And who is Pivovarov? Isn't he a Russophobe? Academician Yuri Pivovarov: “There is no mystery in the Russian soul” Pivovarov Yuri Sergeevich personal life
It is extremely popular in the media to announce the top five, ten, or hundred most popular songs, performers, actors, etc. In this series of publications, we will present the five most popular and, most importantly, influential domestic historians-falsifiers.
The famous French historian Marc Bloch believed that falsifications in history play no less important and positive role than documents containing true information. He found the opportunity to explore the motives of deception to be positive. Research into motives for lying usually helps to gain new knowledge. “It is not enough to expose the deception, we must reveal its motives. At least in order to better expose him,” taught Mark Blok.
Activity is always motivated. “Unmotivated” activity still has motives hidden from the observer or the subject himself.
In politics and economics, the motives for deception are the desire to gain capital and power. And what motive determines the actions of a falsifier of history?
A political system in which political power belongs to the wealthy elite of the ruling class is called plutocracy. In the era of general globalization, a world plutocracy has formed in the person of the world center of capital and power. The plutocrat is a representative of this elite, his goal is the accumulation of wealth (according to Aristotle - chremastics, or the pursuit of profit as such, regardless of the methods of obtaining it). The totality of plutocrats constitutes the elite (X-elite). Its goal, in addition to accumulating wealth, is to maintain political power. To achieve this, the X-elite creates and leads an influential party (X-Party), which lobbies its interests throughout the world.
X-Elite uses two control channels. The first channel is the manipulation of public consciousness (deception), and the second is lobbying for illegal gain in collusion with local elites, i.e. fraud. According to the definition of S.I. Ozhegova, “a rogue is a cunning and clever deceiver, a swindler.” Deception and fraud are committed in the interests of the local center of capital and power (LCCP) or the global center of capital and power (GCCP), or the X-elite. It follows that the “imaginary wise men” are in the service of either the LCCV or the GCCV. By the way, this service can be done without deception. We know of many Russian and Soviet historians who made fundamental contributions to historiography without resorting to lies. But we will explore the tricks of the “false wise men” and the reasons why they became such.
Nowadays, falsification of history has become a systemic political work. Purposeful distortion of the past, mockery of the lives of our fathers and grandfathers is one of the components of the strategic information war waged against Russia with the aim of its disintegration and establishing an external control regime. Corrupt officials, business, science, and education contribute to achieving this goal. The US State Department, through a system of non-governmental organizations, finances Russian universities, academic institutes, departments, individual “independent” scientists and experts... As a rule, humanitarian and economic universities, departments, and academic institutes receive foreign financial support. It is these areas that have a decisive influence on the sustainability of Russia’s development.
During the training process, undergraduate and graduate students are selected; the most proven ones are sent to study “over the hill”, to the “metropolis” to continue their education. Then these masters and doctors, with the help of a lobbying system, are introduced into key positions in Russian business, politics, and education.
These young people can be found at the highest levels of government. They are part of a cohort of individuals representing the interests of Russia’s geopolitical competitors and transnational corporations. This same cohort also includes our “historians” who, out of selfish interests, malice or stupidity, contribute to the erosion of the value system and intellectual degradation of Russians. As a result of the activities of falsifiers, domestic science and education are dying before our eyes.
The threats from such “historians” also lie in the fact that they are allowed to participate in the educational process of our children, write textbooks, introduce general education standards, and represent Russia internationally level, after which Resolutions are born, similar to the Vilnius Resolution of the OSCE PA “Reuniting a Divided Europe” of July 3, 2009.
Liberal professors talk a lot about “freedom” and “pluralism.” However, “freedom” and “pluralism” exist only for them, not for students. For example, what grade will the “historian” Yu. Pivovarov give to a student if a student declares at an academician’s lecture that he confuses Hindenburg with Ludendorff, incorrectly names dates, invents events and, in general, he is not a historian at all, but an ignoramus and a liar?
Russia is losing “state immunity”, so the counterfeiters have completely lost their sense of proportion. In particular, academician RAS Yu.S. Brewers:
He is not afraid to promote his ideas of the disintegration of Russia and the reduction of its population;
He is not afraid of legal liability for insulting the honor and dignity of our fathers and grandfathers and damaging the business reputation of the Red Army;
Not afraid to show his ignorance;
He is not afraid that someone will have the courage to tell him that he is not a historian or a scientist!
“On June 10–11, the Hungarian Center for Russian Studies at the University of Budapest. Loranda Eotvos (Prof. Gyula Svak) and the Department of History of Eastern Europe (Prof. Tomas Kraus) held an international scientific conference in Budapest on the topic “The Great Patriotic War - 70 years of the attack of Nazi Germany on the USSR.” The Hungarian news agency MTI published two short messages on the pages of its portal about each day of the conference.
Of all the reports of the conference participants, only two presentations seemed particularly noteworthy to the MTI correspondent: senior researcher at INION RAS Irina Glebova and director INION RAS academician Yuri Pivovarov. Thus, in his report, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Yuri Pivovarov noted: “The cult of Soviet victory in the World War is the main legitimate basis of modern Russia. It is loudly voiced by television, newspapers, and other media. The consciousness of twenty-year-olds is built on this basis. This victory is everything to us, we will never give it up, only we can win - these are the main components of the myth. The myth of victory in the world war, which consigned millions of victims to oblivion, became after 1945 the main basis for legitimizing the second edition of the communist regime in the USSR, and then in present-day Russia.” So, for Yu. Pivovarov, as well as for the employees of the academic institute he heads, the Great Patriotic War is not Great and not Patriotic, and the “so-called” war, and victory in it, is a myth. The Hungarian MTI correspondent liked the last definition so much that he repeated it 15 times in his short message!
Russian historian Alexander Dyukov spoke about the report of Academician Pivovarov as follows: “As for the speech at the conference by the director of INION RAS Yu.S. Pivovarova, then it, being dedicated not considered at the conference, problems, and a general view of the history of the Soviet Union, clearly stood out from the general background. Listeners could see that what Yu.S. Pivovarov created the concept not by generalizing facts and creating a consistent concept based on them, but by using facts (including unverified ones) to illustrate an already formulated concept. This led to the presence in the speech of Yu.S. Pivovarov has a significant number of factual errors, which I pointed out during the ensuing discussion. The report of the director of INION RAS was also met with very skepticism by Hungarian colleagues. In any case, as stated by Yu.S. Pivovarov’s controversial historical concept deserves careful scientific criticism”...
So let’s take a critical look at the life path and “scientific creativity” of Academician Pivovarov.
Yuri Sergeevich Pivovarov (born April 25, 1950, Moscow) in 1967 entered the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGMIMO) of the USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs, from which he graduated in 1972. To enter the Institute of International Relations from school in those days was almost impossible. “Mere mortals” could enter this university (as a rule) after military service in the Soviet army, if they managed to join the ranks of the CPSU there and receive a referral from the political department military district to this prestigious university or on the recommendation of the district committee of the CPSU (for Moscow) or the regional committee of the CPSU for the province. It was necessary but not enough a condition for obtaining a MGIMO student card.
In 1975, Yuri Sergeevich graduated from graduate school at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO) of the USSR Academy of Sciences. He became a Doctor of Political Science, professor, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAN) since 1997 (during the “democratic period”), academician of the RAS since 2006.
How similar they all are, these now successful “historians”. All of them, without exception, made careers under the communist regime. Everyone without exception, making excuses for this, calls themselves dissidents. So Yuri Sergeevich, the grandson of a fiery revolutionary, Ilyich’s comrade-in-arms, told us: “Today is February 13, 2002. On February 13, 1972, exactly 30 years ago, I was first arrested by the KGB. I was arrested at the Yaroslavl station early in the morning of February 13” http://www.politstudies.ru/universum/esse/index.htm “Arrested for the first time,” i.e. it is assumed that the young dissident was repeatedly repressed: imprisoned, exiled, etc.
“I knew dissidents, transported samizdat literature, was detained once with reprints, and the persecution boiled down to the fact that after graduate school I was not hired and was unemployed for a year. I studied at MGIMO on the same course with Lavrov, Torkunov, Migranyan, with the Ambassador to America Kislyak in the same class at school - they were already making careers, and I walked around in a quilted jacket, in kirzachs with foot wraps, with a cigarette in my teeth "(http:// www.izvestia.ru/science/article3130724/) . You have to be able to do this: in the USSR you can talk for a whole year “with a cigarette in your teeth” without work. In those days, the article in the Criminal Code was "for parasitism" which was defined as long-term, more than four months in a row (or a year in total), residence of an adult able-bodied person on unearned income with evasion of socially useful work. According to Soviet criminal law, parasitism was punishable (Article 209 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR). By the way, I. Brodsky was convicted under this article. But Yuri Sergeevich gets away with everything; after a year of parasitism, he is hired to work at a prestigious academic institute.
