consider my work in Prague to be emigration. For me, your question is painful, of course, this is an injection. And it's painful in terms of Russian journalist, for whom my words look like I'm trying to teach him something while sitting in Prague.
People also emigrate from Ukraine, and their advice on how we should live here or why we need to travel offends many, including me. Often this looks like advice to those who are trying to drain the swamp, from sitting on a sunny, dry shore.
- We always have the opportunity to choose an employer who will pay for our work the way we want it. We can earn money from an employer in Prague or from an employer in Ostankino. My employer in Prague does not require me to compromise on journalistic standards.
You once said that there is no problem in the fact that the physicist Petya listens to "Voices" - this is what his grandfather, father did, and, apparently, his children will do. All the same, this does not change anything - "Voices" could not break through the curtain, not "Voices" destroyed the USSR and not "Voices" led to a change in the system. In fact, you are doing the same "Voices" - and, according to your own logic, their presence will not change anything. Why then all your efforts?
- Can journalists change anything at all? Why are we in this profession? Because we believe we can. Maybe what I say will sound false or pompous - but do we have some kind of duty to society? And if in Russia I cannot fulfill it as my conscience tells me, then I will find a way to do it differently. I believe I have found this way.
- That is, there is a duty to society, but you yourself do not believe that by fulfilling it, you can change something?
- I just believe. At least because Present Time, it seems to me, goes a little beyond the scope of a niche product for people who listened to Voices - at least thanks to the presence of the Internet. And four stories about us - two on Rossiya 24 and two on Kiselev's program - apparently appeared due to the fact that we reached a wider audience. I don't think that if we had remained a niche product, they would have paid attention to us.
In general, let's forget everything I told you here and admit: yes, we are "Voices". But we are doing professional journalism. I don't know if the "Voices" did it - when I listened to them, it was still not very great. And we do journalism of facts, we do investigations. We are doing exactly the same thing as Russian and Ukrainian journalists. Can they influence the situation in the country? Exactly to the same extent that you can influence the country, to the same extent we can.
This is first. And secondly, I can only do good journalism. I have consciously dedicated my life to learning and doing this. Consider me doing this for myself. I understand that we are watched by a relatively small number of people. But I believe that even with these small numbers of people, you need to talk. Of course, it was not Golos that destroyed the Union. But I do not and do not want to ruin Russia. I want to change it. Although I also have some thoughts about the borders of Russia, but I will not tell you about them.
- Are you afraid to speak for the term?
- No, that's not why. Without much explanation, it will just be speculation that doesn't make sense. And if you read what the Russians who write about it on the Internet think about the borders of Russia, they are also there for a period. There are those who urge them to significantly reduce them, and they have already told themselves a term in the Russian Federation. And those who call for a significant increase in them - and told themselves a term in the international criminal court.
Russia cannot stop in any way in clarifying its borders. I tried to talk about it with people who are in favor of creating a Russian nation state- such as Kashin, for example . I asked him: “What are the boundaries of the Russian national state? From where to where should it extend? Say now, on the shore, so that we know - we want you to do what you say, such a beautiful Russian nation-state - or not? Does it include Buryatia and Yakutia, for example?
I believe that he has shied away from answering these questions. He said that the border of the Russian national state is the border of the Russian Federation. In my opinion, this is not the answer. Because it is not clear what is happening with the Crimea, the Kuriles, Belarus and so on. By no means do I consider myself an expert on geopolitics and the size of the Russian Federation. But those who consider themselves experts do not know the answer to this question themselves. I believe that if they seriously thought about what a successful national Russian state, modern, modernized and ruled by people, not by spaces, then it would turn out that Russia consists of several states that are very friendly to each other. Although, perhaps, this is also a utopia.
