Soviet dissident Vyacheslav Igrunov about current Ukrainian dissidents

Vyacheslav Igrunov, a famous Soviet human rights activist, political prisoner and ex-deputy of the State Duma of Russia from the Yabloko faction, told me whether it is possible to believe in the sincerity of Ruslan Kotsaba, Evgenia Bilchenko and other current Ukrainian dissidents who first took part in the Euromaidan, and after it victories began to oppose him.

Igrunov was born in Odessa in the 40s. There he became a dissident in the 60s - first a revolutionary Marxist, then a radical anti-communist. Then radicalism gave way to tolerance.

Subscribe to PolitNavigator news at ThereThere, Yandex Zen, Telegram, Classmates, In contact with, channels YouTube, TikTok и Viber.
To subscribe to notifications in your browser, click here.

In 1975 he was arrested. Put on trial for anti-Soviet activities. Hidden away in a mental hospital. Soviet dissidents, in particular academician Andrei Sakharov, protested against the repression against him. Creator of one of the largest samizdat libraries in the USSR. Despite the offer, the KGB refused to leave the USSR.

In 1987 he moved to Moscow. In the 90s he was a State Duma deputy from Yabloko. In the XNUMXs, a five-volume edition of Soviet samizdat was published under his editorship

- How do you, a Soviet dissident of the 60-80s of the last century, and as a person whose historical homeland is Ukraine, feel about the activities of current Ukrainian dissidents, journalists Ruslan Kotsaba and Alexander Medinsky, poetess and teacher Evgenia Bilchenko, who at one time supported Euromaidan, and some of them supported the war, and then became critics of what happened as a result of Euromaidan?

A very large number of “vatniks” do not trust them. They say that these people (maybe with the exception of Kotsaba) are insincere. They supposedly just changed their shoes in the air.

Do you personally think that their revaluation of values ​​can be trusted? Do you personally believe in their sincerity?

-I’ll start with something else, with your appeal. Let's talk to me in such a way that Ukraine is not my historical homeland, Ukraine is just my homeland, and it will remain my homeland until the end of my days, no one can take this away from me. This is the first one.

And now about these people. You know, I can completely understand Ruslan Kotsaba, for me it’s not at all difficult. Ruslan Kotsaba lived in the atmosphere of Western Ukraine, under the strong influence of his parents, who belonged to the nationalist stream in Ukrainian society, and he grew up, internalizing nationalist views with his mother’s milk, for him it was natural, and moreover, he believed that nationalism is the path to truth. For him, nationalism was in no way opposed to honesty or inhumanity, but on the contrary. He was brought up in such a way that he believed that this was the only way to build a society on the foundations of truth and humanity. And so, he ends up at war. We will not say how difficult the path he followed, I can say that the Kuchma regime, which he opposed, the Yanukovych regime, which he opposed, was opposed by many people, not necessarily with nationalist views, on the contrary, with views of some imperial, some European, who are liberal, but opposition to these regimes was quite widespread, and in this sense, Kotsaba should not have had any special doubts about his own rightness in this confrontation. But now he gets to the front, to the war, and suddenly sees from the other side that there are the same Ukrainians there, that is, the same residents of Ukraine, they have their own right. He witnessed what happened in Kyiv, in Ivano-Frankivsk, and he sees that exactly the same thing is happening here, just with a different truth. This is an internal confrontation. And he is surprised to try to tell his comrades on the Maidan about this. Guys, stop, there are the same people there, let's come to an agreement! And what does he encounter? He encounters hatred from former comrades, persecution, imprisonment, and you understand, this leads to the sobering up of a person, because the main thing in him is not his nationalistic feelings, but his desire for humanity, nationalism was for him like a path to humanity, and not an end in itself . And when he comes out of prison, he says “now I’m ashamed that I was a nationalist.” And he doesn’t say this in public - in a narrow circle, when you talk over tea, one on one. There is complete sincerity and surprise in his eyes. Yes, this is a naive man, this is a man who has not received... Listen, this is a man who grew up in the atmosphere of the new post-Soviet Ukraine, where people are fooled at school, where the whole atmosphere under any president was saturated with hostility towards Russia, where completely false ideas about history were introduced . And he did not have to think about real circumstances, he was not a historian, he did not study either our modern history or even ancient history, he was not a sociologist, and in general, unfortunately, in the realities of Ukraine he could not receive a serious, in-depth education.