Thus, in the winter of 1972, the “dissident” Pivovarov was arrested by the KGB, in the spring of the same year he graduated from the prestigious MGIMO University of the USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and in the fall of the same year he was accepted into full-time graduate school at the no less prestigious IMEMO Academy of Sciences of the USSR.
Since 1976, Yuri Sergeevich has been working at the Institute of Scientific Information for Social Sciences (INION) of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Since 1998 - Director of INION RAS, at the same time head of the department of political science and jurisprudence at INION RAS. Since the early 1990s. gives a number of lecture courses at Moscow State University and Russian State University for the Humanities. President of the Russian Association of Political Science (RAPS) since February 2011, honorary president of RAPS since 2004.
Deputy Head of the History Section of the Department of Historical and Philological Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences, member of the Bureau of the Information and Library Council of the Russian Academy of Sciences, deputy chairman of the Scientific Council on Political Science at the Department of Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences, head of the section “Scientific and Cultural Policy, Education” of the Expert Council under the Chairman of the Federation Council, member of the Scientific Council under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, etc.
Yu. Pivovarov about Russian saints
Is it possible to publicly spit on an icon in the presence of 83 thousand people or to defiantly step on the Koran while surrounded by the same number of Muslims? “What a stupid question,” any normal person will answer. But why is it possible to insult Orthodox saints? For example, the holy blessed Grand Duke Alexander Nevsky. Here is how historian Yu. Pivovarov, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, speaks about the prince: “The same Alexander Nevsky is one of the controversial, if not stinking, figures in Russian history, but you can’t debunk him. ... And Nevsky, relying on the Horde, became its hired warrior. In Tver, Torzhok, Staraya Russa, he cut the ears of fellow believers who rebelled against the Mongols and poured boiling water and lead into their mouths. ... And the Battle of the Ice is just a small border conflict in which Nevsky behaved like a bandit, attacking a handful of border guards in large numbers. He acted just as ignoble in the Battle of Neva, for which he became Nevsky. In 1240, having made his way into the headquarters of the Swedish jarl, the ruler of Birger, he himself knocked out his eyes with a spear, which was considered not comme il faut among knights.” From an interview with Yu. Pivovarov to the magazine “Profile” No. 32/1 (circulation 83 thousand copies).
The events that Yu. Pivovarov discusses happened a very long time ago. There are no documents that could confirm the correctness of the academician’s conclusions. For this reason alone, we can say that he is wrong, since here the matter is a subjective assessment of the activities of the holy noble prince, and not in science. And evaluation is a matter of “free will.”
The academician’s “free will” determines his conclusion regarding the activities of Alexander Nevsky. Yu. Pivovarov is not original in his reasoning; even under Nicholas I, a little book about Russia “La Russie en 1839” by the Marquis de Custine was published in Paris. In his “travel notes” Custine not limited to By attacks on contemporary Russia, he seeks, on occasion, to debunk the Russian past, to undermine the historical foundations of the Russian people. Among Custine's attacks on the Russian past, noteworthy are the ironic words dedicated to the memory of the holy noble prince Alexander Nevsky. Custine says: “Alexander Nevsky is a model of caution; but he was not a martyr either for faith or for noble feelings. The national church canonized this sovereign, more wise than heroic. This is Ulysses among the saints." And pay attention: even this caveman Russophobe does not allow himself to stoop to the level of the dirty abuse that the historian Yu. Pivovarov hurls at the Russian saint.
There are several points of view on the actions of Alexander Nevsky. Yu. Pivovarov represents the point of view of Western liberals. The assessment of the activities of the Grand Duke Lev Nikolaevich Gumilev is exactly the opposite. And we have no reason L.N. Gumilev cannot be trusted, because he is wise, tactful and does not “distort” the facts.
Also, in passing, Yu. Pivovarov in his interview insulted the Russian Orthodox Church:
“Do you know when Dmitry Donskoy was canonized? You will laugh - according to the decision of the CPSU Central Committee. In 1980, when they celebrated the 600th anniversary of the Battle of Kulikovo, they discovered - Donskoy not canonized and the Central Committee of the CPSU “recommended” the church to “correct the mistake,” says “historian” Pivovarov. It turns out that the academician “historian” (mostly Yu. Pivovarov studied the strange science of political science, but recommends himself to everyone as a historian) does not know that Prince Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy was canonized in June 1988, during the celebrations in honor of the 1000th anniversary of Christianity in Rus'. For information (Yu. Pivovarov and others): at that time, intervention of the “CPSU Central Committee” in the affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church was simply impossible. So here our Yu. Pivovarov reveals himself as an ignorant and at the same time slander - which is “not comme il faut” for a historian.
Yu. Pivovarov about Russian national heroes
Our historian is consistent, he has few saints, and other Russian national heroes get from him. In particular: “The real Kutuzov has nothing to do with us, but the fictional one (by L. Tolstoy in the novel “War and Peace.” - S.B.) is the embodiment of the deep Russian spirit. But Kutuzov was a lazy person, an intriguer, an erotomaniac, who adored fashionable French actresses and read French pornographic novels.” This is how the academician characterizes a desperately brave warrior who made a career not on the floor in St. Petersburg, and in bloody battles, where he was seriously wounded three times.
In the battle near Alushta on July 23, 1774, Kutuzov, commanding the grenadier battalion of the Moscow Legion, was the first to break into the fortified village of Shumy; while pursuing the fleeing enemy, he was seriously wounded by a bullet in the temple. For this feat, the 29-year-old captain was awarded the Order of St. George, 4th degree. During the 2nd Turkish War, during the siege of Ochakov, Kutuzov was seriously wounded twice (1788). Let us note that he received these wounds while he was a general, that is, the “lazy and erotomaniac” M. Kutuzov did not hide behind the backs of his soldiers. In 1790, participating under the command of Suvorov in the assault on Izmail, Kutuzov at the head of the column captured the bastion and was the first to break into the city. This is how Suvorov assessed his subordinate: “Major General and Cavalier Golenishchev-Kutuzov demonstrated new experiments in his art and courage... he, serving as an example of courage, held his place, overcame a strong enemy, established himself in the fortress and continued to defeat enemies.” Kutuzov was produced to lieutenant general and appointed commandant of Izmail. Then there was participation in the war in Poland, diplomatic and administrative work, and in the finale - the most active participation in the victorious war with Napoleon. Or are these myths?
Suffice it to say that Field Marshal M.I. Kutuzov is a full holder of the Order of St. George. There were only four such people in the history of the Russian Empire (!). A significant part of Mikhail Illarionovich’s military service was spent on the battlefields, in the most difficult conditions. War is, first of all, hard work, exhausting work and the highest responsibility for the lives of subordinates and the Fatherland. Later this tension and numerous the wounds did their job: the body was completely worn out, the field marshal did not live to see seventy years of age.
Why does Yu. Pivovarov believe that M. Kutuzov has nothing to do with us (probably Russians)? Maybe because foreign languages were very easy for him, and he knew a lot of them. Or because he was the most tender father and husband? He had six children. The only son died in infancy. There are five daughters left. Lisa, the ugliest and most beloved, was married to an officer in his army, a war hero. When his beloved son-in-law died on the battlefield, Kutuzov sobbed like a child. “Well, why are you killing yourself like that, you’ve seen so many deaths!” - they told him. He replied: “Then I was a commander, and now I am an inconsolable father.” He hid from Lisa for a month that she was already a widow.
Or was M. Kutuzov not Russian because he was the greatest strategist, surpassing Napoleon himself? The field marshal was against the march on Paris and the liberation of Europe, hostile to Russia, from Napoleon. He saw many years ahead and, in the end, he was right. Brothers Alexander and Nikolai were the “first” to fight the revolutionary infection in Europe, and it responded with aggression (the war of 1854-1856).
So, is Kutuzov too good or still bad for the Russians? What does Yu. Pivovarov mean when he says: “The real Kutuzov has nothing to do with us”?
Several years ago, Yu. Pivovarov discovered, by his own admission, a “completely astonishing... historical fact”: “In 1612, when Kuzma Minin gathered a militia to drive the Poles out of Moscow, he sold part of the population of Nizhny Novgorod into slavery. And with this money he formed a militia for Prince Pozharsky.” it was reported in a remarkable place - at the Gorbachev Foundation, at the round table “The Formation of Democracy in Modern Russia: from Gorbachev to Putin” with the participation of titled foreign colleagues.
What does Kuzma Minin have to do with it, one might ask, if our academician was invited to speak out about Gorbachev and Putin? But here’s what: “Russia,” explains Yuri Sergeevich, as if drawing a line from slave owners Kuzma Minin's habits to today's plunder of national wealth by those in power - has always used its natural resources. Once upon a time these were people...
