Just advertisingGradskij, incidentally, is remembered in the same period yelled at large radionachalnika Popova, not allowing him to put two songs of the bard who died in the broadcast of the «Hit Parade». Trehoktavny voice shook the steadfast guardian of socialist morality, but finally finished it off. In the air made one song «Time of the bells»... Read more - Songs on the music and arrangement. So, it all started with the «Skomorokhov» in 1966, where you played with Gradsky, Buynova and Shakhnazarov. What began themselves «Skomorokhs»? and the music!

The Times

The first channel
Talk show by Vladimir Posner


The talk show of Vladimir Pozner - Alexander Gradsky

LEADING VLADIMIR POSZER: The program "Times" is on air. The program is about the main events of the week, but today it will be a program about what happened this year. This is the last program in this television year. Good evening! I am Vladimir Posner. So, I already said, we will consider the main events of the year - those that we, who make the program "The Times", seemed the most important, the most interesting. And we will discuss them with a kind of team of "fresh heads."

MODERATOR: So, today, to discuss the events and discussions that we selected as the main ones, this year, we collected a kind of team of "fresh goals" - the national team - with a strength of 5 people. This, let me imagine,

artistic director of the Sovremennik Theater Galina Volchek;

People's Artist of the USSR, academician of the Russian Academy of Arts Ilya Glazunov;

singer and composer Alexander Borisovich GRADSKY ;

twice Hero of the Soviet Union, USSR pilot-cosmonaut Georgy Grechko

and film director Alexander Nikolayevich Sokurov.

If you allow, we'll just start with a small clip about the main events of the season.


MODERATOR: Here is the television season, strictly speaking, begins in September and ends in June. That's about this piece, or something, we'll talk. And what you saw here in this video is only a small part of the events that happened during this time. Think, in general, how much it was. Let's try to discuss these things. Still, probably the most important international event was Iraq - the war in Iraq and the increased, terribly increased tensions in relations between Russia and the United States. What, after all, should be this relationship? I do not ask, so to speak, to speak from someone, from someone else's opinion, here personally from myself, what kind of relationship would you like to see between Russia and America? Who wants to start, please.

SINGER, COMPOSER A. GRADSKY : Well, I believe that Russia, for some reason, is considered a weaker country than the Soviet Union in all respects. I hear this all the time on television. They try to impress me. Maybe someone can manage to impress this, but it's very difficult to inspire me. The country has transformed, as it were, into another country. We got rid of a lot of problems, oddly enough. The country became smaller and more mobile. And I believe that it is no less strong than the Soviet Union, but not as strong as I would have liked. But Machiavelli said that it is not necessary to be very strong, it is important to make an impression of the strong! And now, if Russia will give the impression of being strong, even if it does not have, perhaps, the strength that it really expects from it - because no one will ask Russia to use this force and show in practice what it is - so it is necessary to behave toughly, I Think. And do not need to be friends with anyone, it is necessary on the English principle that England does not have friends ...

MODERATOR: And there are national interests.

GRADSKY : And there are national interests. If we act on this principle and act strictly in those cases when, indeed, our national interests will need protection, ourselves, then we will be reckoned with. And the Americans in the first place.

HOST: Good. What other opinions are there on this? Galina Borisovna, how are you?

ARTISTIC LEADER OF THE THEATER "CONTEMPORARY" G. Volchuk: Mr Putin, you know that with the incredible geographical, political, social differences between the two countries, there is much in common in the human genotype, I mean Americans and ...

MODERATOR: And the Russians?

VOLCHEC: And the Russian man. Just in the genotype. Not in the form of expressing it. And, it seems to me, these people are able to understand each other. I personally say this as a person who worked there more than once.


VOLCHEC: Do you understand?


VOLCHEC: Here. And so, if you take into account what Sasha is saying, suppose - and I agree with that. No need to be under anybody, no need to run, so to speak, behind the locomotive ...

MODERATE: Allow, then, Ilya Sergeevich. Here, from your point of view, what is good for Russia? Here is the rapprochement with America - what we say: "Yes, this is our ally." This rapprochement with America, from your point of view, is rather harmful for Russia?

