Face to face

Vasil Bykov

Vladimir Baburin:

Our guest today is Belarusian writer, winner of the Triumph Prize Vasil Bykov.

Vasil Vladimirovich, how do you assess the prospects of the Russian-Belarusian union?

Vasil Bykov:

Belarus is an authoritarian country. How can they unite? In addition, the economy. The economy of Belarus is entirely socialist, all enterprises there belong to the state. Unless Russian financial and industrial groups, in the event of integration, take over these former Soviet enterprises, this is quite possible.

Therefore, my (and not only my) attitude towards this is negative. I believe that relations between Belarus and Russia - the closest, the most friendly, the most, so to speak, economically mutually beneficial - can be built on different foundations, completely different from how it is done now.

Vladimir Baburin:

Our guest today is the writer, Vasil Bykov. Elena Dyakova, Novaya Gazeta, and my colleague Ilya Dadashidze will ask him questions. The program is hosted by Vladimir Baburin.

And I’ll start, as always, with a brief biography of our guest today.

Vasil Bykov was born in 1924 into a peasant family near Polotsk. He studied at the art school in Vitebsk, founded by Marc Chagall.

A participant in the Great Patriotic War, he completed his military service in 1955 as an artillery major.

The first book - satirical stories - "Knight's Move". In the early sixties - the first stories and stories on a military theme: “The Third Missile”, “It Doesn’t Hurt the Dead”, “At once”. Vasil Bykov's books "Kruglyansky Bridge", "Sotnikov", "Sign of Trouble" and "Wolf Pit" aroused the greatest reader interest.

For his latest book about Chernobyl, Vasil Bykov was awarded the Triumph Prize. Vasil Bykov is also a laureate of the Lenin and State Prizes and a Hero of Socialist Labor. And the Triumph Prize was awarded to Vasil Bykov last Sunday, and it is on this occasion that Vasil Bykov today in the Moscow studio of Radio Liberty.

Vasil Vladimirovich, you have received many awards. And the highest state awards of the Soviet Union, and now they have received the most prestigious prize in the field of culture, to which, however, cultural figures have an ambivalent attitude, due to the fact that one of the founders of this prize is Boris Berezovsky. Do you have any special connection to this award?

Vasil Bykov:

I have no special connection to this award. For the reason that I believe that in the situation in which our culture now finds itself - not only literature, but literature, perhaps especially, and precisely - realistic, socially engaged literature.... It cannot exist, not only develop, but even exist to any extent without outside help, some kind of sponsorship.

Because the state, as we know, was unable to support literature. On the one hand, this may be good, because God forbid the support that literature experienced during the years of Soviet power. But at the same time, at this turning point, with this economic collapse, literature cannot survive on its own resources either.

Therefore, what remains for writers who do not write detective stories? Or - who are still trying to remain in the positions of realism, especially humanism, who are not post-modernists? What can they do except find some extraneous means and use them to exist and create?

Vladimir Baburin:

Elena Dyakova, Novaya Gazeta.

Elena Dyakova:

"Wolf Pit" Its title echoes the title of your old story - “The Wolf Pack”. And that story is a wonderful thing about how a partisan carries a child, sacrificing everything, in terrible conditions. And your prose is so beautiful, so detailed that all the suffering of a person in war, in every bump, in every snow-covered swamp that he overcomes, is felt especially acutely.

The partisan carries the baby, they part, and thirty years later the aged hero is waiting for this grown-up child on a bench at his house, and at the same time has absolutely no doubt that this child, whom he carried out of hell, has grown up to be a normal, decent person, and they will meet as people. This is where the story ends.

And the powerful feeling... of meaning, and purpose in life, and the suffering endured by people is very strong there.

In “Wolf Pit” it’s the other way around. It seems that the random, insane combination of our current circumstances is driving people into the Chernobyl zone and reducing their existence to complete futility. Your young hero, a soldier who escaped from his unit, vaguely remembers the book “The Fight for Fire” he read in childhood, and thinks: “Now we have come to the same worries,” wondering where to get matches.