The materials of the round table were published. And now V. Rezunkov, host of the radio station “Radio Liberty” (also on the budget of the US State Department), on November 4, that is, on the day of the celebration of the Kazan Icon of the Mother of God, as well as on the Day of National Unity, smartly broadcasts to the whole country: “Famous Russian scientist (?! – S.B.), historian Yuri Pivovarov discovered an amazing historical fact. In 1612, when Kuzma Minin was gathering a militia to drive the Poles out of Moscow, he sold part of the population of Nizhny Novgorod into slavery and with this money formed a militia for Prince Pozharsky.”
Currently, many historians are “fruitfully” operating in Russia, who, under the guise of “bringing the truth” to the people and the desire to “erase the blind spots of history”, sow the hatred of citizens towards their Motherland...
Historians can both unite and divide society. This requires them to take a responsible approach to the subject. But here is what Yu. Pivovarov claims: “If we speak seriously, it is impossible to reconcile history with history. Reconcile pre-revolutionary, Soviet and modern Russia too.”
What does it mean to “reconcile history with history”? Apparently, what is meant is the following. On the time axis there are “break points” of a single historical process. These points are the times of events associated with the global redistribution of property in a particular country as a result of revolutions, colonization, occupation, etc. Yu. Pivovarov, in particular, speaks of “pre-revolutionary, Soviet and modern Russia”; the points of transition from era to era at this time were accompanied by a change in the owners of enormous wealth. Such shocks are the cause of “rewriting history.” This is an objective process. The historian often fulfills orders and receives a salary for this. History will always serve the interests of capital and power. This pattern is associated with risks, in particular the risk of a split in society, the possible consequences of revising previously concluded international agreements, etc. Sooner or later, a subjective interpretation of history will lead to upheavals. A far-sighted Customer makes sure that these risks are minimal, and that shocks are transferred to the longest possible period and cannot destroy the country and state. Modern management is engaged in solving this problem, and there is no need to be ironic about it. The red banner and tricolor are our history. Many glorious victories were achieved under these banners. And academician Yu. Pivovarov, director of a reputable academic institute, says about the fundamental the impossibility of solving the problem of minimizing risks from the impact on Russian citizens of many alternative versions of stories. Moreover, Yu. Pivovarov solves the inverse problem - he maximizes these risks. Let's prove it.
The academician’s Stalin, like Hitler, is “scum,” the USSR is an evil empire, and Soviet power is “Russia’s biggest tragedy in 1000 years.” its existence." But the academician is wrong, if only because without the communists there would be no Russia. At the same time, one cannot deny the fact that millions of Russian citizens are still grateful to the Soviet government, for example, for an excellent education, a happy, carefree youth, and this cannot be denied. Ideas of "debunking" and “humiliation” is not popular among the people. That is why organizations such as “Memorial”, “Fund them. HELL. Sakharov" and others like them are marginal and not interesting to the people. They exist solely through external grants.
In general, if you follow the logic of Yu. Pivovarov and agree that Stalin is “scum,” you need to go further: give similar characteristics to his entourage, then to the “Marshals of Victory,” scientists and the entire Soviet people, who as a result will turn out to be “slaves.” However, there is no vacuum, the place of “scum”, naturally, should be taken by “not scum”: generals Vlasov, Krasnov, Shkuro, according to this logic Rezun (Suvorov) and other traitors become fighters against the “totalitarian regime”, etc. The formation of a legion of “not scum” has been actively going on for more than twenty years. The academician takes an active part in this process, this is evident from his efforts in “debunking” Russian saints and national heroes. Similar processes took place in Ukraine and the Baltic states, their modern national heroes are known (S. Bandera, legionnaires of the SS troops, etc.). After completing the project of revising history according to Yu. Pivovarov, all that remains for us is to open museums of the “Soviet occupation” throughout Russia.
Thus, Pivovarov’s idea about the impossibility of “reconciling histories” leads to the need to update the conflicting version of history (several “irreconcilable histories”). However, the idea of abandoning Russian saints and heroes and imposing new ones by force will definitely lead to a conflict that will smolder in society and at a critical moment will flare up as a destructive fire tornado. Moreover. It is absolutely clear that regardless of whether academician Yu.S. Whether Stalin’s brewers are “scum” or not, Stalin will take a worthy, prominent place in Russian history. A place similar to those occupied by Napoleon in French history, Cromwell and Churchill in English history, slave-owning presidents in the history of the United States, Mao Zedong in the history of China... This will be the case - if Russia plans to be a sovereign power...
"On the Laws of History"
“It is quite widely believed that history, in contrast to the so-called physical sciences, is concerned with the description of specific phenomena of the past, rather than with the search for general laws that can govern these events. Perhaps this view cannot be denied as a characteristic of the type of problem with which some historians are chiefly interested. But it is, of course, unacceptable as a statement about the theoretical function of general laws in scientific historical research” (Karl G. Hempel “The Logic of Explanation”, M., 1998).
Yu. Pivovarov has his own original opinion on the subject and methodology of history. “What does history study? French historian Fernand Braudel said: “Events are dust.” I would also not overestimate the role of archives and the role of documents. Yuri Tynyanov said: “I begin where the document ends.” He, the greatest expert on documents, did not have enough documents. In this sense, archives and facts do not answer the question of what history is. I like the definition of history given by the English historian Robin Collingwood: “History is the action of people in the past.” If this is so, then a person has free will and can do this or that. There are no laws for this, like in physics or chemistry. There is no law on the correspondence of productive forces to production relations, which if do not correspond then a revolution occurs. Rave".
With these words, Academician Pivovarov presents an effective universal method that explains everything. History as a science has ceased to exist if everything is determined by the “free will of man.” The Russians had “free will”, they “resisted” in 1941 near Moscow, so Hitler retreated, but in 1812 there was no such “free will”, Napoleon won, and “the lazy man and the erotomaniac” Kutuzov at that time read “ French pornographic novels." Stalin is “scum” and only his “free will” explains the “mass repressions”.
Let's note the following detail. The academician says literally the following: “This is our Borodino - a great victory, and in French and European history the battle for Moscow in 1812 is a victory for the genius of Napoleon. After all, we surrendered Moscow then.” We will not focus on the fact that Borodino and the “Battle of Moscow” are “two big differences,” but please note: Yu. Pivovarov is entirely on the side of “French and European history.” Although Napoleon said: “In the battle of Moscow the most valor was shown and the least success was achieved. The French showed themselves worthy of victory, and the Russians earned the right to be invincible." Pay attention to the respect with which Napoleon treats the Russians and how academician Yu. Pivovarov treats them.
Unfortunately, there is no such “free will”. There are many factors regulating the behavior of a person, society, and state. First of all, the economic factor. Geopolitics is dictated by economic laws. Economic interests rule the world. The doctrine of the interests of the state was substantiated by Machiavelli. In the 18th century the content of this teaching fits into the formula found by the Duke de Rohan: “Princes command nations, but princes are commanded by interests.” Pufendorf at the end of the 17th century was able, with the help of his enormous authority, to transform the teaching about government interests in the principle of understanding political actions. Karl Marx, whose works Yu. Pivovarov called “nonsense,” made fundamental discoveries in the field of economics and attempted to use them to explain some historical patterns. This was done very effectively at that time, and this approach is being successfully developed. The laws of economics and their influence on history are objective and no academician can abolish them, because this is tantamount to abolishing the law of universal gravitation. The academician said that there is no such law, and tomorrow a thrown stone will never fall to the ground.
History is a complex science that requires from the researcher encyclopedic knowledge. A historian must know many languages, often exotic and even dead. He must also be versed in economics, physical geography, philology, geophysics, paleontology, landscape science, ethnography, etc., etc., etc. A synthesis of history, geography, economics, sociology, demography - this is what the new science looked like in the eyes of the great historian Fernand Braudel. “I believe in the fruitful consequences of statistical analysis,” wrote Fernand Braudel. “The new economic and social history brings to the fore in its research the problem of cyclical change; it is fascinated by the phantom, but at the same time by the reality of the cyclical rise and fall of prices.”
Unfortunately, the time of the titans, who owned a rich arsenal of historical research, has passed and more and more “historians” are guided in their research by “free will”. It’s convenient, you don’t have to swallow dust in archives and know ancient languages.
But even “free will” requires the historian to adhere to elementary logic and at least some, albeit visible, decency.
About the Aurora shot
How Yu. Pivovarov provides information about Aurora as a revelation. “And the Aurora did not fire at Zimny. It was one of the strongest cruisers in the world, and if it had fired even once, the palace would have looked like the Reichstag in 1945 (the maximum caliber of a deck gun is 152 mm! - S.B.).” But not a single Soviet history textbook shows the cruiser Aurora firing at the Winter Palace. The Aurora's shot was a blank shot and should have served as a signal for the assault, this is stated in textbooks, so it is not clear who and what Yu. Pivovarov is educating?
The complete groundlessness of many of the academician’s statements is surprising. For example:
“The same “universal” education that Stalin gave the USSR was much higher in the former Russia. Before 1917, the level of education, in the sense of personal development, was such that we have not yet surpassed it. Solzhenitsyn called it “saving the people.”
