Translated material
Why is Russia Snowden?
Width PX Height PX
The url has been copied to your clipboard
No Media Source Currently Available
0:00 0:03:54Elena Rykovtseva: Ambassador of a free state freed guests from the need to observe some etiquette. Everyone was very fun. I liked it. I repeat the question once again: is the struggle for human rights of a damaged relationship with the United States? It was a topic for the work of our future colleagues-students. By the way, here Michael McFol said, and you know this, the Americans are very fond of their independence, and for some reason they have absolutely informal this holiday, although, it would seem, such a pathetic occasion. Why, what do you think, why do they love him so much and why in Russia it is not possible to achieve from citizens the same attitude to their holiday, Independence Day?
Anastasia Krivosheeva: I think the relaxed atmosphere at the official holiday is a symbol of freedom, whatever one may say. Because in America this is the main principle, in any case, which they promote - the principle of freedom, everyone can do what he wants. It shows in everything: in advertising, and in the cinema, and in music. But, as we see, recent events show that, perhaps, Nonnobod is the main principle of America, this is the case with Snowden, I think.
Elena Rykovtseva: We smoothly moved to the column of Nastya Krivosheeva. Everything she thinks about the Americans, she will tell now.
Elena Rykovtseva: Nastya, do you think that if you were an adviser to the President of the Russian Federation, you need to give him political asylum, protect him from issuing the United States?
Anastasia Krivosheeva: Yes, I think that you still need to prove to the government of America that such actions will not come from their hands. Again the story is repeated. The same thing happened with the “Watergate” process, but why America does not draw conclusions from this. Why then became a black spot? And now the fact that Obama did not essentially say anything in his excuse.
Elena Rykovtseva: Mikhail, please.
Mikhail Fishman: Firstly, Nastya, you say wonderful and look very cool in the frame. Secondly, I have the following question: you somehow hinted that we are waiting for a reaction from the human rights activists of the world and something is not there. And there was such a meaningful intonation. What did you mean?
Anastasia Krivosheeva: I thought that at least human rights organizations should have entered for Snowden, who believe that they were fighting for human rights.
Mikhail Fishman: From how you say how you hold on, when you say it, it follows that you have an understanding why they did not, you have some kind of picture.
Anastasia Krivosheeva: I think they did not do this, because they are also afraid to spoil relations with America. I can't say exactly why.
Mikhail Fishman: There are just a lot of "but". The plot we are discussing is quite complicated. It is difficult to take and explain exactly who is good, who is bad.
Elena Rykovtseva: Let's start with what, Mikhail, it seems to you, Nastya does not understand in this story.
Mikhail Fishman: It seems to me that if I myself understood in this story, it would be much easier.
Elena Rykovtseva: Then what do you not understand? Let's start with you.
Mikhail Fishman: If you look in the eyes of the truth, are we sure that we understand what kind of information Snowden revealed and what it is about specifically, what kind of data, who exactly can receive from. Are we sure that we clearly present this picture?
Anastasia Krivosheeva: As far as I know, a “bug” was established in the fax in the representative office of the European Union in America. That is, such a sophisticated system of wiretaps.
Mikhail Fishman: In your plot, you are talking about the data of Facebook, Google. Do you understand what you are talking about? For example, we know that “Facebook”, and “Google”, and everyone else denied the general idea of the one that immediately appeared in the press, that the special services have unlimited access to their servers, can use any information, take everything they want and so on. All up to one Internet company, which were discussed, has refuted this tough. Are you in the know?
Anastasia Krivosheeva: No at all, I did not know what they had refuted.
Mikhail Fishman: It would be better to know this before cooking material.
Elena Rykovtseva: The most important thing is that you need to understand that this listening is not just like that, they wanted to listen to, find out who with whom and when, what time they lead to school - no, this is listening in the framework of anti -terrorism activities. This is a huge, serious, gigantic work that allowed the United States to prevent a large number of years of terrorist attacks on their territory. Boston history-yes, this is scary, but still three victims, not three thousand people.
Mikhail Fishman: I can protect Nastya a little. In fact, Paphos is clear to me and, of course, especially in the lips of the journalist that there is a private life and there is nothing to go there.
Elena Rykovtseva: The state explains why it is climbing.
Mikhail Fishman: explains, but this does not mean that this cannot be discussed and that, in principle, should have the right to eavesdropped on any conversation, as far as it corresponds to public conventions. The fact that this was done by law is we know. That is not the problem here, it seems to me. This pathos is very clear, this is a clear truth that you are trying to protect. But the story, of course, is more complicated. A very serious comparison with Watergate. This does not really happen. Why are American human rights activists not afraid to talk about Guantanamo, spoil relations? There are a number of questions that arise, to which you simply do not find an answer. Therefore, I would just advise you to try to get into the embrasure a little bit first, and then go down and see what we really see.
