“I am not on a guest tour”

Moscow is braced for another wave of mass-scale rallies For Fair Elections. The declared number of participants being 300, the Russian media report that more than 50,000 people have already said in the social networking sites that they want to take part in the event.

Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev made rather unexpected statements last Thursday: the Russians are also free to express their opinion during protest actions if the latter abide by the law. It remains to be seen if the federal information channels report at last on mass-scale popular rallies now that the topmost governing tandem has officially recognized the existence of these protests.

The stormy public reaction to rather questionable, judging by the conclusions of observers, Duma elections remains unabated. On the contrary, it seems to be gaining momentum. Following Grigory Yavlinsky and Boris Nemtsov, Mikhail Gorbachev also demanded the calling of a fresh election and said that the expression of popular will on December 4 was unfair, Radio Liberty quotes Interfax as saying.

The Russian public discontent is also finding some quite original forms of self-expression. In particular, the open movement White Ribbon is calling upon all those who disagree to the election results to attach a ribbon to the clothes, a bag, or a car and express their protest in this peaceful way, Moscow Echo radio reports. “The go-vernment has made a decision instead of us, considering us a herd. But we are rising and saying: ‘We are not a herd, we are humans!’ We are saying: ‘Stop eating Russia!’” the movement’s website www.belayalenta.com says. “We are prepared to defend our country, our people, and our future.”

The authorities were quick, though, to respond to the online activity of the dissatisfied – first of all, in the social networking sites. “In the past few days, the Federal Security Service has been asking us to block opposition groups, including ours,” Pavel Durov, founder of the social networking site VKontakte, told the group moderator in support of the well-known blogger Aleksei Navalny. As is known, Navalny was arrested for 15 days after a Chistye Prudy rally.

Also under suspicion are TV people, not only internet buffs. According to Kommersant, the Russian Television Supervision Committee asked the Rain TV channel to submit recordings of the December 5 and 6 programs to be checked for compliance with the law. A TV channel source claims that this was caused by live coverage of the opposition rallies in protest to Duma election results.

Otherwise, citizens are free to express their opinion.

When we came to talk to the journalist Yevgeny Kiseliov, author of the Big Politics program on the Inter TV channel, we saw him in a working situation – at a briefing, where the editorial board was discussing the topics of the next program. This week’s first topic is, of course, the Duma elections in Russia. We began our conversation with this.

Mr. Kiseliov, you have just heatedly discussed with your colleagues the topic of the Russian elections. You said recently on the Moscow Echo radio station that Russian politics had ceased to interest you after the reshuffle in the Medvedev-Putin tandem, but still the latest events in Russia must be in the highlight of the world media now. What do you think of what is now occurring on Triumph Square? How do you think the events will be developing?

“I would not exaggerate the importance of what is going on in Moscow. Those who are taking to the streets are, first of all, followers of the parties, political movements, and organizations which were in fact cut off the electoral process. Yes, there are quite a few of them. And it is splendid. This means civic activity is gradually awakening. But, let me say it again, I wouldn’t exaggerate the importance of these protests, as I would not the importance of parliamentary elections in Russia in general. In the 1990s the president and the government did not have a majority in the State Duma. Nevertheless, all power was concentrated in their hands only. Under the current Russian Constitution, parliament is an almost po-werless appendage to the executive chain of command. On the other hand, as a result of the elections, the ruling party, United Russia, took pains to win a plurality, although it expected a majority. This is a moral victory for the opposition, for those who called upon people not to boycott the elections or spoil ballots but to take sort of a positive action – to come to the polling station and vote for any party but United Russia. The election results showed these people were right.

“But even here I would not fly into a fit of raptures. I think it will take Russian political and social life quite a very long time to undergo serious changes. But, you know, anything may happen in Russia. Russia is an unpredictable country. As somebody said, Russia is a country with an unpredictable history and, moreover, an unpredictable future. Yes, Putin and his inner circle can wield now very many levers of power and quite a high rating based, to a large extent, on the absence of an alternative. But, on the other hand, the Internet is growing in importance. Very shortly, politicians will need no access at all to the so-called national, or known in Russia as federal, channels.”