Therefore, it does not surprise me at all that a person who is guided by a moral impulse took the same positions that he occupied before the ATO Kotsaba. And it is all the more surprising and pleasant for me personally to see that moral values ​​turned out to be higher than those ideological cliches that are pressed into children, and he managed to break his inertia and began to achieve simple justice. He began to fight for freedom of speech. Look, when we were dissidents in the Soviet Union, the KGB was a pretty cool organization, and it was pretty easy to get noticed. And when you talked to people, you weren’t guided by what he said, because people who say very correct things can turn you over tomorrow. This is not the most important thing. Now you were surprised that the communist working at Rossiya Segodnya and I greeted each other warmly. What can a communist and an anti-communist have in common? Yes, anything. It's not the looks that matter. I was an anti-communist, yes, and a radical anti-communist, but I developed an excellent relationship with the communist Pyotr Grigorenko. In my circle there were socialists, social democrats, anarchists, and differences in views did not matter. The main thing is human qualities. Look whether you can rely on this person or not. Do you understand? This is the moral resonance. So, when you talk to Kotsaba, there is not a shadow of doubt about his sincerity. It’s not easy, I don’t think about whether I changed my shoes or didn’t change my shoes - for me it’s empty talk. He is an absolutely sincere person. Absolutely honest, he had an epiphany.

As for Bilchenko, the question is much more complex. Bilchenko is a learned and well-read man. Kyiv, after all. And a Russian poetess. And now she goes out onto the Maidan. Listen, there is nothing so strange. Likewise, in the first days, or in the first months of the Maidan, my friend Vladimir Malinkovich (Soviet dissident; lived in Kiev, emigrated in 1980, worked at Radio Liberty; returned to the USSR during Perestroika, in the 90s and XNUMXs - advisor to Leonid Kuchma - approx.), fully supported this Maidan.

-Second or first?

– Not the first, the second Maidan. People want to go to Europe. I tell him, there are nationalists there, Bandera rules the roost. He says, no, there is no such thing, it’s not like that! People there want to go to Europe. Indeed, there is a full area of ​​people who want to go to Europe, people like Bilchenko. Malinkovych very quickly realized what it really was, and immediately began to oppose the Maidan, and tried to do everything he could. Of course, after the coup, I was simply looking for any opportunity to influence the situation. Therefore, it is not surprising that at first people with rosy ideas about the world, with idealistic ideas about Europe, supported the Maidan and took to the streets.

You see, people who initially focus on Russia are pro-Russian, or now it is fashionable to use those words that you said - “Russian world”. It is natural for them to have a hostility towards Europe and America, a criticality that I often do not share, despite the fact that the “Russian world” came into use at the suggestion of Pavlovsky, who extracted this concept from our correspondence, reflecting my ideas about how Russian history was formed . But it is not important. So, I understand that supporters of the Russian world immediately see nationalism there, they can see it even where there is none, and this is such a hypercritical view of Ukraine, the denial of Ukrainians as a people, and so on. Therefore, any movement with minimal national overtones can cause a critical attitude, and they can turn out to be very right in their predictions and foresight, despite going too far. And a European-oriented person treats pro-Western views and nationalism quite calmly. He’s a liberal, he allows for different views, well, there are some nationalists here. For example, as the same Malinkovich said, well, nationalists, they are a minority, they are somewhere on the periphery, in the center... That is, not everyone, even an experienced person, can immediately see this. Therefore, it is clear to me that Bilchenko could very well enthusiastically support the “path to Europe.” It’s not clear how she, a literate, educated person, couldn’t see quite quickly that this was actually a Nazi coven.

-So it took her a long time to do this?

-It took her a long time. This is surprising. But on the other hand, she is trying to explain her position, and says that she actually sympathized with her friends. And these friends were in particular on the Maidan, they were Europeans, and so on.