And again our academician is lying. Firstly, in terms of literacy level (20-30%), pre-revolutionary Russia ranked last among the leading powers of the world. That is, less than a third of the population had the opportunity to “develop their personality.” Secondly, the Soviet education system was an excellent system, as objectively evidenced by the regular victories of Soviet schoolchildren at international mathematical, physical and other Olympiads, as well as the undeniable achievements of Soviet science. Thirdly - “in the sense of personal development.” Any Russian can name many names of Soviet scientists, engineers, workers, collective farmers, officers and generals, and even party functionaries, and Academician Pivovarov will never, ever prove how they were inferior “in terms of personal development” to their colleagues in the “former Russia.” Because it's not like that!
Lies within the framework of fuzzy logic
When familiarizing yourself with the history of the white movement based on archival materials of the Russian emigration, one becomes convinced that the “whites” were doomed to defeat.
Firstly, due to total corruption. There were not many convinced fighters for the ideals of a “united and indivisible Russia”.
Secondly, the Russian elite has degenerated so much that among it there was no personality commensurate with the scale of the tasks facing the Empire. The largest representatives of the white movement, Denikin, Kornilov, Kolchak, Yudenich, Wrangel, were neither strategists nor politicians.
Thirdly, the whites were never able to formulate a program for their movement. The solution to all problems was postponed “for later”, at the discretion of the Constituent Assembly.
Fourthly, there was no unity within the movement. At first, the bourgeoisie fought in alliance with the left to abolish the monarchy, then significant efforts were spent on destroying the army, and then destructive rivalry began within the white movement.
The real alternative to “totalitarian” development was the disintegration of Russia into several dozen states. The likelihood of collapse was commensurate with the likelihood of the Bolsheviks retaining power.
To illustrate the use of fuzzy logic in order to mislead the reader, we present an interview with an academician RAS Yu. Pivovarova(“Profile” No. 32/1). This is what, in particular, the academician is talking about: “On October 25, 1917, a small group entered the empty Winter Palace, where 4 ministers sat until nightfall, and they avoided meeting with visitors. Then the group went ahead and declared that the Provisional Government had been arrested, although it knew nothing about it. And Trotsky (not Lenin - pay attention!) announced that a revolution had taken place in Russia. Exactly four years later in Berlin, German Bolsheviks ran down the street Unter den Linden to the Reichstag to seize it. The old and fat General Ludendorff (this is about a 53-55 year old (depending on what events the academician is referring to) youthful, slender general) together with his adjutants lay down behind the machine guns and mowed down the Bolsheviks. Dot. The revolution did not happen. Be in St. Petersburg the same combat-ready battalion (that is, “old man” Ludendorff had a whole battalion of adjutants (!) – S.B.), he would have entered the Zimny, would have hanged Trotsky (where would they have found him, Trotsky never sat in the Zimny. – S.B.), and nothing would have happened.” This is how easy it is for an academician to do it if you don’t know what was really going on in Germany in 1918–1921. And this is what was happening.
In the spring of 1918, Ludendorff undertook a series of large-scale offensive operations in France. Ludendorff's strategy, calculated for simultaneous the defeat of Soviet Russia and the Entente countries failed and led to the complete depletion of the German army and Germany's defeat in the war. On October 26, 1918 he was dismissed. During the November Revolution of 1918 in Germany, the general fled to Sweden. This revolution began with a sailor's uprising in Wilhelmhaven and Kiel and a few days later covered all of Germany. On November 9, 1918, Kaiser Wilhelm II, under pressure from Chief of the General Staff Groener, who considered continuation of hostilities pointless, was forced to abdicate the throne and flee the country. Representatives of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) came to power.
Communists under the leadership of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, who demanded the further development of the revolution and proclamation in Germany, under Soviet rule, rebelled in January 1919 against the Social Democrats. There was a real danger of civil war. The rebellion was suppressed by Freikorps detachments under the leadership of G. Noske, Liebknecht and Luxemburg were killed without trial.
In Bavaria, the revolution led to the emergence of an independent Bavarian (head Kurt Eisner) and then the Bavarian Soviet Republic (head Ernst Toller), which was also defeated by the army and Freikorps. Thus, “old man” Ludendorff had nothing to do with the defeat of the November Revolution!
Thus, it is completely unclear what events the academician is talking about in his interview. If about German revolution, then it was suppressed in 1919, when Ludendorff lived in Sweden; if about the Kapp Putsch and the Ruhr Uprising, then these events ended in 1920, and not in 1921 and not thanks to the efforts of the general. “This is how free will can decide everything.”
Thus, according to Yu. Pivovarov, it turns out that Russia at the beginning of the century had a chance to follow the “democratic” path of development, as soon as a “fat old general” was found. But the probability of this possibility was zero.
It is known for certain that from four o’clock in the morning until the morning of November 7 (October 25) Kerensky remained in Petrograd, in the premises of the General Staff,
Pivovarov Yuri Sergeevich was born on April 25, 1950 in Moscow. This academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences is best known as an outstanding historian and political scientist.
Biography
Yuri Pivovarov (was educated at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO), graduating in 1972. In 1981, he became a candidate of historical sciences. The young specialist defended his dissertation on the topic of socio-political organizations of workers in Germany. In 1995- m Yuri Pivovarov is already a Doctor of Political Sciences.
Since the age of 25, the scientist has been working at INION - Institute of Scientific Information for Social Sciences. Pivovarov was the director of this institution from 1998 to 2015. At the same time, he headed the political science and legal department of INION. The historian gives lectures at the Russian State University for the Humanities and Moscow State University.
Positions and appointments
In 2001, Yuri Pivovarov was elected president of the RAPN - Russian Association. He also served as chairman of the expert council of the Higher Attestation Commission of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation for six years. At Moscow State University, the historian heads the Department of Comparative Political Science, which is part of the Faculty of Political Science. He has not only experience as a teacher, but also as an effective manager.
In 2010 - 2012 Yuri Sergeevich Pivovarov was a member of the Commission that examined historical falsifications that were detrimental to the interests of Russia. He also collaborates a lot with scientific journals (“Bulletin of the Archivist”, “Political Research”, “Philosophical Sciences”).
Fire at INION
On the night of January 31, 2015, a terrible fire occurred in the INION library, which destroyed not only the building, but also a significant part of the unique book collection of the library. The President of the Institute at that time was Yuri Sergeevich Pivovarov. The biography of the scientist and leader of scientific organizations and institutions is generally similar to the biographies of his colleagues, but the episode with the fire became a unique precedent for him.
More than 5 million publications were lost as a result of the fire. The losses amounted to about 20% of the library's collection, which was considered the heart of the country's humanitarian thought. Vladimir Fortov called the fire at INION “the Chernobyl of Russian science.” Because of the incident, Yuri Pivovarov was removed from the leadership of the Institute. In April 2015, leaving the presidency, he was appointed scientific director of INION.
Publications
Since childhood, Yuri Sergeevich Pivovarov, whose parents supported his interest in science, was interested in political science and history. As a professional scientist, in his work, in addition to these topics, he also touches on issues of Russian statehood and the methodology of humanities. Yuri Pivovarov has written more than 500 scientific papers. These include 8 monographs. A significant part of the political scientist’s work is devoted to Russia and Germany.
Also, most of Pivovarov’s research dates back to the twentieth century in Russian history. This is due to the fact that a real anthropological catastrophe occurred in Russia during this period. A colossal number of people died. Revolutions, wars, famines - the scientist tries to comprehend and generalize all this in his works. He considers the terrible Soviet terror the most ambitious in the history of mankind, on a par with the terror in Kampuchea.
Author's scientific style
Russian thought and political culture are two key disciplines that Yuri Sergeevich Pivovarov studied and is studying. “Married” to theoretical and methodological issues, it touches little on the specifics. The author himself, following the French historian Fernand Braudel, calls facts “dust.”
In raising questions and trying to answer them, Pivovarov turns to the creative heritage of Russian thinkers, justifying this by the fact that any national thought is a way and experience of collective self-knowledge. The scientist noted that the West is characterized by attention to epistemology and methodology, and in Russia - to historiosophical themes (topics of historical philosophy).
Russian thought
A significant part of Yuri Pivovarov’s scientific activity is connected with the study of the heritage of Russian social thinkers of the 20th century. In the nineties, after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the lifting of ideological prohibitions, the opportunity arose to restore the intellectual, moral and aesthetic dynamics of Russian culture. This is what Yuri Sergeevich Pivovarov did. The scientist’s family is from Moscow, and during the Soviet era it was easier for him to get samizdat publications. Now, many forgotten works have been retrieved from special depositories, and unprecedented scope for work has appeared.