PEOPLE'S ARTIST OF THE USSR I. GLAZUNOV: You know, I always remember that I answered the same question, Vladimir Vladimirovich, as you ask, the great sovereign Alexander the Third. He said: "Russia has two ally - its army and its fleet." And I think, I think, and I would really like it to remain, that if today everyone talks about terrorism, then America turns into a power of terrorism. Because to bomb, let us say, Yugoslavia former, the Serbs - what we all are silent ... Destroy ancient monasteries, people still, Albanians - all these problems ... Then suddenly, not having on what, from my point of view, serious Grounds, but having power - and power does not rule the world, yet Alexander Nevsky said: "God is not in power, but in truth!" - suddenly carpet bombing of Iraq. If someone suddenly says that yesterday they saw Bin Laden selling the apricot on Cheremushkinsky market, they have the right to make carpet bombing in Moscow?

MODERATOR: If you will allow me, to sum up some results ...

GLAZUNOV: I sum up the results. Sorry, I will sum up.


GLAZUNOV: With your permission. I believe that there can not be a problem of friendship or not friendship with America. There is a problem of national interests, of the strength and might of our state, which used to be called the Russian Empire, then the USSR, now Russia.

MODERATOR: You have a wonderful image of Bin Laden, who trades on the market with apricots - that's a cool thing! Absolutely!

GRADSKY: Bin Laden with a small letter ...

MODERATOR: Well, yes, of course.

GRADSKY: Not with the big one.

GLAZUNOV: It means that they will bomb, Vladimir Vladimirovich.

MODERATOR: Yes, I understand.

GLAZUNOV: That is, you see, they do not have any containment centers.

MODERATOR: Georgy Mikhailovich, would you like to say about the Americans that they are our friends, or would you like to say, like Alexander Gradsky, that we have no friends, we have national interests?

A cosmonaut, two times a Hero of the Soviet Union G. Grechko: I have many personal friends in America. And by nature I would like that we also had friendship. But, nevertheless, now, it seems to me, the main thing is what Gradsky said. Our national interests.

HOST: So. Well, well, Alexander Nikolayevich?

FILMMAKER A. Sokurov: As for the question of the United States, I do not care at all. I think it's absolutely all the same, what kind of relationship will there be, well, to a certain extent, of course, yes? I believe that we should have, there must be a very definite distance. We are not talking about the relationship between people, we are talking about the relationship between states. The American state and the Russian state are absolutely two different things, which, in fact, have almost no points of contact in their political culture and economic level. Do you see? Therefore, up to a certain time and, perhaps, long enough this distance should remain. Noble enough distance.

PRESENTER: If you will allow me, after all, I will move on to the concrete event - I mean the "war in Iraq" - in the sense that when it was about to begin, we raised this issue before our experts Whether there will be an assault on Baghdad, in general, what will be there. Listen to what they said.

ARCHIVE, PROGRAM "TIME" FROM 30.03.03 VICE-SPEAKER OF THE STATE DUMA OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION V. LUKIN: They are slowly going to Baghdad, apparently counting on that, after all, there are some internal factors - say, in Baghdad there are many Shiites; Perhaps, hunger will begin; Maybe there will not be water - the impact will be that the capture of Baghdad will be somehow not entirely military and not just military. I think there is an American idea in this. If this does not happen, then it will be necessary to storm Baghdad, and this is a huge sacrifice.

CHAIRMAN OF THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN AND DEFENSE POLICY S. Karaganov: They failed their strategy. And now they will have to storm Baghdad sooner or later. The Iraqis will not give up - it is now obvious. Another thing is that they can try to abandon the strategy of bereaving "their own". And, by the way, the Iraqis. They, having lost the political, propaganda war, nevertheless, went along the path of battling Iraqi lives, well, so as not to lose further this war. And they can, of course, try to strangle Baghdad with hunger. There is such an option. Therefore, I think that the storming of Baghdad is inevitable, if the Americans, in general, do not give up their plans, which is almost impossible.

POLITICAL REVIEWER A. BOVIN: There will not be an assault in the sense that we stormed Berlin. And there will be a siege, well, a more active siege, than just put around the troops and do nothing. There will be a siege of Baghdad and some, so to speak, elements of active action. But there will be no assault in the classical sense of the word.

MODERATOR: That's what interests me, here you are, when all this was watched and listened to, you had some of your own, I do not know, theories, why this power of Saddam Hussein is like this, and she did not? These people disappeared, they had to rush under tanks and so on. All. This is just - and did not become.

In general, do you have an explanation for yourself? Were you surprised at this?

GREEK: Yes, of course.

MODERATOR: And how do you explain this?

GRECHKO: Well, the surprise is that we can not cope with Chechnya. And suddenly, with such a seemingly powerful power so quickly and so bloodlessly ... And I explain by the fact that they have prepared for this in advance. They divided the Sunnis, the Shiites, they did the work, they bought somebody, somebody, then, they got interested in something. And only after they organized there the "fifth column", they quietly entered relatively there.