You see, the liberal-minded public somehow sees in the opposition to Putin, Putinism, authoritarian Russia, a light in the window, and therefore everything that there, say, a candle does not illuminate in the dark corners - they do not notice, they do not need it. They managed not to notice the burning of people in Odessa. They manage not to notice political prisoners in Ukraine, well, in general, this breed is well known to me; unfortunately, it is very flawed in moral terms. Or maybe intellectually - because many of them are wonderful people. I know very good people, liberal-minded, who do a lot for different people, including current refugees from Ukraine, but who do not notice nationalism. “I was, or I was in Kyiv, and I didn’t see anything there, no nationalism, they treated me well, I walked around the city calmly, spoke Russian, they treated me well. Well, what’s so terrible about people shouting “Glory to Ukraine!” if we said: “Glory to Russia!” - What's bad about it"? That is, these people do not understand reality, they do not understand what “glory to heroes!” means, and what “death to enemies!” means. They don't understand the historical roots at all. For me, that this was a Nazi gathering became clear in the very first days, because on the second or third day Tyagnibok came to the podium and said: “Glory to Ukraine”! And the people from the Maidan answer: “Glory to the heroes”! This means that people gathered there for whom the OUN and UPA are a natural phenomenon, they instantly, automatically react to it. Liberals, for whom these are incomprehensible words, they don’t know them, they haven’t read Dontsov, they haven’t read Yarosh, they don’t know history, so for them “glory to Ukraine” is a wonderful slogan - what’s wrong with that? And only after a few steps, after a few weeks, “death to the enemies!” appears, and at first just “Glory to Ukraine - Glory to the Heroes”! Everything is great.

So, as I already said, there were quite a lot of liberals there who got involved in this and began to justify what was happening. For example, I am completely outraged by the way Zisels says that no, “Svoboda” is no longer an anti-Semitic organization, this social-nationalist party is no longer an anti-Semitic organization, they no longer propose to cleanse Ukraine of Jews and Muscovites. How is that? Doesn’t he hear “Moskalyaku to gilyaku!”? And the more liberals got bogged down in this Maidan, the more they sought self-justification, the more they tried not to notice the obvious. And when a person, such as Bilchenko, does not participate in political life, is not politically sophisticated, no matter how much abstract philosophical texts he has read, no matter how much wonderful literature he has read, he may completely not understand what is happening. And yet I am surprised that this misunderstanding, arising from sympathy for the Maidan activists, personal friends who profess nationalist views and who do not profess them, but already justify their mistakes, their participation - such a natural weakness! - this personal sympathy could move a person for quite a long time. I know that this is possible, I have encountered it too often in my life, but still, it is still difficult for me to understand why it took so long for the epiphany to occur. Perhaps there was a focus on his role, on his role as a poet.

-The poet of Maidan?

-The Poet of Maidan, or something else. This concentration on one’s problems could well prevent one from seeing the realities, because there are other motives here. It was more difficult for Ruslan Kotsaba to reconsider, and it was only during the ATO that he reconsidered his views. The same thing happened with Bilchenko, she went to help her friends, who to bandage, who to feed, who to collect money, and there she saw on the spot that something was wrong. I assess the path of these people to insight differently, but I never doubt in the case of Bilchenko that this is a sincere revision. Moreover, this revision is deeper. No, wrong - more radical. Ruslan Kotsaba was undergoing very deep internal restructuring. And this is truly a moral shock, this is a change of identity, this is a titanic change for Kotsaba. Bilchenko does not have such tectonics. It is the same as it was before the Maidan, and remains the same now. But the declared views seem to be changing, that is, these are external changes, they are quite serious, and in this sense they are more radical than Kotsaba’s, because when you look at what Kotsaba says, he, in principle, of course, says that this is a civil war, we are to blame for everything ourselves, but at the same time he sees that Russia is no better. He doesn’t talk about it, Russia is not a fad for him, but when you have to mention it somewhere in a conversation, if you are an attentive observer, you see that somewhere inside he understands that Russia is not my ideal. When you listen to Bilchenko, she directly declares her love for Russia, she directly declares that she is a Russian person, a Russian-speaking poet, for her St. Petersburg is almost closer to Kyiv, and so on. This lability, this swaying from side to side – these are characterological traits of an emotional personality. This is not false, these are just such characteristics of a person with an active psyche. I myself am an emotional person, and quite mobile, I started - again, what connects me with the Marxists - I started as a Marxist revolutionary, and two years was enough for me...

-Is this in the sixties?