Elena Rykovtseva: Maybe start with the fact that Snowden did this.
Mikhail Fishman: We don’t understand how the Prism program works, I am sure of this, about which Snowden told everyone. I know that we definitely do not understand in detail how it works. Therefore, all accusations sound sharply, but not very reasonably. If the CIA specialist sits on the contrary, he simply breaks down like nuts.
Elena Rykovtseva: This specialist has already sat in those instances that are engaged in this, he had to give explanations, the specialist gave explanations, said that thanks to this wiretapping, 50 terrorist attacks were prevented for so many time. Naturally, in their defense, they say that all this is done for you. For me, for example, a big question: why people agree that they are inspected, when, God forbid, a terrorist attack, general excitement, general excitement, and people agree that safety requirements and even due to interference in their personal life are tightened. And then a certain number of years pass, and they again say: why are they listening to us, why on earth? That is, as soon as the terrorist attack is good, listen to us, if only not a terrorist, but there is no terrorist attack - and you can’t listen.
Anastasia Krivosheeva: It seems to me that in this case the authorities of America had to warn about it, so that it was not so that Snowena published, and everyone learns about it.
Nikita Cano: Despite the support of the Democrats and Republicans in Congress and the Senate, there is still a feeling that all this was done secretly.
Anastasia Krivosheeva: The second question: how to justify that the "bugs" and listening systems were installed in the embassies of other countries? Moreover, countries not only of the European Union, but also of India, Japan, such historically friendly countries of America.
Mikhail Fishman: There is a little bit, it seems to me that we go into the territory where it will be difficult for you too. Because directly to the human rights pathos, the spy theme has an indirect relationship. Everyone is listening to everyone, some rulers want to listen to others. The Russians repaired the embassy building with "bugs", then it did not work for many years. Everyone is always watching everyone. This does not mean that some basic ideas about humanity are violated. One does not correspond a little. Yes, they listen to ambassadors, so what?
Anastasia Krivosheeva: Then what was the case in the "Watergeian business" if everyone is listening to each other?
Mikhail Fishman: The plot of the "Watergia case" was that one candidate listened to another candidate. This, of course, is the egregious violation of everything that is possible. This is not the same as listening if the CIA is following the ambassador of Kuwait. These are fundamentally different things. This is receiving an insaid in the election game - this is what Nixon was accused. Of course, this is a reason for the scandal.
Elena Rykovtseva: Maria Mikhaleva, your video column on the topic of Snowden, USA, Russia.
Elena Rykovtseva: It was a column of Maria Mikhaleva, who believes that it would be nice to engage in the countries of educating each other in terms of international politics, relations, human rights in their own country. America is definitely doing this. Please, Michael, your opinion?
Mikhail Fishman: It seems like everything that you say is normal and you don’t even seem to be. Although it is obvious that this is the genre of the column that everything will not fit into it. Still, as far as we understand, nothing unlawful formally happened, however. That is, yes, in secret, but according to the law, at least, it turns out that so. Another thing is that still it causes public outrage. This is not even the point, but that your pathos did not convince me. I do not think that if two children, even, say, very ill -bred, will begin to educate each other, then two educated children will be obtained. It seems to me that there will be some kind of fight and scandal. Here's what will happen when two bullys begin to teach each other to live. I think I would be in the place of Russia (there are so many people, so many opinions), I would advise Russia to behave more modestly than you advise you, I would advise you to climb on Rozhon. Enough lawyers from Snowden, there are human rights activists about whom we talked, there are organizations who are engaged in freedom of speech, freedom of the press, which, by the way, the Russian state does not really welcome in principle. This fits into the concept of two non -bred hooligans. Although if you ask human rights defenders, they will say that one of them is more non -enchanted than the other. There are lawyers who have more authority in such a situation than Russia. We see how Russia sometimes takes on such functions, I’m not sure that it works effectively. Do you have such confidence, did you look at other examples when we taught Americans not to violate the laws and not only Americans?
Maria Mikhaleva: I do not propose to climb into the barricades and behave like America, which proves that those values that herself now tramples. I propose simply not to ignore the situation, not getting off from the situation, here, they say, take your Snowden, why we need him here. I justify the need not to ignore this situation and not to give Snowen to this.