Soon, Yuri Pivovarov noted that the unexpected appearance of a huge layer of literature had no impact on society. The work of the scientist “Russian Thought” is devoted to this problem. The author also called it "an experiment in critical methodology." Pivovarov conducted his research using the example of the legacy of such thinkers as Boris Paramonov, Boris Groys, etc. The scientist identified several key problems of Russian thought. First of all, this is the desire of Russian philosophy to be original, using means developed in the West. Making incorrect demands on Russian thinkers is another important paradox that was revealed by Yuri Sergeevich Pivovarov (photos of the scientist are presented in the article). Photographically, he noted the key contradictions in Russian sociology of the 20th century.
State Nature Research
Yuri Pivovarov continuously connected Russian thought with Russian power. On the pages of his scientific works, he proved and continues to prove that these two phenomena have related, close features. This feature, in particular, has led to the fact that our state has always been different from Western European states. The author raised this problem in his work “Russian Power and Historical Types of Its Understanding.”
In all the main languages of Europe, the term “state” means approximately the same thing: “state”, “Staat”, “stati”, etc. It appeared relatively recently - four centuries ago. This happened after the European Reformation. Then the “Constitutional state” appeared, in which the choice of religion became a personal matter for each person. This is how the foundations of European democracy were born. The metaphysical and religious were taken beyond the social. This is due to the fact that the main subject in Western constitutions is the citizen, society and nation.
Pivovarov Yuri Sergeevich biography, whose nationality and career were continuously connected with Russia, was able to formulate the main inconsistencies of the Russian state with the above-described European principles. There was no separation of the concepts of sovereignty and property. In Russia, both in the 19th and 20th centuries, power was associated with the right of ownership of the entire country and its inhabitants. From this flowed the key cataclysms of Russian history, as well as tsarist despotism and Soviet totalitarianism. This is the key thesis of Pivovarov’s scientific works on Russian statehood. For example, it can be seen in the author’s collection “The Last Death in Seriousness.”
The influence of fiction on politics
Exploring the history of the Russian state and society, Pivovarov touched upon the topic of the importance of fiction and philosophical literature in their development. As an example, the scientist re-evaluated the results of Leo Tolstoy’s work. In his novel War and Peace, he created a new reality and personality types, which ultimately determined a new perception of life in Russia in the second half of the 19th century. Pivovarov called Tolstoy’s system of such artistic myths “real Tolstoyism” (as opposed to the religious teachings of the classic).
Fyodor Dostoevsky is another myth-maker of this order, whose work was studied by Yuri Sergeevich Pivovarov. The writer’s “children” are his novels, and in them, among other things, the Russian revolution is predicted. We are talking about “The Brothers Karamazov” and “Demons”. Pivovarov compared the characters of 1917 with the creation of Dostoevsky’s imagination.
Dependence of domestic policy on foreign policy
Yuri Pivovarov’s bibliography contains several works on the political culture of Russia (including the monograph “Political Culture of Post-Reform Russia”). This also includes lectures and journalism by the author. One of the key questions that Pivovarov asks is the question of the relationship between the external and internal dimensions of domestic policy.
Over the course of five centuries, Russia has steadily increased its territory, solving various global problems (for example, the problem of access to the seas). The existence of many neighbors and enemies with common borders has become the reason for regular wars in any historical era. Because of this, foreign policy has always greatly influenced and dominated domestic policy. This pattern has long been of interest to Yuri Pivovarov, who devoted many pages of his research to it.
Denial of historical laws
Yuri Pivovarov considers Russian political and legal culture to be “power-centric” (while, for example, the Western culture is “anthropocentric”). In Europe, everything starts from man - there he remains the measure of all things. In Russia, power is at the center. This is a tradition. She can hide and mimic, but still remains in the public consciousness.
It is interesting that Yuri Pivovarov in his lectures denies the existence of solid historical laws that would exist. Instead, there are traditions. The difference is that the latter can change, since the historical process is open in its properties. Pivovarov also puts free human will against the laws. For example, it was the actions of people that led to the October Revolution in Russia (and not economic, social and natural-climatic conditions).
Power and the Church in Russia
The difference between the Russian state and Western European Brewers is also explained by the medieval connection between Rus' and Byzantium. Having adopted Orthodox Christianity from the Greeks, the Eastern Slavs cut themselves off from the rest of the Old World. First of all, they found themselves outside the Latin world, since the church Latin language then served as an instrument of interethnic and scientific communication.
Yuri Pivovarova to some extent touches on the topic of relations between the state and the church. The scientist believes that the decisive role in their relationship is played by the question “who has more resources.” In other words, whoever is more influential interferes in someone else’s agenda. In Russia, in practice, this led to the state beginning to influence spiritual life. The Orthodox Church has never been as independent as, for example, the Catholic Church in the West. The fusion of spiritual and secular power influenced the further development of the institutions of Russian society.
The Investigative Committee accused “historian” Pivovarov of fraud as part of an organized group March 31st, 2017
When the notorious ex-director of INION RAS Yuri Pivovarov appeared on TV screens (before that he had temporarily died down), bewilderment knew no bounds. Damn it! After the so-called “fire” the individual must sit, it’s a fact, but the pseudo-historian radiates calmness and confidence in his own well-being.
The music played for a short time. A new case has been filed against Yuri Sergeevich criminal case under Part 4 of Article 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (fraud as part of an organized group).
"Investigators informed me that a criminal case had been opened; today they came to my apartment to search it. They confiscated my passport and also took handwriting samples.", Pivovarov told Interfax.
Also, he added, searches were carried out at other addresses."I accidentally heard that my deputy, Professor Parkhalina, was taken from work and taken home, and this lady had nothing to do with financial issues, she had only been involved in science all her life", Pivovarov emphasized.
The Investigative Committee scrupulously checks the financial activities of INION RAS. Searches are currently ongoing.
According to Pivovarov, " This(his criminal prosecution - approx.) - Kafka absolute", and " complete arbitrariness and violation of the presumption of innocence". "At first I was kept in charge of the fire for two years . Then, when it turned out that I was not responsible, they began to look for something else. This is absolute political bullying.. For what, I don’t know - I’m not Navalny, not Nemtsov, but a modest researcher and teacher, I’ve never been a politician or a public figure", he said.
Pivovarov Yuri Sergeevich, 66 years old, Muscovite. In his own words, among his direct ancestors were the Decembrists and the Bolsheviks-Trotskyists, repressed under Stalin. In his youth, he was detained by state security agencies for distributing NTS anti-Soviet propaganda leaflets, which did not prevent him from graduating from MGIMO and graduate school at IMEMO. He is considered “the most prominent Russian political scientist, one of the most famous Russian historians”, “the father of Russian political science”, “the author of a new concept of Russian history”. Doctor of Political Sciences, Professor, AcademicianRussian Academy of Sciences, scientific adviser, ex-director and head of the department of political science and lawINION RAS, Deputy HeadHistory Sections of the Department of Historical and Philological Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences, member of the Bureau Information and Library Council of the Russian Academy of Sciences, vice-chairmanScientific Council for Political Science at the Department of Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences, member Bureau of the RAS Council for work with compatriot scientists living abroad, honorary presidentRussian Association of Political Science(RAPN), head of the section “Scientific and cultural policy, education”Expert Council under the Chairman of the Federation Council, member Scientific Council under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, one of the leaders international project "European Information Network on International Relations and Regional Studies", teacher Moscow State University, MGIMO And RSUH , laureate Rokkan Prize 2015 (awarded to “outstanding social scientists for their contribution to the development of scientific research methods and for obtaining important scientific results”). The son is a functionary of the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation, the daughter is a businesswoman, a citizen of the Czech Republic, the nephew is a journalist, former head of NTV evening news programs, liberal oppositionist Alexey Pivovarov.
Character about yourself:
"...
At seven or eight years old, I was an unconditional anti-Stalinist, a person who understood a lot of things. And what was also very important for me, oddly enough, was that when I was sent to kindergarten, the whole group of us was taken to the factory. And when I saw the plant, I said to myself - I was six years old, I was sent to kindergarten late - I told myself that I would never work here.
...of course, as a child I was taught music, a teacher came to my house. My sister studied at a music school, and a teacher just came to me and I practiced the piano. And the language teacher came, and then, having matured, I began to go to classes myself. I, of course, had a happy childhood, which not every Soviet child had, since my grandmother was given back all her regalia. This was a quite wealthy Soviet family in a large apartment, and so on.
...my grandmother was a completely unrestrained person, and it was she who raised me more, because my parents worked. The grandmother was quick-tongued and did not know how to hide anything. But for all that, she was a communist. That is, it was not Stalinist, but rather Leninist, cultural.
...It became a habit for me (in the USSR, in 1967!) - it became a habit to read foreign magazines and newspapers, which I do to this day.
...I got into science by accident, because after graduating from MGIMO I was hired for military-diplomatic work, but not at the Foreign Ministry, but at the military attaché in Potsdam, since my first language was German. ...But I didn’t want to go to any military-diplomatic work, and went to graduate school. It was a way to go somewhere on the sidelines, to be free, to do nothing.