- Yes, from 1965 to 1967 - ... to become not just an anti-communist, but a radical anti-communist, and even Gaidar could seem like a child next to me, with my radical views. Then another four years passed - the revision took longer - before I began to have a sharply negative attitude towards this kind of views. You see, that is, I was also tossed and tossed around. And over the course of, say, six years, I came to all sorts of views in my youth! In a sense, due to her age, Bilchenko was late for this, but, you know, the current time is more infantile than the Soviet era. And in Soviet times, people usually applied to become dissidents when they were closer to thirty, or even over thirty. Therefore, if we talk about Bilchenko, I would say that I trust her, like Kotsaba. They are just different personalities, they have different paths, different roles, and you can expect different things when you look at one or the other, work with one or the other. But there is no falsehood here, there is no expectation that something will change instantly.

I know some people with whom Bilchenko and Kotsaba are friends. They clearly understand that the situation in Ukraine will only get worse; changing shoes will only lead to expulsion from society and further rejection. They do not receive dividends from this, moreover, they risk their lives. I am convinced that, for example, the fate of Oles Buzina, which was promised to the same Kotsaba more than once, is not excluded for him. His activity now is his defense, but this position requires courage, and to say that this is some kind of opportunistic change of views is... I don’t want to say harsh words.  You said that many supporters of the “Russian world” criticize... - you will forgive me for the verbosity, I would like to be more or less accurate, correct, and yet sincere at the same time - ... and so, the fact that these people are being persecuted by supporters pro-Russian views, representatives of the “Russian world”, in my opinion, this is not just stupidity, even criminal stupidity. Remember the words about Napoleon? "It's worse than a crime — it's a mistake." This is a mistake, because only by extending a hand to those who have rethought their behavior can we count on the continuation of this process of revisions, but imagine when you reconsider your views, and seem to show sympathy for the other side, but this side begins to poison you even stronger than those who consider you a traitor. This prevents revisions, but strong people will still renounce mistakes and misconceptions. However, this is not the only point. You see, Ukraine today is not an independent state - it is an object of politics, now many people say so. And in a sense, Ukraine is under pressure from the West; it cannot, at least for now, resist this pressure too much. No matter how great the double standards are, in Europe or in the West, some phrases are still uttered there - “freedom of speech”, “human rights”, and in society there is a fairly thick layer of the intelligentsia who sincerely relate to these concepts, and does not at all treat them as an instrument of political influence. And the persuasion of these people, who see all the evil in Russia, may not be through the active work of supporters of the “Russian world”, whom the Western intelligentsia does not hear and will never hear, but through persuasion by those people who were on the opposite side. I think that the activities of Kotsaba, Bilchenko, Medinsky, Chemeris, and someone else are much more important for changing Europe’s attitude towards Ukraine than all our statements that we make from here, from Moscow, from Sevastopol, from Donetsk. And even pro-Russian political prisoners who are in Ukraine, or former political prisoners, they will not be able to play this role. Only people like Kotsaba, like Bilchenko, Medinsky, can change something in the understanding of the European intelligentsia of the situation that is developing in Ukraine. The inclusion of these people in the fight for rights and freedoms is very important, and it is important to say this, because cooperation with these people is a priority for me, it seems to me that it is necessary for them to agree with each other. Bilchenko tried to conduct a dialogue with Donbass, for example, and I really liked how boldly and frankly she spoke while in Kyiv. And as an old dissident, I can say that dialogue is absolutely necessary. I will be happy to talk with communists, with anti-communists, I will talk with nationalists, although I am a complete opponent of nationalism. Smart people, honest people, can agree, even if they have different views. At the same time, I must say that there is a piece of rightness everywhere, including among nationalists.

-Russian nationalists?

-And Russian nationalists, and maybe any other nationalists. In some respects, I see that the people with whom I have lived all my life, who are my environment, liberals, in many issues, where they oppose the nationalists, turn out to be wrong. Therefore, dialogue with people from different sides, if these people themselves are ready for dialogue, is, in my opinion, the most important path to achieving some kind of success, to some kind of change in the situation in Ukraine. I am sure that a strong human rights movement, if it is possible at all in Ukraine, is only possible when such, so different people as the mentioned Vasilets, Timonin, Bilchenko, Katsaba, Muravitsky - these people, if they find a common language among themselves and will be able to unite. Our position of ostracism, of pushing out those who have reconsidered their views, is simply absurd and directed against our interests.