VOLCHEC: No, I only one, as it were, I understand, unfortunately, that this story for a long time, if not ...

MODERATOR: That's another question.

VOLCHEC: Yes, yes. And to answer and understand how it was possible ...

MODERATOR: And it does not seem to you that simply, in fact, the regime was absolutely rotten, that all these hymns about the fact that "we would wipe the Americans into powder" - it was pure propaganda that people talked to the cameras What they had to say, because there were others who were watching this ...

VOLCHEC: Well, yes.

MODERATOR: And when it got to the point, there was simply no one to fight, in fact. Do not you think it's more ...

VOLCHEC: It's possible.

MODERATOR: No, what do you think?

Sokurov: You know, no, it seems to me, it seems to me that there is a slightly different problem. Maybe I'm wrong. In general, political categories and political questions are asked, and, political overtones, if analyzed, this situation does not work, this mechanism does not work - political! Iraq lost, because - if it's a loss, I do not know, we have to think about it, we need to see what, in fact ...


Sokurov: Because this is an unconjugated civilization. It's just one civilization went to the side, and the other came in its place - more powerful.

MODERATOR: What do you say, Sasha?

Sokurov: They do not fight different civilizations, you see, thank God. Note.

GRADSKY : Well, I, in general, agree with what Alexander Nikolayevich says. Here emotionally agree. For me, the question, anyway, remains open, to some extent, because because of what was happening there, we do not know, do not know, do not know and should not know - this is not our mind. Here. " This, let them, as they say, special services are engaged. Why did this happen? For one simple reason - because the Americans made it clear, they made it clear not only to Iraq, but they made it clear to anyone who tried to, so to speak, either blow up something at their home or, in general, so to say, behave disrespectfully. So they made it clear that they would not be cuddling with anyone. And they made it clear that Iran will behave like this, they will come to Iran. Will lead Saudi Arabia - they will sort out there. And in Libya will understand, where there is still - in the Sudan ... To be, in general, quiet. But, on the other hand, it is not a fact that the Americans are now in Iraq, right now in Iraq, will be just as good as it was when they entered there.

MODERATOR: That's certain!

VOLCHEK: But you did not answer that question.

GRADSKY: Why did they do this?

VOLCHEC: No, it's not.

PRESENTER: Why did everything fail so?

GRADSKY: Because the Arabs, in principle, do not want to fight. Let's talk seriously. How can the five million state of Israel keep in fear 100 million million Arabs from the age of 60 there in some seventh year. Here is the answer to this question. Israel has not won a single Arab company.

GLAZUNOV: The point is that Iraq is a weak colonial country, which was accused of having supposedly some kind of superweapon of death for the whole world.

MODERATOR: No, they just have weapons of mass destruction.

GLAZUNOV: This was not confirmed. Hence, this is called provocation, like the burning of the Reichstag in Hitler. They are weak colonial, the only cement of their society - the Koran, it is well known. The fact that America is permissive to deal with those countries that it does not like, I do not admire.

MODERATOR: Let's go further. Another topic that no less worries our viewer. So, here, this year the law on the land was adopted. In general, land for Russia is an eternal problem, in this case it is a law that allows you to sell and buy land, including farmland. The question is, will this law work in Russia at all? And, behold, in our studio, when we touched it, that's what we heard.

ARCHIVE 02.02.2003

GOVERNOR OF THE SAMARA REGION K. TITOV: By means of certain legislative and economic mechanisms, he gives the bourgeoisie the way to take the land from the peasant and take it into his ownership. And the peasant becomes just an employee. He can be hired in large numbers, in smaller ones, but he loses the property of land under this law.

Moderator: You, what interesting terminology you use - "bourgeois". Who at us bourgeois?

TITOV: Oligarchs, you know them well.

MODERATOR: There are only 10 of them oligarchs.

TITOV: And today they are already buying the land. The peasant has not bought a single land, because he simply does not have the opportunity.

CHAIRMAN OF THE COUNCIL OF ASSOCIATION OF INDUSTRIAL UNIONS OF APK V. Semenov: Oligarchs, by and large, do not need land. Do not build illusions. They need it only for speculation. But if we make it so that the law will be implemented, and we will not give the path of corruption, the oligarchs will not profit from this land.

GOVERNOR OF THE KRASNODAR TERRITORY A. TKACHEV: What are we afraid of? 40 percent of land shares are held by pensioners who do not work already on collective farms, joint-stock companies and so on. And so today rascals, to put it mildly.