Do you think it is a short-term prospect for Russia?

“Yes, for it is a question of technological possibilities. I can remember the times when it took Internet footage too long a time to download. I also remember the footage loading faster but still remaining of low quality. Now, just a few years on, you can watch on YouTube a video of practically the same quality as on a TV screen. I think a few years later the Internet’s potential will allow opposition politicians not to waste time to get into the programs of the First Channel, NTV or Russia channels. And the outcome of the next elections – both parliamentary and presidential – in Russia will depend not on who the federal channels support or ignore but on how the Internet works. Naturally, the government will be greatly tempted to establish control over the Web, as the Chinese or the Iranians have done. And we must be prepared for this.

“Whenever I say that changes are a matter of a distant future, I pull myself up. I recall 1985, when Chernenko died and Gorbachev came to power. Could anybody presume then that in some five or six years’ time here would be grandiose changes and the country would have ceased to exist at all by December 1991?

“I will be glad to have been mistaken, but I am pessimistic and skeptical because I was too optimistic in the past. For example, I did not believe that Putin would hold out for so long. It seemed to me that even in the 2004 elections some other, more democratic, candidate would contend for victory. And, of course, I thought the ‘Putin era’ would come to an end in 2008. But I was mistaken. For this reason, I believe an ‘ice period’ is coming to Russia for twelve years or so.”

So there is no need drawing any parallels between the Maidan and Triumph Square? Yet there are some external signs. For example, Mr. Markov is still speaking, as he was in 2004, about “foreign enemy influences.” Boris Nemtsov said he was going to dispute the election results in a court. The Maidan and Triumph Square: what is the “temperature difference”?

“The difference is that none of the parties and politicians in Ukrainian history have ever been so popular as United Russia and Putin are in Russia now (even with due account of a somewhat dwindling election rating).

“Let us not forget, too, that the Maidan was preceded by such protest actions as ‘Ukraine without Kuchma’ and ‘Rise Up, Ukraine!’ Still fresh in memory was the students’ on-the-street revolution. There was a feeling of some continuity, and there was a strong national democratic movement. After all, there were the 2002 elections, when the opposition achieved quite a success. Besides, Kuchma was awfully unpopular. Nor was the then Prime Minister Victor Yanukovych very popular. In a word, the situation was totally different at the time. In addition, the Maidan had been, I’m sorry to say, prepared. I was recently making a four-part documentary film about the Maidan, in which some participants and organizers of those events recall preparations for ci-vil disobedience actions. By contrast, events in Moscow are unfolding spontaneously. Nobody in Russia is even trying to carry out preparations of the kind that the opposition did in Ukraine, for it is dangerous to life. Mikhail Khodorkovsky, a person I deeply respect, was imprisoned for many years for having set up non-governmental social and educational organizations, such as schools of public politics, online education federations, young people’s science extension units, and the Open Russia Foundation. He sponsored the awarding of literary prizes, etc. This is the root cause of his troubles, no matter what was said about his tax-evasion crimes, theft of oil, or the alleged intention to bribe a half of the State Duma members.”

In other words, education is the main enemy of the Russian authorities?

“Of course. Political and sociopolitical education.”

Another interesting analogy. The Russian bureau of Radio Liberty broadcast today an address of Stanislav Kucher, a political observer at Kommersant FM. He advises his colleagues at federal channels to throw away the TEFI statues, which had been awarded to them in different years for “the best informational programs,” because the federal channels did not say a word about the protests and hundreds of the detained. On the other hand, you mentioned the action “Ukraine without Kuchma.” Today, when “the Kuchma case” is in public focus, the people who headed that action, including field commanders, as well as journalists, are often keeping silent. In this context, I would like to ask you the following: it is a wide spread opinion that ten years ago, when NTV in fact “bit the dust,” a new era was ushered in for the Russian informational space and journalism. What has happened to Russian journalism and society over these 10 years?

“Frankly speaking, I have not read Kucher’s address. But I can tell you about my impressions.