...I wrote my first work at the age of 22: “The Philosophy of History of Chaadaev.” Of course, this work is not scientific, it is nonsense, but this is the first touch on what I do. And in parallel, which was also very important for me - already at 18-19 I was an absolute anti-Soviet, anti-communist, although before I was 18 I still loved Lenin, my grandmother raised me that way. We at MGIMO created underground circles, prepared the murder of Brezhnev, but it was not I who had to kill.
...once they seized the MGIMO radio station, it was in my second year, and I addressed the students and teachers with a stormy speech. They didn’t kick us out, oddly enough, they left us. And then, in my fifth year, I was arrested for the first time. In 1972, I was arrested with a suitcase of samizdat at the Yaroslavl station. I was summoned for interrogation by the KGB, I thought that they would imprison me, but they not only allowed me to graduate from college, but also hired me for diplomatic work.
...I was a parasite, and for this alone they could have simply put me in prison. Thank God my parents could feed me...
...I didn’t think about any science at all then, I thought about literature, about dissidence, I went with a friend several times to see the camps in the northern subpolar Urals, and I realized that I was scared. I was afraid that I wouldn’t be able to stand it physically. We went in winter and summer to see how prisoners lived. It seemed like they were going hunting or fishing, but in reality they wanted to watch and communicate with the escorted prisoners, and I was scared. Simply because I didn’t want to go to a camp, to prison, I was physically afraid of all this, I was afraid. All this seemed terrible to me.
...As a matter of fact, in a sense, I have never studied science either, because, for example, a historian does not consider me a historian, because I don’t sit in the archives, I simply don’t know some things, because they didn’t teach me at MGIMO . But I was elected to the Academy of Sciences in the Department of History and in the specialty of Russian History, first as a corresponding member, then as an academician. But I don’t think I’ve written anything so classically historical.
...actually, it’s impossible to get much help from me - I don’t know how to do anything.
...I don’t go to the theater, or to the cinema, or anywhere.
...I'm deaf, I think I'm pretty dumb to music...
...I have no professional interests, in the literal sense of the word.
...My son works at the Ministry of Economic Development in Moscow. He is not interested in politics, he is interested in the state, Russia and so on, because he is not an intellectual at all. ...By the way, I don’t force my son to read books, he doesn’t know anything, he’s never read any poetry, he doesn’t need it - and for God’s sake.
...I am an absolutely tolerant person, but I am not tolerant of people who preach racism, Hitlerism, Stalinism - there can be no convention here, at least with me"
Pivovarov’s statement in the program “The Court of Time”:
"
Godless Stalin created the disgusting cult of Alexander Nevsky"
From Pivovarov’s book “Complete destruction in earnest”:
"
The essence of Russian life is unchanged: contempt for the individual, in one form or another, violence against a person and his - ultimately - enslavement, theft, the ability to self-organize only for evil deeds"
From Pivovarov’s conversation with the staff of the Polis magazine:
« Yu.P.…In a certain sense, Comrade Kant’s idea of a world government is actually being realized today. And if someone is an opponent of the mentioned structure, then I personally have nothing against it. Because I don’t care about all sorts of Russian-non-Russian systems: it’s important to me that people live like human beings, and if the world government will contribute to this, then please. In addition, in Kant’s reasoning about world government, as we remember, there is one very important idea: Kant said that Russia will not be able to rule Siberia. This is very close to me. I am convinced that Russia will leave Siberia in the next half century: depopulation processes will be so strong that Russia will narrow geographically to the Urals...
Russia needs to lose... Siberia and the Far East. As long as we have mineral resources, as long as we have something to eat, as long as... salaries are issued like this: oil prices have risen - they are paid, nothing will change...
The question is: who will control Siberia and the Far East? Here for the Russians there is a chance in the future, a great chance to profitably dispose of this territory - after all, the Russians lived and live there, the Russians know it better than others, etc. Let the Canadians and Norwegians come and, together with the Russians, try to manage these territories. ...If Russia abandons Siberia and the Far East, Russia will be comparable to Europe, then in the distant future we can count on integration into some Western European structures. Although we will remain large in terms of territory, we will not be as large. As for the population, all demographers say: now we have 140 million, minus 700,000 every year. It will reach 100 million, up to 90-80... In Germany - 80 million, comparable..."
The famous historian, scientific director of INION, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Yuri Sergeevich Pivovarov, who headed the INION RAS for 17 years, is now in the hospital, he is facing a serious operation. Previously, searches were carried out at three addresses and his international passport was confiscated; a criminal case was opened against him for allegedly fictitious employment at the institute. Yuri Sergeevich Pivovarov is known for his principled position on protecting INION; he also previously criticized the reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences and was never afraid to give comments to the media about the problems of the historical heritage and prospects for the development of the Russian state. In November 2016, giving a lecture as part of the Evening Readings project, he noted that “Russia is in desperate need of change,” and in February 2017, in an interview with French Radio International RFI, he said: “Not a single dictatorship in the world has ended well.” "
In early April, Yu.S. Pivovarov told Novaya Gazeta about his persecution: “We can say that since April 20, 2015, criminal prosecution against me has continued. At first, I was accused in a criminal case regarding a fire at my institute. But three examinations of the Ministry of Emergency Situations and an examination carried out by the Investigative committee, confirmed my innocence. That is, the actions or inactions of Academician Pivovarov have no connection with the fire. But instead of dropping the charges against me and closing the case, in November last year it was transferred from the Department for Particularly Important Cases of the Moscow Investigative Committee to the Investigative Committee Russian Federation. And instead of one investigator - senior lieutenant, now I have 8-10 major generals."
The academician called his criminal prosecution a persecution and a political order: “Of course, the emergence of this new case and the investigative measures associated with it, as well as the previous criminal prosecution, is nothing more than persecution. A purely political order, I just don’t know yet why tie it up! Because of one and a half million rubles, which, given the current level of corruption in the country, even looks somehow insulting! Moreover, I never saw this money or held it in my hands, even the investigators were impressed by the modest lifestyle of the honored academician. "If I'm not arrested today or tomorrow, I will speak, tell, perform. This is not a personal matter for an individual, Pivovarov, this can affect everyone."
We believe that the criminal prosecution of Yuri Pivovarov, as well as the persecution unleashed against him in the media and on the Internet, have no other goals than the following - to break and destroy a public figure who enjoys great authority among the Russian intelligentsia and is not afraid to publicly speak out on current issues historical and political issues, as well as sow fear in the scientific community in order to discourage scientists from freely discussing the current state of affairs in Russia and the world.
Obviously, this is also being done in order to undermine the resistance of thinking people to the so-called. “optimization” of scientific and cultural institutions, which boils down to a reduction in state funding for science and culture, an increase in the bureaucratic press and the suppression of the rights and freedoms of employees of academic institutes, universities, museums, libraries, archives, etc.
We call on Russian and international public organizations and the media to pay close attention to the case of Yuri Pivovarov and speak out in his defense as an unfairly persecuted modern Russian dissident. His life is now in real danger, and only public attention to his case can stop the Russian authorities or individual groups of the so-called. "siloviki" from further arbitrariness.
Boris Averin, literary historian
Konstantin Azadovsky, literary historian
Andrey Alekseev, sociologist
Viktor Allahverdov, Doctor of Psychology
Elena Alferova, Head of the Department of Legal Studies, INION RAS
Alexander Anikin, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Ruben Apresyan, Doctor of Philosophy
Yuri Apresyan, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Alexey Arbatov, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Mikhail Arkadyev, Doctor of Art History, Honored Artist of the Russian Federation
Alexander Arkhangelsky, writer
Vera Afanasyeva, Doctor of Philosophy, Professor
Valentin Bazhanov, Doctor of Philosophy, Professor
Nune Barseghyan, writer, psychologist
Alexey Bartoshevich, theater critic
Elena Basner, art critic
Leonid Bakhnov, writer
Sergei Beletsiy, Doctor of Historical Sciences
Stanislav Belkovsky, political scientist
Sergey Beloglazov, professor of the Ural State Conservatory named after M.P. Mussorgsky
Elena Berezovich, Doctor of Philology, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Andrey Beskin, Doctor of Technical Sciences
Alexander Bobrov, philologist
Victor Bogorad, artist
Elizaveta Bonch-Osmolovskaya, microbiologist, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Marina Boroditskaya, writer
Valery Borshchev, human rights activist, Moscow Helsinki Group
Natalya Bragina, Doctor of Philology, Professor of the State Institute of Russian Languages named after. A.S. Pushkin, professor at Russian State University for the Humanities
Olga Bugoslavskaya, literary critic
Oleg Budnitsky, historian
Igor Bunin, Doctor of Political Sciences
Dmitry Bykov, writer
Andrey Bychkov, professor of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Olga Varshaver, translator
Nikolay Vakhtin, corresponding member. RAS, professor
Maria Virolainen, Pushkin scholar
Alina Vitukhnovskaya, writer
Boris Vishnevsky, head of the Yabloko faction in the Legislative Assembly of St. Petersburg, publicist, writer
Vladimir Voinovich, writer
Andrey Vorobyov, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Tatyana Vorozheikina, teacher, researcher
Valentin Vydrin, Professor, Faculty of Oriental Studies, St. Petersburg State University
Sergei Gandlevsky, poet
Alexander Gelman, playwright
Mikhail Glazov, physicist, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Leonid Gozman, politician
Andrey Golovnev, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Anatoly Golubovsky, sociologist
Yakov Gordin, historian, publicist
Tatyana Goryacheva, art historian
Natalya Gromova, leading researcher at GLM, writer
Lev Gudkov, sociologist, Doctor of Philosophy
Andrey Desnitsky, professor of the Russian Academy of Sciences, philologist
Mikhail Dzyubenko, philologist
Vitaly Dixon, writer
Olga Dovgy, philologist
Oleg Dorman, director.