MODERATOR: Softly - this is a rascal, but if not - then bourgeois, yes?

TKACHEV: They can buy for a thousand rubles, they cheat. And then, grandmother, grandfather, anyone, by ignorance, by stupidity, for some other reasons indirect, direct sell and will remain with nothing.

MODERATOR: So, let's do it, Alexander Nikolayevich. How do you feel about the fact that in Russia you can really buy and sell land, well, as in any normal country?

Sokurov: It's a very difficult question, it's not a civil issue, maybe not even a question of civil society, maybe not even an issue for public discussion. It is possible that this is a professional problem. But, from the emotional point of view, I can, about what I think, and what I'm witnessing, when I'm in the south of Russia, in the Stavropol Territory, where my parents live. In the Russian rural population there is a lot of anger and anger. You can not own land without good, here, you must own land and be a kind person. If the land falls into the hands of an evil person - a disaster, all the trouble, and whoever owns this land, who gets it, buys it, and to all who are around. Now, this is a terrible problem ...

MODERATOR: Why are they evil? Is it because they just can not buy land, because for decades they were mocked, had no passports?

Sokurov: Because, on, such a difficult question, there can not be a simple answer to it, they did not repent. We are accomplices of what was in Russia.

HOST: That's it?

Sokurov: Of course. And how?

GLAZUNOV: I do not agree.

MODERATOR: Georgy Mikhailovich, what do you think, here, about ... After all, in general, there were outstanding minds in Russia who believed that without free sale of land in general, Russia would not be able to move forward.

GREEK: I'll first say that I was a guest from an American farmer, and he says: "It's hard to work on the ground, my neighbors are ruined." I said: "Maybe I'll ask incorrectly, you can not answer, but, that's why they are ruined, but you are not?". He said: "Because this land, the land of our family, is my land, but those who rent out are ruined." Therefore, I am for the land to be with those who work on it. But those who work on it have no money. Therefore now it seems to me to sell the earth it is impossible.

MODERATOR: Yes, yes, please.

GLAZUNOV: You know, I agree most with the cosmonaut with our esteemed one. Because, for example, Stolypin, and we must learn from him, because it was a great reformer, and truly a reformer, he bet on the strong, he created a peasant bank, where everyone could take money without interest, and buy back the land. The peasants do not have the money to buy back the land, so the state should help and create a peasant bank, and distribute exactly which lands can be sold and which can not be sold. So it is clearly necessary to determine what you can sell, where, and raise, here, I'm going to the suburbs, and you drive, withered fields. All that is brought to us imported. It is necessary to raise the national economy, and this begins with the support of the peasantry, which has been driving for 100 years already.

MODERATOR: Well, I think that much more.

GLAZUNOV: Water, there, the sailors, the land to the peasants.

Sokurov: I think we need to think first of all about changing the spiritual mood of people. If there is no first of all this work in society, no land will save anyone, the sold land will go under the hammer, people will get drunk. The Earth can be given to, of course, whoever has something in the soul, we all understand this perfectly.

VOLCHEK: I, in principle, agree with what Glazunov said, in terms of the fact that if it does not turn into a campaigning campaign, how do we all have this ... Well, let's sell the land now! That was not so ...

MODERATOR: Well, neither does the question.

VOLCHEK: No, the question is not raised. I say that maybe I agree with your experts who spoke and those who said that if it were not for corruption, if not for what I called the campaign campaign here, meaning our passion in our country To any company, then one, then another, then the third, that's the point. And, of course, we can not disagree with what Sokurov says, you see?

HOST: One minute. Yes?

GRADSKY : I, here, are one against all in this case, and against Tkachev, although I have very great respect for him, against those words that Titov naturally spoke, and against What everyone is saying here, relatively against. At us always such here global decisions are done not in the complete set, I so would tell.

MODERATOR: President Putin, after all, said that 80% of all vegetables and fruits produced in Russia are produced on household plots, 80%. Need some more evidence that, in principle, it is necessary for a person to own land? Another thing is that yes, it is necessary to do it in a clever way.

GRADSKY : It should be afraid that they will take him away, here, after all, society and the state should create a situation in which people would stop being afraid to invest their labor and money, because the uncle comes and says: "Now we will take everything, let's all". And the person has one life, he invested money, he put in the work, suddenly comes some horseradish with a gun and says, give everything.

MODERATOR: Now, Galina Borisovna, I remember, the word corruption was said - the most important word regarding Russia today. Here, there was a special survey of Russian citizens, see what was in our program.

To be continued... >>>