Is this comparison a coincidence, created by me, or does it correspond to your thoughts today?

Vasil Bykov:

The events of recent years, especially the Chernobyl disaster, have shown that this insane development of our civilization, many man-made and other factors, under certain political conditions, can lead, so to speak, to the original human existence, precisely to what Roni Sr. once wrote in “The Fight for the Fire.”

Well, this is, of course, a detail. And she, so to speak, does not take much upon herself, I think, but at least she reminds. And what is happening around Chernobyl and in Chernobyl itself - in general, is fraught with many allusions to this matter.

Vladimir Baburin:

Ilya Dadashidze.

Ilya Dadashidze:

You started as a satirist and published the book “Knight's Move”, it was your first book, and suddenly you switched from satire to military topics. What caused this?

Vasil Bykov:

We must keep in mind the circumstances that developed in the country after the twentieth and twenty-second congresses, when a certain thaw set in - in ideology, in life, in art. And when it became possible to delve, so to speak, and present our Soviet ulcers for review. Which is what not only I did, but also many others. That is, it seemed to us that the most burning, most necessary, topical thing was satire.

But very soon the thaw was suppressed and frozen. And after that I tried to write several things on topics of reality, but it turned out that all of them, subjects of this kind, were impenetrable. But the war stories (at least the ones I wrote) and then the stories, they passed. This is all over Soviet literature. Remember, with the advent of the first military stories by Baklanov and Bondarev, lieutenant prose appeared. They also remembered the traditions of Viktor Nekrasov, well, partly of some other military writers, and this became possible.

And thus, I switched to the military topic. It’s not at all because I was so fascinated by the war or the army, I just hated it all my life - both. But I also saw there an opportunity, so to speak, for some realization of some of my ideas, including, and mainly, the ideas of those denying them.

Vladimir Baburin:

Vasil Vladimirovich, in Russia (I don’t mean the borders of the current Russian Federation, but the former Soviet Union, the Russian Empire, whatever), the writer’s word has always had a special meaning. This was probably the only country in the world where poets could pack stadiums.

A week ago, the wonderful poet Yuri Ryashentsev was in this studio. He said that when the approaches to the stadium where the poet will perform are guarded by mounted police, this is not normal, this is an abnormal attitude to the word, because people expect from a writer, from a poet, something that he can never hear either on the radio or on television, or read in the newspaper. And Yuri Ryashentsev considered this abnormal. Nevertheless, it was.

Now the situation has changed dramatically. Solzhenitsyn says - they don’t listen, Viktor Astafiev says - they don’t listen. You generally live in quiet Helsinki. Do you now feel unclaimed, and do you have a need to speak out, and what do you want to say in this case?

Vasil Bykov:

When people don't listen, it's not a tragedy. It's worse when the wrong people listen. But in this regard, I would say, nothing is changing for us. Those organs that are “assigned” to literature always listen.

Well, I don’t know how it is in Russia now. I haven't been here for a long time, after all. And here, for example, in Belarus, this has been going on, I don’t know, since when... probably since the days, so to speak, since the October Revolution.

Of course, there can be two ways to relate to this fact. Somewhere in the early sixties, the magnificent John Steinbeck came to Moscow, he met with young Moscow writers, and as I remember since then, he said that “you are imprisoned for free speech, given a prison term - this is wonderful! This is wonderful, it speaks about the value of this word. In the West, for example, it has no meaning. Whatever you say, in any square, it will all be in vain.”

So, we have now come to a state where a writer’s word is literally worthless. The attitude towards this can be decided in the spirit of Camus. Remember, his “Plague”, this magnificent thing that Tvardovsky once called “the gospel of the twentieth century.” Maybe it’s the same for Tolstoy, here’s his famous saying: “Do what you must, and then let it be what will be.”

Therefore, I think there is no need to dramatize this situation. A writer simply has to do his job and write as he sees fit. And the reaction - the audience, the authorities, the KGB there, I don’t know, so to speak, anyone else - this is not his business, it does not depend on him.