Denis Dragunsky, writer
Olga Drobot, translator
Valery Durnovtsev, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor of the Russian State University for the Humanities
Anna Dybo, linguist, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Vladimir Dybo, linguist, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Vitaly Dymarsky, journalist
Galina Elshevskaya, art critic
Evgeny Ermolin, literary critic
Konstantin Yerusalimsky, Doctor of Historical Sciences
Victor Esipov, writer
Alexander Zhukovsky, sociologist, political scientist
Leonid Zhukhovitsky, writer
Nina Zarkhi, deputy editor-in-chief of the magazine Art of Cinema
Vladimir Zakharov, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Andrey Zubov, historian, religious scholar
Vyacheslav Ivanov, linguist, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Askold Ivanchik, historian, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Stanislav Ivashkovsky, head. Department of Economic Theory MGIMO
Igor Irtenev, writer
Evgeniy Ikhlov, publicist
Sofya Kaganovich, Doctor of Philology
Katya Kapovich, writer, editor of the magazine "FULCRUM: an annual of poetry and aesthetics"
Andrey Karavashkin, Doctor of Philology, Professor of the Russian State University for the Humanities
Ilya Kasavin, Doctor of Philosophy, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Tatyana Kasatkina, Doctor of Philology
Mikhail Kasyanov, Chairman of the People's Freedom Party (PARNAS)
Nina Katerli, writer
Oksana Kiyanskaya, Doctor of Historical Sciences
Igor Klyamkin, Doctor of Philosophy, Professor
Alexander Kobrinsky, Doctor of Philology, Professor of the Russian State Pedagogical University named after. A.I. Herzen
Elena Kolyadina, writer, journalist
Nikolai Kononov, writer
Vladimir Korsunsky, journalist
Nadezhda Kostyurina, Doctor of Cultural Studies
Tatyana Krasavchenko, Doctor of Philology, INION RAS
Olga Krokinskaya, professor, doctor of sociological sciences
Grigory Kruzhkov, poet
Igor Kurlyandsky, historian
Olga Labas, art critic
Alexander Lavrov, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Pavel Litvinov, human rights activist
Evgenia Lozinskaya, employee of INION RAS
Natalya Mavlevich, translator
Dina Magomedova, Doctor of Philology, Professor of the Russian State University for the Humanities
Vladimir Magun, sociologist
Alexey Makarkin, political scientist
Alexey Makushinsky, writer
Marina Malkiel, musicologist
Lev Marquis, conductor
Alexander Makhov, Doctor of Philology
Velikhan Mirzekhanov, Doctor of Historical Sciences
Alexander Moldovan, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Andrey Moroz, professor of the Russian State University for the Humanities, Doctor of Philology
Alexey Motorov, writer
Maria Nadyarnykh, philologist (IMLI RAS)
Maxim Nenarokomov, art critic
Andrey Nikitin-Perensky, founder of the electronic library "Imwerden"
Sergey Nikolaev, Doctor of Philology
Mikhail Odessky, Doctor of Philology
Dmitry Oreshkin, political scientist
Tatyana Pavlova, Candidate of Philological Sciences
Tatyana Parkhalina, Deputy Director of INION RAS
Natalya Pakhsaryan, professor at Moscow State University, leading researcher at INION RAS
Grigory Petukhov, poet
Tatyana Pinegina, geologist, professor of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Andrey Piontkovsky, publicist
Nikolai Podosokorsky, publicist
Tatyana Pozdnyakova, Ph.D. ped. Sciences, Art. scientific associate Anna Akhmatova Museum in Fountain House
Ella Polyakova, human rights activist
Lev Ponomarev, human rights activist
Nina Popova, director of the Anna Akhmatova Museum in St. Petersburg
Vladimir Porus, Doctor of Philosophy, National Research University Higher School of Economics
Anna Reznichenko, Doctor of Philosophy, Professor of the Russian State University for the Humanities
Lorina Repina, historian, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Raisa Rozina, Doctor of Philology, Chief Researcher at the Institute of Russian Language of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Lev Rubinstein, writer
Yuliy Rybakov, human rights activist
Elena Rybina, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor of Moscow State University
Yuri Ryzhov, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Olga Sedakova, writer
Adrian Selin, Doctor of Historical Sciences
Alexey Semenov, mathematician, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Nikolay Sibeldin, physicist, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Tatyana Sotnikova (Anna Berseneva), writer.
Mikhail Sokolov, journalist
Nikita Sokolov, historian
Natalia Sokolovskaya, writer
Nikolai Solodnikov, journalist
Monika Spivak, Doctor of Philology
Irina Staff, philologist, translator
Sergei Stratanovsky, writer
Lyubov Summ, translator
Irina Surat, Doctor of Philology
Alexandra Ter-Avanesova, leading researcher at the Institute of Nuclear Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Lev Timofeev, writer
Elena Titarenko, art critic, journalist
Svetlana Tolstaya, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Ivan Tolstoy, radio journalist
Andrey Toporkov, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Dmitry Travin, economist
Lyudmila Ulitskaya, writer
Mark Urnov, Doctor of Political Sciences, Higher School of Economics
Fyodor Uspensky, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences
David Feldman, Doctor of Historical Sciences
Irina Fliege, human rights activist
Artemy Khalatov, head of the editorial office of the magazine "Russia and the Modern World" INION RAS
Igor Kharichev, writer, secretary of the Moscow Writers Union
Alexey Tsvetkov, poet, essayist
Andrey Chernov, writer
Elena Chizhova, writer
Yuri Chistov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Director of the Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography (Kunstkamera) RAS
Marietta Chudakova, member of the European Academy
Marianna Shakhnovich, Doctor of Philosophy, Professor
Liliya Shevtsova, publicist
Nikita Shklovsky-Kordi, doctor
Lev Shlosberg, deputy of the Pskov Regional Assembly from the YABLOKO party, historian
Yuri Shmukler, Doctor of Biological Sciences, translator
Boris Stern, Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, editor-in-chief of the newspaper “Troitsky Variant”
Tatyana Shcherbina, poet, essayist
Mikhail Epstein, culturologist, professor
Andrey Yurganov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor of the Russian State University for the Humanities
Ekaterina Yakimova, leading researcher at the Department of Sociology, INION RAS
Viktor Yaroshenko, journalist
_____________
Sign the Open Letter in defense of Yu.S. Pivovarov can be found on Nikolai Podosokorsky’s Facebook page.
Latest news about the consequences of the fire in the INION building: a third of the institute’s library collections have been lost, losses are estimated at 5.42 million copies, while the total fund is 14.7 million copies, writes Rossiyskaya Gazeta.This can be left without comment at all. Monstrous sloppiness, and maybe criminal intent, became the cause of this fire - I really hope that the investigation will sort it out. I have already stated. However, after that I did not leave the topic and continued to study the media and other open sources. And I found out various extremely interesting things. They are interesting in the sense that they show the level of brewer’s “management” of the institute and suggest that there could very well be problems with the fire safety system!
See for yourself.
“The latest fire safety inspection in the library of the Institute of Scientific Information for Social Sciences (INION), carried out in March 2014, revealed seven violations. The institution was then fined 70 thousand rubles. Employees of the Ministry of Emergency Situations ordered that the deficiencies be eliminated by January 30, 2015... In February, rescuers were supposed to conduct an unscheduled inspection at the library” (). The question arises - who was responsible for the installation of fire safety systems and, accordingly, should have eliminated violations (and in general should not have allowed them!)? And this is what they write about this: “It is known that several companies were involved in organizing fire safety at INION. The last one to carry out work there was a certain company LLC "Technical Center Garant", about which you can only learn from the Internet that it was organized in 2012, but for some reason has successfully won all tenders over the past few years. The company itself is registered in an ordinary residential building, in an ordinary apartment, without any signs of activity. The company is owned by Inna Glebova and Vladimir Gorbunov. An attempt to ask the director of INION about the Garant technical center ended with the answer: “Guys, this is a provocative question.”