-I would like to talk about Europe. Previously, the West supported Soviet dissidents. Dissident samizdat was read out on radio voices - for example, the famous “Chronicle of Current Events”, which talked about human rights violations in the USSR. Emigrant dissidents could convey their thoughts and ideas through Radio Liberty, Voice of America, BBC, and Deutsche Welle.

 And why is the West now indifferent to what is happening in Ukraine, although it is clear to the naked eye that it is impossible for dissidents to exist there? There are reports from the UN and OSCE that talk about torture of political prisoners and violations of freedom of speech. Why does the West's policy towards Ukraine still remain benevolent? Maybe because the human rights movement in Ukraine is still weak? There are Katsaba, Bilchenko, Timonin, Muravitsky, but is all this in some kind of embryonic state? If Soviet dissidence was a powerful phenomenon, then perhaps Ukrainian dissidence is still rather weak? What advice could you give to Ukrainian human rights activists?

-The answer to this question cannot be simple either. Because there are two trends here at the same time - the first trend is that the human rights movement in Ukraine is really very weak. It is absolutely necessary for him to have such a publication as the “Chronicle of Current Events”, just constant daily monitoring of violations - violations of rights, poor treatment of people in prison or at large, the fate of those people who suffered... After all, in fact, we are not only talking about the fact that people spent some time in places of deprivation of liberty, but when they return - many of them, not as famous as Katsaba - they are sometimes deprived of the opportunity to even feed their family, to work, to study, to work in their specialty, they are forced, how in Soviet times to become a loader and so on - all this must be brought into the light of day every day, and demonstrated to liberal-minded journalists every day - it must be constantly published, it must be so obvious that people cannot say “we didn’t know that” " After all, people once calmly treated both fascism and Stalinism, “we didn’t know that.” This should not be the case, for this the movement must be powerful. But this is a secondary condition. That is, it is paramount for our lives, but it is secondary in the spirit of your question.

The main problem is not this, but the fact that the West at the state level has always used human rights as an ideological weapon, as a fight against an enemy, primarily a geopolitical, not only an ideological, but also a geopolitical enemy. Today there seem to be no ideological opponents, Russia does not have any special ideology, it is for the same capitalism.

-According to the Constitution, Russia is a liberal democracy.

-Yes, democracy, no ideological confrontation. But Russia today is almost a more hated country than the Soviet Union. This once again emphasizes that this is not about democracy at all, not about human rights, but about geopolitical rivalry. When we were dissidents, we did not understand this. They didn't understand at all. Moreover, I, in a sense, a degenerate in the dissident environment, I understood this situation, but I understood it only at the end of 1979, with the beginning of the war in Afghanistan. It's quite a complicated story. I then studied the Second World War, Stalin’s negotiations with Hitler, the division of spheres of influence, being an Odessa resident, I was especially interested in Odessa, and could not understand why Odessa became the center of resistance. And then it turned out that the USSR had certain plans for the Balkans. Why were the Balkans needed? Then I looked at the role of the Soviet Union in World War II. At first, polymetals went through Russia to Germany. Russia provided Germany largely with grain, and the Balkans provided oil. If Stalin, relying on his geopolitical ambitions, old theories about the Third Rome, had taken Romania and Bulgaria under control, then this would have meant that the Soviet Union held in its hands all the resources for waging war, and it could have supported Germany until then , while she weakens England, and then turn off the tap. That is, the Soviet Union took on the role of a manipulator. It is clear that Hitler understood all this, saw through it, and the Barbarossa plan simply destroyed all dreams. By this time, a fairly large army was already concentrated in the south, in Odessa. And Odessa managed to become a hero city - the first to offer serious resistance. Of course, this is not the only fact; human courage plays a vital role. I don’t think that the people who were on other fronts were less courageous, you saw how Brest was defended, the Brest Fortress. So the concentration of troops in the Odessa Military District created the basis of resistance. And then, when I saw the confrontation between the United States and Russia in Afghanistan, I suddenly realized that the Soviet Union plays an important role in balancing world politics. Once the Soviet Union disappears, the unchallenged dominance of the United States will begin. And the United States is acting entirely in its own selfish interests. Acts disgustingly, supporting Islamist radicals. And it was visible.