Vladimir Baburin:

And it doesn’t matter where to write: in Moscow, in Minsk, in Helsinki, in Vermont?

Vasil Bykov:

No, it doesn't matter. Because, for example, I can’t write in Minsk. Firstly, my apartment is cold. There, with my diseased lungs, I will, so to speak, very quickly collapse, because in Minsk, by presidential decree, a maximum temperature of twelve degrees has been introduced. Room temperature. There is no money to go higher, so to speak. The state is at such a “high” level of development that it cannot, so to speak, heat its cities.

I lived in Finland for a year and a half. I wrote there, I think, a lot. At least there I wrote this short story and two more books. I worked there every day, nothing distracted me there, the conditions were wonderful. A small warm apartment, a cozy loggia... well, in my opinion - above the bar, above the beer bar. It was an apartment on the second floor, on the first floor there was a beer bar.

But don’t smile - the Finns drink there quietly and quietly, so they didn’t bother me at all with their family grumblings, which they spent there, so to speak, on Sundays drinking beer. On the contrary, it's very good. I felt like I was part of a human team there, so to speak.

Therefore, it doesn’t matter where to write. But a writer doesn’t need much. All you need is a quiet corner and a blank sheet of paper, nothing more.

Vladimir Baburin:

That is, there are no political motives for your departure, just....

Vasil Bykov:

Well, there are, of course, political motives, and there are plenty of them. I would not like to talk about them, because there is a very large pile of these motives to sort through. But these are precisely political motives.

Vladimir Baburin:

Elena Dyakova, Novaya Gazeta

Elena Dyakova:

Well, if I may, twelve degrees of heat in the house is already a political motive, and a powerful one in its own way. Vasil Vladimirovich, nevertheless, yesterday at the presentation of “Triumph” at the Bolshoi Theater they said that before the New Year you returned to Minsk.

Vasil Bykov:

Yes, he's back.

Elena Dyakova:

Why, if possible?

Vasil Bykov:

Elementary: my Finnish visa has expired.

Elena Dyakova:

For how long?

Vasil Bykov:

I don’t know how long I’ll be back. If I am given another opportunity for some kind of existence that is more acceptable and tolerant, then, of course, I will leave.

Elena Dyakova:

Your Russian publications of 1999 are “Znamya” and “Friendship of Peoples”. Do your books come out in Belarus?

Vasil Bykov:

Something came out. A book came out that was thrown out of the state presidential publishing house, they did not publish it, although it had already been typed, but it was picked up by one small private publishing house, which announced a subscription, a public subscription to my book of short stories, it is called “The Wall,” and last year it was published. A small edition, of course, eight hundred copies.

The same small publishing house published a book of journalism, containing articles from recent years. Well, that's it. True, sometimes my previous Soviet stories are republished there. It goes without saying that this brings almost no income. In general, it’s funny to talk about writer’s income now.

Vladimir Baburin:

Before Ilya Dadashidze asks his question, you, just in addition.... You probably know the assessment that the great Russian writer Venedikt Erofeev gave you quite a long time ago, about ten years ago, I’ll just remind the listeners. He said: “I evaluate people, that’s how much I would pour for someone,” and named you first. “Here’s a glass with a slide for Vasil Bykov.”

Venedikt Erofeev understood. And President Lukashenko doesn’t understand what writer Vasil Bykov is? Moreover, you are not engaged in political activities. You don’t write any anti-Lukashenko articles or speeches. Doesn't he understand?

Vasil Bykov:

He doesn't need Bykov. He has a close-knit, powerful cohort of his own personal writers who write his biographies. They write about him, so to speak, and write about his life, and glorify the regime, and that’s enough for him. And he does not accept everything else.

Vladimir Baburin:

Ilya Dadashidze.

Ilya Dadashidze:

The news that you were awarded the Triumph Prize came precisely on the day when the agreement between Belarus and Russia was signed. In my understanding, they are somehow connected with each other, because the news arrived literally within an hour of each other.