Mikhail Fishman: This point of view also has the right to exist. We can argue about this, but for this we live to do it. I would protect the other, but it does not mean that it cannot be like that.
Elena Rykovtseva: There can be any point of view, but the main thing is that it is convincing, affordable and understandable. We listen to the column of Nikita Kano, which, by the way, is not a student of the journalism department - this is the first time in our history of the program that a person has not yet entered, but participates.
Mikhail Fishman: I must admit that I did not quite understand its main thought. I understand that, firstly, the Russians and the Chinese will use this episode in order to squint the Internet in themselves. I understood this, and then I did not understand. That is, they use it as an occasion. Such an idea has the right to exist. But why is America for us an enemy?
Nikita Kano: Not for us, but for people. Roughly speaking, our in power use this situation so that ordinary people will gain access to data. And for ordinary people, accordingly, according to this logic, America is an enemy, because because of it, roughly speaking, people get this access. Provoked this situation.
Mikhail Fishman: Because she did not follow Snowden well. If she kept him in UND, then everything would be in order. That is, they carried out the CROs from the hut.
Nikita Cano: Because of this, roughly speaking, we got worse.
Mikhail Fishman: That is, America harmed the world by the fact that she had a Snowden from some corridors and told such things.
Nikita Cano: It seems to me that Snowden is not an isolated case, it just got out to the surface now.
Mikhail Fishman: Now I realized what you mean. You can see from this point of view, but I simply did not understand this.
Elena Rykovtseva: This is a very unexpected point of view.
Mikhail Fishman: She has the right to exist. Of course, if you are such a power that bakes about freedom, so influential and, accordingly, also believes that it is important for you that these freedoms are observed everywhere, then do not give a reason. In principle, such a pathos has the right to exist, you can talk on this topic, only this was not very clear.
Elena Rykovtseva: I will read to you that independent political scientist Yuri Fedorov tells our radio: “There is such a saying:“ I would be king ... ”If I were in Putin’s place, I would, of course, sent Snowden the first flight to the United States. This would bring a lot of advantages of political, propaganda, whatever. Putin would have established himself as a reliable partner of the United States, who will not use the difficulties that the Americans arise in connection with a particular plot, whether it be Assange, Snowden or something like that. But, apparently, the Russian president decided to use these American difficulties in order to get something. What he received, I don't know. I think that nothing but irritation in the American political and bureaucratic elite. Putin received nothing even from American public opinion. ” This political scientist believes that send him and forget him, give him to America. Russia does not receive anything from the fact that he is sitting here. What do you think about this, about such an opinion?
Elena Rykovtseva: But at the same time, Nastya and Masha still believe that not.
Mikhail Fishman: Nastya in his column said that he might not live before the trial.
Elena Rykovtseva: Masha, what do you say about the position of the political scientist, that there is not a single reason why it needs to be kept in Russia, you need to answer this request, give it to the United States?
Anastasia Krivosheeva: The problem is that Russia is needed by America. Suppose we would now transfer Snowden to the American authorities and, for example, maintained relations. But one way or another, we do not have many trade relations with America, as far as I know. I doubt that their number would increase and something would have changed significantly.
Nikita Cano: such a situation was a few years ago, when there was a scandal with Anna Chapman and another 5-10 people, when the exchange of people who were spotted.
Елена Рыковцева: Михаил, ответьте Насте, которая считает, что нет никакого практического смысла выдавать его Америке, потому что какие бонусы получит Россия, если все равно толку нет от американцев. Тут считают, что ничего, кроме куриных ножек, от них не получают.
Михаил Фишман: Наверное, это не совсем так. Можно себе представить, что при том, что отношения с Америкой у нас тяжелые и ухудшаются, то есть тренд отрицательный, это не значит, что можно на них плюнуть, имеет смысл. Плюнуть-то можно, но что это разумно — вряд ли. Если бы я был Путиным, я бы точно постарался от Сноудена как-нибудь избавиться — это совершенно очевидно, просто куда-нибудь его деть. Эквадор — прекрасно, Куба — замечательно.
Елена Рыковцева: Михаил, значит, вы тоже считаете, что не Америке? Тоже сказали, что куда-нибудь деть, только не отдать Америке.
Михаил Фишман: Все-таки, это будет выглядеть не очень красиво, тем более, его ждут большие неприятности в Америке. Конечно, это выглядит не очень. Но я не знаю, какие у меня карты на столе, я не могу так рассуждать, но одна из них могла бы быть и эта. То, что я бы обсуждал со своими советниками — это очевидно.
Целиком программу можно прослушать здесь же. Полная видеоверсия по ссылке
---