“Yesterday [our conversation with Kiseliov took place on December 7. – Ed.] the opposition, as is known, continued spontaneous protests. Two high-profile opposition figures – Yashin and Navalny – were given a 15-day jail sentence. Incidentally, the government tried to use this utterly humiliating punishment as a slap on the face for the opposition, for in good olden times the 15-day detention was applied to hooligans and unruly alcoholics. When I switched on a Russian TV channel (they all broadcast in almost the same way), the news bulletin told me about a meeting between Putin and his followers and a meeting between Medvedev and Central Election Commission Chairman Churov. Then came a report on a certain Russian lady who was detained in the United Arab Emirates on suspicion of either smuggling in or smuggling out forged banknotes and a report on the situation in South Ossetia (with a strong bias towards the current President Kokoity). And sport news in the end.

“Well, my dear gentlemen, what is this? After this, you should really abandon the profession.

“In his appearance a year ago, Leonid Parfenov gave an exhaustive characteristic of what is happening on Russian television, in news bulletins, and in sociopolitical programs [it is about Parfenov’s well-known speech at the Vladislav Listiev Prize award ceremony. – Ed.]. Meanwhile, the people, who are doing all this with their cold hands, sat applauding to Parfenov. As the Russians say, you spit in his eyes but he says it is God’s dew.

“The journalists who work on state-run channels have turned into small-time officials. For them, politicians are no longer politicians but, to quote Parfenov’s witticism, the bosses of their bosses. Back in the 1990s politicians were still politicians. Here lies an essential difference. But the journalists who have become subordinates of the subordinated politicians will not be laying the key note in a few years.

“I can remember the Yeltsin era. We, NTV, as well as ORT (the First Channel now) and RTR (Russia channel now), did not exactly live on cloud nine, but still we worked differently. Yes, we had to take into account the government’s attitude. For a big channel is not interested in quarreling with the authorities because there are interests of the owners and the state and, after all, such routine ‘trifles’ as accreditation at various bodies of power. Things are not so simple. An open-faced and fist-shaking journalism can only exist in the fevered imagination of second-year students or the young people who have just come to work as journalists and, as they put it, have not yet smelled powder. In real life, alas, journalism sometimes suggests omissions and compromises. Being a suicide journalist is the easiest option.”

But there still should be some principles…

“I am just speaking of this. Undoubtedly, there should be some principles. One should not hush up events and pretend that something is not occurring at all. There should be an informational picture.

“It is sometimes impossible to organize a debate between the president and his opponent, for, as a rule, post-Soviet presidents do not agree to take part in the debates with their opponents – they prefer to speak in proud solitude. For example, it is impossible today to arrange a debate between Ukraine’s top prosecutors and Yulia Tymoshenko’s defense attorneys because the top pro-secutors are not prepared for this kind of debates. But this does not mean that we should not speak about what is going on with Yulia Tymoshenko.

“They say journalism should be objective. I cannot agree to this. Journalism is and must be subjective. But, before displaying their attitude to one event or another, the journalist should tell everything about this event, allow all of its participants to speak, and hush up nothing. Journalism should be subjective and honest at the same time.”

Leonid Parfenov was a guest at the previous Big-Time Politics show. He said, among other things, that Russia and Ukraine will meet some day in Europe. What do you think the chances are?

“The phrase is, of course, spectacular, but we should take into account that, whether we like it or not, Russia has one foot in Asia. There is such thing as Eurasianism, and there are people who sincerely believe that Russian interests are not only in Europe but also in Asia. A half of the country is the continent’s Asian part. There is a Chinese and a Japanese factors. Re-sidents of the Khabarovsk Territory are much more concerned about the economy of China rather than that of Europe, and the state of Japan’s eco-nomy is more important in the everyday life of the Maritime Territory than what is going on in Moscow or Petersburg whose residents often take a dim view of Asian ways.

“Russia will never drop the Asian vector. Moreover, Russia is really fa-cing the threat of Chinese expansion: there are 5 million on one side of the border and, figuratively speaking, 300 on the other. The frontier areas are being Sinoized. A huge number of the Chinese, who are making their way, by hook or by crook, to Russia, marry Russian girls. And Russian girls marry the Chinese with pleasure because they are industrious, non-drinking, and, by force of specific Chinese upbringing, will never lay a hand on the woman.