Please tell me how you felt about signing this agreement?

Vasil Bykov:

I reacted negatively to this agreement, to its signing, as well as to all previous manipulations regarding the agreement. Because I still believe that Belarus as a state, as a long-time member and even founder of the United Nations, has the right to its own sovereign existence. Here. And what Lukashenko and his regime are doing is aimed at eliminating, completely eliminating, so to speak, this sovereignty. And if only that was the point of this action. But, in addition, under this pretext he is liquidating national culture, national literature, national language.

How can a civilized person, not necessarily a Belarusian, in general, at least a Negro from some, so to speak, southern states of America, react to this when he disappears from the map of Europe. Is it not Africa, so to speak, but an independent state disappearing from the map of Europe?

Well, when Chechnya disappears, we were convinced that this was right, so to speak. But Belarus is not Chechnya, but it too must disappear. How can I feel about this? Moreover, if I am, after all, a Belarusian writer and connected with Belarusian culture, and connected with Belarus by origin?

And then, we must keep in mind that fact, or that circumstance that for some reason many politicians do not notice. So far there is no unification, there is no integration. There is manipulation, there is imitation. A colossal imitation is taking place, this integration, from which certain political dividends are being extracted. How many documents have already been signed? How many meetings were there, how many glasses were drunk and broken? And how many kisses were there at the highest level?

This did not lead to any results. Why? Because, in general, this is economically impossible. Belarus and Russia are completely different worlds. At a time when Russia, after all, well, at least nominally, if not a completely democratic state, it seems to be, is making some attempts in this direction....

Vladimir Baburin:

There are, perhaps, two polar points of view on how this unification can happen. Anyone who advocates (here in Russia, in Moscow) for the revival of the Russian Empire sees a path that is probably similar to the German one. What happened was not the unification of West and East Germany, but East Germany was annexed and dissolved in West Germany. And the result was a country with the same name that West Germany bore - the Federal Republic of Germany.

There are options that this will be some kind of confederation. But all this is somehow very poorly visible. And either this, indeed, could be a single unitary state, and then you are probably right - what will happen is that Russian financial and industrial groups will privatize Belarusian enterprises and such a single space will be created. That is, not the states of Russia and Belarus will unite, but simply Minsk, Brest and several other regions of Belarus will join the Russian Federation.

As I understand it, you, as a Belarusian writer, advocate a different path? Or are you generally categorically against any form of union, be it a confederation, a unitary state, and so on, and so on?

Vasil Bykov:

No, why? There is a European path of unification. As we know, there is the European Union, where unification has already taken place on some basis recently. I think this is the most reasonable association. That is, an association that does not harm any of the parties, but which, so to speak, brings certain benefits to each of the parties. This is a reasonable, democratic, modern, so to speak, form of unification.

But this is not at all what is meant here. Although we are taking some steps, and concluding some documents, some agreements, in general, neither the goal nor the specific form of this action has been formulated.

Why is this being done? I think - so that later the main integrators have free hands and freedom of action. When the main documents are signed, they could dispose of them as they wish. Well, according to Hitler’s, so to speak, recipe. If you remember, I once instructed my Gauleiters how to draw up laws: laws should be streamlined, vague, so that they could be interpreted at any time to the benefit of the authorities.

Yes, and here the same thing is being done.

And the most important thing is that in this case I am not talking about economics. The economy, of course, of both Belarus and Russia is in a hole from which it may never get out. Because the socialist economy is affected by the AIDS virus, and it can only be healed after it dies and is resurrected.

But I’m talking, first of all, about the culture that is closest to me. This integration has not yet happened, but I see how the Belarusian national culture is being destroyed and suffocated. And this is done systematically, in the most cynical way. Because culture in Belarus is run by former Soviet colonels, and naturally, their training is Soviet, communist. And in general, the entire mentality of this regime is communist.

Therefore, in the end, the real goal of this regime is still a revanchist goal. This means the communist past.

Vladimir Baburin:

Elena Dyakova, Novaya Gazeta.