The Izvestia newspaper conducted its own investigation on the same topic. And some nuances became clear... “In 2013, for INION, Garant repaired exclusively the communication infrastructure - the company won contracts for the maintenance of telephone communication and security alarm systems in the amount of 555 thousand rubles. In 2014, active work began to ensure the fire safety of the building. Starting in March, every three months Garant won a tender for maintenance or repair of the fire systems of the book depository. Moreover, with almost the same frequency, Garant won tenders to provide a system for evacuation of people in case of fire, maintaining the operation of security systems and repairing telephone systems. In total, in 2014, Garant received 2.78 million from INION for various works.” This unknown company regularly won tenders for the equipment of such a building??
But that's not all. “The maintenance of ventilation, heat supply, pipeline and sewer communications was carried out by the company OOO OVK-Stroy, which is managed and owned by entrepreneur Boris Demidov. Since 2006, OVK-Stroy has completed 25 contracts for INION worth more than 12 million rubles. In 2014, OVK-Stroy received more than 4 million rubles from INION under various tenders. One of the last contracts executed by OVK-Stroy for INION was the repair of a pipeline for a fire extinguishing system for 679 thousand rubles, completed in November 2014.”
And here’s another strange company: “In 2014, the maintenance of electrical equipment and electrical wiring of INION was carried out by the company Slavyansky Construction Holding LLC, owned by Yuri Volodin. In 2014, the company won 14 INION orders worth 1.69 million rubles. Basically, this company won tenders for services “for carrying out fire-fighting measures related to the maintenance of property,” as well as technical maintenance of INION’s electrical equipment.” It was this company that was engaged in the repair of the electric lighting system on the 3rd floor of the building - and according to the preliminary version of the investigation, the fire in INION occurred due to a violation of the electrical wiring insulation on the 3rd floor...
I also found something very interesting interview with Mikhail Delyagin, which tells about the chaos and complete destruction reigning in INION. “The chief engineer and chief electrician ran away several years ago with the wording: “We will work in this cutting and will not be responsible for the consequences,” says Delyagin. “If the entire fire protection system was paid for and supplied,” he continues, “the question arises: who stole the money? If a fire system, any system, is paid for and does not work, then either the one who ordered it calmly sawed everything apart, and when it was time to report, it became clear that the check would reveal the absence and inoperability, and brought the match himself. It was reported that the fire occurred on the eve of an inspection that the FANO was supposed to conduct. Either the customer who ordered the work is a completely brainless clown and, accordingly, he was deceived by the supplier.” That's exactly what it is! And another important thing: “The building was in a state of ruin, the pool had dried up, it was a drainage system, it stands on swampy soil, the lower floors began to flood, why was the library moved to the third floor” - that is, you understand what we’re talking about ?! The management neglected the building to such an extent that the unique library collection was already beginning to suffer, and they had to move it!
However, many people are talking about the devastation at INION. Just after the fire happened, LiveJournal was actively discussing a post from 2013 about how one LiveJournal user, a civil servant, visited the INION library. “As you already know, academicians have come to terms with the fact that the central entrance to INION is bricked up and the building looks inoperative. Everyone thirsty for knowledge is let in through a small side entrance, after which you find yourself in long narrow empty dark corridors. They save light in the building, so you have to move around almost by touch. Probably, darkness and silence bring peace to INION employees, but newcomers feel terrified” - and so on. The post paints an extremely colorful picture of the world that reigned in INION in recent years... This is not even the last century, but almost the year before. And it would be funny if it weren't so terrible.
“Olga Zinovieva, philosopher and widow of the great philosopher Alexander Zinoviev, often visited the reading rooms with her husband and is well acquainted with the state of affairs. “In the last 20 years, it was strange there,” she admits. “Groups of people had access to archives, they pushed other people aside. There were commercial structures there that took money. Of course, Pivovarov is to blame for this.” In this - it's in the fire. The fact is that INION fell into a deep coma and did not develop, the fact that in the end everything turned out the way it did.
Olga Zinovieva
Even the official INION website has not been updated since the end of 2011. There is no information on budget execution there either. That is, Pivovarov did not even care about doing something at least for the sake of appearance - supposedly there is life in the institute he heads. Another thing is that the public, especially the scientific one, did not notice or did not want to notice the gloom of the INION building with dried up pools at the entrance, and the lack of any activity of the institute itself. Olga Zinovieva talks about the same thing: “Where are the representatives of our public? They all fell apart. When you encounter such a reaction, a completely natural question arises: guys, why are you silent, why did you put water in your mouth? This is a disregard for those values that fell under the responsibility of Mr. Pivovarov. It’s a terrible coincidence that the funds were not digitized, the catalog was not digitized,” said Olga Zinovieva, head of the International Scientific and Educational Center named after A. A. Zinoviev at Moscow State University.”
I sincerely don’t understand what Mr. Pivovarov was doing while he was supposed to be performing the duties of director of INION. I don't understand this at all. True, he is generally an interesting gentleman - I’m talking about his personality, and about his views on history - the canonization of Dmitry Donskoy on the recommendation of the CPSU Central Committee, and about his views on today’s Russia - “Russia alone cannot cope with the management of a huge treasury - Siberia and the Far East” , and so on and so forth... He is a versatile personality. So he could do whatever he wanted. Rumor has it, for example, that Yuri Pivovarov previously personally received money from American structures - the Open Society Institute (D. Soros) and the Carnegie Endowment. You probably don’t think much about the institute entrusted to you.
Or maybe Yuri Sergeevich, instead of working, organized some kind of circles - like that circle at MGIMO, where the student Pivovarov and his comrades were preparing the murder of Brezhnev. Anything can happen. And besides, he was involved in other organizations besides INION. It is known, for example, that Yuri Sergeevich Pivovarov is listed as the founder of the All-Russian Public Organization “Russian Association of Political Science” (RAPN). There are three founders there - in addition to Pivovarov, they are Yuri Sergeevich Ilyin and Alexander Lvovich Shatalov. RAPN LLC has subsidiaries:
1) ANO "CENTER FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW". Head - Elena Yuryevna Meleshkina, founders - RAPN and INION. (!!)
2) Non-profit organization scientific institution (NONU) "Center for Political and International Studies". Its leader is Alexander Ivanovich Nikitin, former president of RAPN. Former founder - Oleg Edmundovich Pavlov. Current founders: Nikitin, RAPN and an organization with the pathetic name Russian Peace Defense Committee. At the same time, Oleg Pavlov worked as the first deputy chairman of this Committee, Alexey Klishin, who, together with the fugitive oligarch Vladimir Gusinsky, is the founder of the MOST group. Klishin himself was a senator from the Kirov region until 2009. Are you confused yet? This is no wonder, as always - academicians of the Russian Academy of Sciences know how to weave themselves into such networks...
The same Oleg Pavlov is the founder of the Non-Profit Organization “National Anti-Criminal and Anti-Terrorist Fund” (!!!), as well as the Regional Public Organization “Center for Humanitarian Research and Projects East-West”. In the latest ROO, the co-founder is a famous person - the former deputy head of the Presidential Administration (Yeltsin and the first years of Putin) Dzhakhan Pollyeva.
One more fact. Pavlov is a native of Leningrad, a partner of political strategist Alexei Koshmarov in the NOVOKOM foundation - an organization that is murky and strange; a separate investigation should be conducted about it.
Yuri Pivovarov
And finally, the third “daughter” of RAPN is the Autonomous Non-Profit Organization “Politservice”. Former head of ANO "Politservis" - Akhremenko Andrey Sergeevich. As you know, Yuri Pivovarov is the head of the department of comparative political science at the Faculty of Political Science. So, in 2013, MSU concluded 4 contracts with individual entrepreneur Akhremenko for a total amount of more than half a million rubles. The subject of contact is “political science”. Do you believe in coincidences?
The current head of ANO Politservis is vice-president of RAPN, political scientist Rostislav Feliksovich Turovsky. Together with the already mentioned Oleg Pavlov, Turovsky owns the Aris Foundation LLC, and the same Oleg Pavlov is the general director of Aris LLC. Turovsky is one of the founders of the Information Policy Foundation; another co-founder is former assistant to President Yeltsin Georgy Satarov, president of the Indem Foundation. Before the arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, during his imprisonment and after his release, Satarov was closely associated with the former shareholders of NK YUKOS.
These are, I’m not afraid of this word, odious individuals in one way or another connected with RAPN, and it turns out that Yuri Pivovarov, albeit indirectly, is in one way or another connected with these individuals. I don’t know what he did or is doing with them and I won’t say anything, but it is obvious that Pivovarov, as director of INION, did anything other than his direct duties. That’s why it turned out what we have now.