“I do not rule out that some time later Russia will become unviable within the existing borders. I do not rule out another disintegration of Russia. The main thing is that this should occur without conflicts, painlessly, and bloodlessly. But this is not on the agenda today.

“As for Ukraine, it has always faced Europe. As any post-Soviet country, Ukraine will be moving towards Europe slowly and agonizingly but, sooner or later, it will come there. It is much easier for the European Union to integrate with Ukraine than to build a relationship with Russia. Europe will be unable to swallow the entire Russia, for it is too large.”

But, speaking of a dialogue between Kyiv and Moscow, is it possible that this dialogue will reach the level of European values at a certain stage (it seems to me Parfenov spoke about this)?

“This will occur when European va-lues prevail in the minds of most individuals. You know, Mikhail Bulgakov, a Kyivite, once wrote that ruin was primarily in the brains… When European values take roots and get the upper hand in the brains of the majority of Ukrainian and Russian citizens, then this dialogue will be possible.”

And do you think Ukrainian politicians are able to adequately assess the nature of Russia? For example, recently, in November, Mikhail Kasyanov and Belgian ex-premier Guy Verhofstadt organized a conference, Helsinki 2.0, to explain to Europe what is really going on in Russia. Is Europe aware of what is going on in Russia and Ukraine (in the abovementioned radio program, you justly noted that far from all know what the Tymoshenko case is – it is a separate subject)? But are Ukrainian politicians aware of who they deal with in Russia?

“Not quite, I think.

“The Russians do not know very well about what is going on in Ukraine, what distinguishes Ukraine from Russia, how to deal with Ukraine, Ukrainian political and public figures. And the Ukrainians do not know very well about what is really going on in Russia.

“While the Russians are showing this unawareness, misinformation and sometimes even crass ignorance due to the ‘big brother’ complex, the Ukrainians – politicians as well as the grassroots – have this because they are, in my view, awfully fixated on themselves, their domestic affairs and problems.”

And journalism is also to blame for this fixation…

“Certainly.

“This is connected with one of my brightest impressions in the first days of my stay in Kyiv. My original job here in Ukraine was to establish the company TVi and to hire journalists. I had to mingle with many seekers of journalistic jobs. So one of the young people I was interviewing stunned me. He did not know that the then Russian ambassador to Ukraine, the now late Viktor Chernomyrdin, used to be the prime minister of Russia. How can you deal seriously with Russian politicians, officials, statesmen, and public figures if you do not know their background, their history, and the way they were changing their views and came to be what they are today?

“It seems to me the impossibility of a full-fledged dialogue is also the result of mutual ignorance and incomprehension.”

It seems to my colleagues and me that there was quite a sound atmosphere in the previous issue of Big-Time Politics. Unfortunately, it is not always so. Do you have a sensation that the Ukrainian sociopolitical broadcasting needs an intellectual bar to be set up?

“I fully agree with you. But there is a conflict of interests here. In the December 2 program we really set up a high intellectual bar, but, unfortunately, our ratings fell. The Ukrainian TV viewer is accustomed to shows.”

But who taught him this?

“I do not want to hurl accusation at anybody. All I can say is that I tried to generate meanings from the very beginning of my work. I cannot say that I always succeeded, but there was at least something meaningful in each program. Undoubtedly, there is a shortage of intellectual journalism. Incidentally, it is no mere chance that I am gradually changing the program’s format. While, at the first stage of my work on the Inter channel, it was in fact a talk show, now Big-Time Politics can longer be called a pure talk show. Now you can mostly see interviews, TV bridges, and spot commentaries. I am doing this quite deliberately and hope that the viewer will gradually get used to and evince interest in this.

“You know, there is sometimes a Russian revolt, senseless and merciless, but there can also be an equally senseless and merciless Ukrainian talkfest. When my old friend and colleague Savik Shuster first came to Ukraine and began to host the program Freedom of Speech on the ICTV channel, Ukrainian television showed for the first time a verbal grapple between Tymoshenko and Bohoslovska. This brought along the open microphone. It was, of course, a sensation at the time. I know that many Muscovites specially traveled to Kyiv to sit just one evening before a television and watch Savik Shuster’s talk show. And when this format spread, together with human conflicts, arguments and counterarguments, to many other TV channels, a part of the audience just switched over to Dancing with Stars.”