Elena Dyakova:

Why do you think that after the Patriotic War, when, well, half the country lay in ruins, the losses were monstrous, and in theory, after the experience, the demoralization should have been monstrous.... Well, it’s hard for me to judge, as the youngest, but still, in ten years, people crawled out.

Now, when these ten years were given to all of us for a powerful economic breakthrough, this breakthrough did not happen. Demoralization on a relatively level place, as if we were driving ourselves downhill, is quite strong. And sometimes one gets the impression that the quality, roughly speaking, the “quality of population,” has fallen terribly compared to the middle of the century.

Is this true? What do you feel about it?

Vasil Bykov:

I think that at a certain stage of social development, prison and barracks are optimal. Now, as for the army and the barracks, this is an excellent form of organization. Everything there is clean, even, everyone gets what they are entitled to, everything is regulated and scheduled. So, the socialist system is very close to this. And it is very easy to restore order, or restore something destroyed, in the barracks.

But the whole point is that, according to its historically established mentality, this barracks order is not suitable for every nation. We, at least the Soviet peoples, or post-Soviet peoples, rejected the barracks, but we were simply not capable of another form of organization.

This is exactly the same as the sovereignty of some post-Soviet republics, which fell from Belovezhiya one fine morning, but no one was ready for this, neither society, so to speak, nor politicians, nor the intelligentsia, nor the leadership elite.

The same, say, applies to, well, such an elementary thing as capital. Just look at how capital has developed in the West. It took place over the course of centuries. It was collected there for generations and not drunk. All this accumulated: small amounts, from small ones to large ones. Some time has passed, and now we see not only how Marxism, so to speak, tells us that this is the result of a robbery of the powerful, so to speak.... Nothing of the kind. There was a robbery, but the robbers shared with the robbed. And now we see powerful countries, so to speak, with enormous capital.

But what happened in our country when the capitalist path of development was announced? Right off the bat, who got involved in petty trading, so to speak? Firstly, it became impossible. It was muffled by all sorts of government regulations and others. They began to steal billions. This became possible. It was the government that created such conditions. This is a crime of the authorities, for which, of course, the authorities are never responsible, the people are responsible. But now he got what he wanted from the authorities.

And now, of course, what should we build our lives on, or develop the country, at least according to post-war recipes? It turns out we have no money. And they won't be.

Vladimir Baburin:

When you say “with us,” do you mean Russia, Belarus, or both Russia and Belarus?

Vasil Bykov:

Yes, I mean the entire USSR.

Vladimir Baburin:

Vasil Vladimirovich, when you spoke about the Russian-Belarusian union, you mentioned Chechnya. Well, it’s unlikely that any program can do without the Chechen theme now. You are a person who went through a war and, naturally, therefore, a person who should hate war.

In 1999, two major military conflicts occurred in Europe. These are the Kosovo conflict and the Chechen war, which is called the “Second Chechen War”.

Giving an assessment of the Chechen war and drawing some parallels with what happened in Kosovo, it was given, among other things, the following assessment: Russia is waging this second Chechen war using NATO methods, but using the ideology of Milosevic. Do you agree with this assessment?

Vasil Bykov:

I think that these are not exactly NATO methods.

Vladimir Baburin:

This was said at the initial stage, when the number of casualties was indeed minimal, aviation was used, artillery was used, and they tried to save the lives of soldiers.

Vasil Bykov:

What is happening in Chechnya is, of course, the crime of the century. This is amazing. Well, a combination of circumstances, obviously historical and other, made possible such an indifferent attitude towards this, including in the West.

But if you wake up one day, sober, and think about it, you can go crazy with what’s happening. And the motives for all this are not even clear. Is this piece of territory really so important for Russia, not even talking about anything else, that you have to pay for it with thousands of human lives, you have to wipe out cities and villages from the face of the earth, and this is at the turn of the third millennium from the birth of Christ?!

Vladimir Baburin:

Vasil Vladimirovich, can I remind you? Alexander Galich: “Blood is not more expensive than oil, but oil is desperately needed”? It was written about another war, but the situation is the same.