I remember in 1968 the whole West was shouting about the “Brezhnev doctrine of limited sovereignty”, remember?

-Of course, after the invasion of Czechoslovakia by the Warsaw Pact countries led by the USSR.

-Yes, “we cannot allow the loss of socialist achievements, which are our common achievement.” OK then. What happens in 1973 when the Arabs impose an embargo on oil supplies to the West? The United States is planning a landing on the oil fields of Saudi Arabia. On what basis? “We will not allow the Arabs to strangle the West with the hand of oil hunger.” That is, the same doctrine of limited sovereignty. This is Arab oil! If they want, they sell, if they want, they don’t sell. “No, we won’t let them strangle...” This is how two almost identical mechanisms actually collide, and if you remove the Soviet Union from this scenario, tomorrow the United States will dictate its terms, and oil will be cheap, and raw materials will be cheap, and the imbalance in prices will be even steeper. The Soviet Union prevents the decline in standards of both democracy and human rights in the West itself, and maintains geopolitical balance. In 1979 this became clear to me, and from that moment on I thought differently. But I was the only one in the entire dissident environment.

So we are talking about the West. But the West used dissidents to undermine the stability of the socialist camp. He needed this. Why would he undermine the stability of Ukraine when it is opposed to the hated Russia, right? The West has absolutely no need to protect human rights in Ukraine. The political West is not interested in noticing human rights violations in Ukraine. There are no violations. Another thing is that in the West there is an intelligentsia. But, unfortunately, the intelligentsia - this is the second line in my argument - is degrading. In general, the West is deteriorating in many respects. That is, the whole world is now, in my opinion, experiencing processes of intellectual and moral degradation. Maybe the West is not in the forefront here; we here in the post-Soviet space, with our pants up, are running ahead of the locomotive. But such a terrible thing is also happening to the West. The intelligentsia is losing influence, losing common sense, losing the ability to analyze, and, in a sense, is itself subject to ideological insanity. That is, politicians have managed to saddle even the moral life of society now. And therefore, it is very difficult for sane people to understand the events taking place. Look what is happening to the Western press. After all, it actually filters the bazaar; it does not allow dissident information to leak onto the main channels. Somewhere on the periphery - please, with some leftists - please, in some insignificant publications - please. But in the central media, whether printed or electronic, there is no real objective information, and the intelligentsia feeds on dissected information; it is not critical of this ideological propaganda, which was not the case in the sixties. In 1968, who helped us anti-communists? Leftists. Anarchists, communists.

-Western?

-Western, of course. Of course, the leftist intelligentsia helped, you know, right? But today the situation has changed. Today there is no such protest against the ideological monster that has taken over the West, against this shining house on the hill. Confrontation is kept to a minimum. Today, in a sense, the Western intelligentsia and the government are in symbiosis. In my opinion, this is the degradation of their society. And on the one hand, Western politicians continue to use the tools of human rights for their own geopolitical purposes, and on the other hand, the intelligentsia has lost its subjectivity, it has fit into this political line, and therefore we should not expect that it will suddenly begin to defend human rights in Ukraine . In order for her to do this, they must be forced. We need to put facts on the table and make them read, make them see, as I already said, so that they don’t say, “we don’t know that.” Decide! And I am sure that many will remain with false mines, but those who will reconsider their views in the same way as Bilchenko or Kotsaba revised them, they will become our main allies, and they will help us change the relationship between the West and Russia, will help us in revising the Western relations to Ukraine. This is a long process. After all, Soviet dissidents were not immediately recognized. In fact, support dates back to 1965. There were all sorts of dissidents and underground activists before. Some kind of long preparatory period was needed, and then a bright event, for example, like the resistance of the wives - Sinyavsky and Daniel - to this persecution, and the unification of the intelligentsia around Larisa Bogoraz, Pavel Litvinov, and so on. In Ukraine there is no such unification yet, there is no open confrontation between bright people, while we still see loners. And secondly, this is only the very preparatory period that is currently underway in Ukraine, and I think that it will take many more years before we are able to find a real partner in the West in supporting human rights in Ukraine.