You call yourself a Ukrainian journalist. You’ve been to Kyiv since 2008. Do you think you know this country quite well?

“I don’t think so. The process of learning is going on. I can remember being shocked when I had just arrived in Kyiv. It takes you a few weeks of living here to understand that it is a different country, that things are different here. Of course, I read very much and try to learn about the past of my heroes, but, naturally, there are so many things still to be learned.”

What do you mean by “Ukrainian journalist?”

“I cannot say that I mean something unusual by this. I am a Ukrainian journalist because I live and work here, and my home, albeit a temporary one, is here. I don’t want to call out names, but there is a practice, when some well-known journalists, TV presenters, and entertainers come here in the morning, work, and go back in the evening. But what I am doing is not a guest tour.”

And do you think a journalist should have such a quality as civic temperament?

“A difficult question. The best journalist I know (from the angle of being professional) is Vladimir Posner. He does not hide that he mostly feels himself a European and an American. Although, out of his 77 years, he has lived more than half a century in the

Soviet Union and Russia, he is taking a cold, quiet, and impartial look at what is going on in the country, He is always above the melee. I am also taking a cold, quiet, and impartial look at things. Of course, there are things that stir up my emotions, but, luckily, this does not apply to the characters that are playing on the political stage. For me, they are political individuals in one big political zoo or, if you like, terrarium. I just watch them, trying to understand their logic or the complete absence thereof. I am very glad that I can rise above the melee. I still wish Ukraine every success. I would love to see Ukraine as a free, democratic, and prosperous country.

“In my view, journalism based on emotions, on the slogans ‘Down with…’ and ‘Shame,’ journalism motivated by a desire to nail one to the pillory and raise another with a fork is bad partisan journalism. Yet it also has the right to exist and exists quite successfully, for example, in France. I still prefer a different approach.”

In conclusion, I cannot but ask you a question about a phrase you pronounced about a year ago on the Moscow Echo radio. Answering the hostess, you quoted Joseph Brodsky: “If you happen to be born in an empire, it is better to live in a remote province by the sea,” and added: “Which I am doing… I live and work in the city of Kyiv.” Incidentally, this place [Inter TV channel office on Kyiv’s Dmytriv-ska St. – Ed.] is a stone’s throw from St. Sophia’s Cathedral. Kyivan Rus’ emerged here, in Kyiv, if we are speaking of the parent country. I wonder what the origin of this phrase is.

“It is sort of a metaphor. You see, for any Muscovite, Kyiv is ‘a remote province by the sea.’ Unfortunately.

“But I am proud to be in Kyiv. I feel good here! It is not at all a remote province. Kyiv is a European city – extremely beautiful and comfortable to live in.”

In other words, your opinion has undergone changes…

“Oh no. I am saying again that I said it deliberately. This metaphor is a Brodsky quotation. The meaning is that I am lucky to live so far from Moscow because there is nothing good there. And even though some people are active there now, I am afraid all this will end up with new arrests, imprisonments, and tightening of the screws. Unfortunately, I do not believe in a radiant, democratic, and liberal future of Russia. Especially under the current rulers.

“In a way, I use this phrase to wage indirect polemics with those who are trying to sympathize with me: look at the poor Kiseliov, he has to work in some remote Kyiv… And I answer them, in their absence, with Brodsky’s words.”

In other words, even your colleagues, progressive Russian journalists, look on Kyiv as a faraway province… It is just interesting from the angle of perception psychology.

“From the angle of psychology, I want to say again: let nobody suspect me of seriously looking on Kyiv as ‘a remote province by the sea.’ I just quoted Brodsky’s famous poem “Letters to the Roman Friend” (from Martial), where a lyrical hero polemicizes with his addressee in his absence, sympathizes with this hero who has to live far from Rome – with its Caesar, intriguers, poverty, and splendor. But the addressee answers him that he feels very good here, and there is no need to pity him.

“Knowing what some of my acquaintances are chatting about my journalistic destiny, I am saying to them: gentlemen, you feel bad but I feel good!”