Vasil Bykov:

Yes, oil, of course, oil now, apparently, will indeed become more valuable than blood. Well, in that case, this can be considered the end of European history, at least if it happens.

Vladimir Baburin:

Ilya Dadashidze, Radio Liberty.

Ilya Dadashidze:

Do you have any statements about what is happening? Now you have spoken. Here you are, a military writer, and your word should, despite the fact that no matter how writers are not listened to now, regarding the Chechen war, your words could be heard. Were there any statements? Have journalists contacted you about this? What happened?

Vasil Bykov:

Contacted. And I always say this. And it is printed and broadcast. I spoke about this on German radio and published interviews in Finnish magazines and newspapers.

Ilya Dadashidze:

How do people in Belarus react to your statements about Chechnya?

Vasil Bykov:

It depends who. The authorities’ attitude, of course, is understandable. They immediately push buttons and demand action. It has long been our custom to hold accountable not the one who committed the crime, but to bring to account the one who disclosed it. So you will be attracted too. If I'm attracted, then you will be too.

Vladimir Baburin:

Elena, please, your question.

Elena Dyakova:

What has your journalism been about in recent years?

Vasil Bykov:

A variety of issues of current life. Well, this is journalism, mainly, when I lived in Finland, these are interviews. In our country now, you know, the most popular form of journalism is interviews. It is very profitable, free, and you don’t have to spend money on fees. Articles are somewhat worse, but interviews are published.

In addition, I wrote parables there. Well, this is already a literary genre.

Elena Dyakova:

In general, of your articles, specifically articles, statements in the nineties, which ones caused the greatest resonance in Belarus, and which ones are most memorable - like a civic act - for you yourself?

Vasil Bykov:

Well, I can't remember that now. Last year, in my opinion... Yes, last year - somewhere in the spring a small book of these articles was published. There were many statements there, all about the same things we are worried about now.

Vladimir Baburin:

Vasil Vladimirovich, why do you think... it’s not that the people are practically silent (I mean in Belarus), but President Lukashenko has some support. When parliament was dissolved, everyone took it calmly. A parliament was appointed - they reacted calmly. The referendum passed, everyone noted many violations, and again everything was quiet and calm. I extended my powers - again no reaction.

The entire West refuses to talk to Lukashenko, but in Belarus it is quiet and calm. These demonstrations are taking place in Minsk and are being brutally dispersed. And so the whole republic is intimidated, in this way?

Vasil Bykov:

Probably, the solution to this riddle lies, oddly enough, in one statement that I remember from ancient times by the unforgettable Mao Tse Tung: “The people are a blank sheet of paper on which any hieroglyph can be written.”

Vladimir Baburin:

How many times have you used “Soviet”, “communist”, “socialist” when speaking about Belarus? Perhaps it is in Belarus that this mentality is most preserved? After all, when the people, that people (of those times, first of all) were characterized - probably the main feature was rejection of the intelligentsia.

Here Stanislav Shushkevich - a smart, intelligent man with a quiet voice - turned out to be not in demand in Belarus. And Alexander Lukashenko - a man from the crowd, a man of the crowd - has such support.

Vasil Bykov:

Well, I could explain it. What does it mean, say, “not in demand”? Shushkevich was the speaker of parliament. That's right, he's my friend, I've known him for a long time. He is a talented physicist and an intelligent person, very educated, who knows many European languages. And so the communist, pro-communist Supreme Council elected him speaker of parliament. And he served as Speaker for some time while he was, so to speak, following the lead of this Parliament.

As soon as he declared his insubordination, they immediately raised the question of re-election, and they did. What do people have to do with it?

Vladimir Baburin:

No one was outraged?

Vasil Bykov:

Of course, there were protests and protests. We still have such an influential, so to speak, political organization, like the Belarusian Popular Front. But what if, say, two thousand, or twenty thousand, or even fifty thousand came to the rally? Lukashenko throws against this rally one hundred and thirty thousand equipped, equipped, in helmets, body armor, with sticks, one hundred and thirty thousand police, who began to work with sticks, with their feet.... And then there are trials, dismissals from work, expulsions, and so on.

What can the people do in such conditions?

Vladimir Baburin:

That is, Lukashenko already feels his complete impunity?

Vasil Bykov:

He completely conquered, so to speak, these people.

Vladimir Baburin:

Ilya Dadashidze.

Ilya Dadashidze:

Are the people really scared, or are the people somewhere, besides those people, except the Popular Front, which is a minority after all, the majority of them support Lukashenko? Or is he intimidated, or do they consider Lukashenko their own man?

Vasil Bykov:

There is such a thing. Because, I'll explain now. The fact is that, firstly, we must keep in mind the popular demands, so to speak, of the people, the voter, the electorate of any kind - for a politician, for a leader, which developed not in our times, but in previous times, in Soviet times, be it a deputy, or a party bureau secretary, or a director of an enterprise. The requirement for him is elementary: he must be able to “get” and “knock out”: either a budget for a factory, or building materials for a collective farm, and so on.

A leader who lacks these abilities or connections is worthless. Let him know six languages ​​there, so to speak - the smartest Shushkevich.... So, in this regard, Lukashenko is precisely the optimal leader. When the republic has no money, no.... The budget has, so to speak, spread out, when there has been hyperinflation for many years, when there are no energy resources, how to live?

Only Lukashenko can save the situation. With this unusual energy, this satanic pressure, he can knock out. He will go to Moscow from Chernomyrdin, or from Berezovsky, I don’t know who else, he will get it. How it was done in Soviet times. It's not about the money.

Vladimir Baburin:

That is, he runs the republic the way he once ran a state farm? It turns out that this is so?

Vasil Bykov:

Absolutely, absolutely, absolutely. And he controls, and for sure, I will say, in this regard, to his credit, no one else could do this, get it, and still prevent the batteries from completely melting this winter, like Lukashenko. It still provides at least something. And thus he wins the sympathy of the people.

Because not only do we have energy resources, we no longer even have bread. Last summer, the republic collected only half of the required amount of grain. No feed. Complete collapse. Because in economics he has already announced a policy of market socialism. You can imagine what it is. He himself doesn't know what it is.

And besides, there are no investments from the West, he has, so to speak, completely broken up with the West, he is not recognized or supported.

In such cases, who will give the people even a piece of bread? Only Lukashenko. And these thousands of collective farmers... Collective farms remain, although they no longer do absolutely anything. But they are populated by retirees. Pensioners live there, who receive these paper-hares of theirs, which are enough for exactly a few loaves of bread. But the bread is delivered, the papers are issued. And the people are grateful to Lukashenka.

Vladimir Baburin:

Thank you. This was the last question. We listened to Vasil Bykov for almost an hour, and now I ask my colleagues to say within three minutes what was the main thing in this conversation. Elena Dyakova, Novaya Gazeta, please.

Elena Dyakova:

Well, the bitterness, the nobility, the sobriety of what and how Vasily Vladimirovich speaks. But I kept remembering my long conversation with Svetlana Alexandrovna Alexievich, two years ago, about the same Belarus, and we remembered a quote from the “Chernobyl Prayer”. One of her heroines says: “There is no country that was our homeland, there is no time that was our homeland.” And we came out into some other, new time, in which we are uncomfortable. But now I see how well the wonderful writer Vasil Bykov can withstand the blow.

Vladimir Baburin:

Ilya Dadashidze, Radio Liberty.

Ilya Dadashidze:

I don’t want to sum it up, I just want to wish Vasil Vladimirovich that his apartment will always be warm, and that he can always work where he feels good.

Vladimir Baburin:

And I will conclude, Vladimir Baburin. It is very nice that Vasil Bykov is aware of his place and his importance. It is very good that Russia realized this by awarding Vasil Bykov the highest Russian cultural prize.

It is a great pity that this is not understood in the writer’s homeland; it is a pity that President Lukashenko does not understand this.