Translated material
Tragedy in Dallas
Vladimir Kara-Murza : Half a century ago, shots in Dallas cut off the life of the 35th US President John Kennedy. He still remains one of the most popular US national leaders. And the mystery of this tragedy does not leave today's generation of researchers.
The tragedy in Dallas - through the eyes of Russian Americanists of different generations. This is the topic of our conversation with the First Vice President of the Center for Strategic Development Modeling Grigory Trofimchuk , senior researcher at the International Security Center IMMO RAS Vladimir Sotnikov . On direct telephone communications, we have the deputy director of the Institute of the USA and Canada Viktor Kremenyuk and Vice -Rector MGIMO Alexey Podberezkin .
Grigory Pavlovich, "anniversary" sad films that are now broadcast on Russian television channels - are they shed a new light on this tragedy or only confuse the matter?
Grigory Trofimchuk : I think that all new films are just confusing the topic. It can be assumed that when this tragic event is 10 years old, there will be an order of magnitude more versions. I begin from the fact that everything is always much easier, even based on some everyday situations. When some secret clarifies, it turns out to be much easier than someone seemed to someone. I think that here the situation in reality is much easier, that is, it is impossible to dig deep. We must, having all the facts in our hands, understanding the entire system of causal connections, to isolate some one version for ourselves.
I believe that this version approximately coincides with the one that Valentin Zorin spoke about in the book "Vladyka without masks" with the corresponding photos of the moment of murder. She just captured me. There was a bias in the mafia. There are several more versions - the Soviet Union could take revenge on the Caribbean crisis, South Vietnam - for the murder of the first president of South Vietnam. So, neither South Vietnam, nor the Soviet Union would be engaged in mafiosi who were there. There was a whole series of murders massive murders. Only the mafia could do it.
Vladimir Kara-Murza : Vladimir, when are you interested in this topic?
Vladimir Sotnikov: When I was a schoolboy, the same book fell into my hands. I already knew then that Valentin Zorin is one of our leading America experts, a famous journalist. And she captured me. Then I started reading more.
It seems to me that in 100 years they will forget about it. It may be strange and paradoxical, but after 100 years America will worry some other topics. Not even today Obama. 50 years is such a period in history, when the events are still fresh in memory. And 100 years-this is probably still ...
Grigory Trofimchuk : Only some new next killings of the first persons can close this topic. It's like war. The war is forgotten when another major war comes.
Vladimir Sotnikov : Yes, when the attention of the Americans will already switch to other things. Personally, I am still humanly sorry for this charming president, who, indeed, was probably the first American president who realized that we had to coexist peacefully with the USSR and move away from the abyss-not to balance on the verge of nuclear war.
Grigory Trofimchuk : It was precisely when his presidency was the Caribbean crisis.
Vladimir Sotnikov : Yes, in the West it is called the Cuban crisis.
Vladimir Kara-Murza : To which version are you leaning?
Victor Kremenyuk : You mean who killed?
Vladimir Kara-Murza : Yes, the revenge of the mafia or the Soviet trace, relatively speaking.
Victor Kremenyuk : I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. I don't think this is so important. Another thing is important that some elements of society killed the president-young, promising, whom most Americans loved. And he was killed. Such time was evil, cruel, in international relations, which is inside individual countries. Such a reaction of people prone to violence, to the evil thinking-yes, they killed the president.
Vladimir Kara-Murza : Alexey Ivanovich, what is the lesson of this tragedy for the world history of the twentieth century?
Alexey Podberezkin : I believe that the ruling US elite is quite harshly dealt with those even the highest leaders of the country, who, in her opinion, begin to behave incorrectly. In general, in modern political history, I'm not talking about the past, both attempts and murders were enough. Kennedy was dangerous for the ruling elite. And even more dangerous because it came from a very noble and rich family. That family could afford a lot, which the ruling elite of the United States did not allow itself, which was supposed to play according to certain rules. As soon as these rules were violated, as Nixon did, for example, the American establishment found a way to get rid of the president. And it is not the essence of it is important in how and what social group stood behind this. Kennedy was inconvenient. He began to play not according to the rules, firstly. Secondly, he was too independent-by virtue of his status, which was very much appreciated in the United States, and personal wealth.
Vladimir Kara-Murza : Did President Kennedy pay for his independence, for being knocked out of the general series of the US political elite?
Grigory Trofimchuk : I think he did not get out of anything special, because he did not have time to just do this. On the contrary, he was beneficial, as it seems to me, to America, because he worthy of this crisis. It seems to me that it is not without reason that the cause of the murder is still beating and will still beat for many centuries. She is very important. Because if we knew exactly the reason, then we could predict some other cases where this could happen due to some similar circumstances.
Another very important conclusion that we must draw from the murder of Kennedy. If they want to remove the first person, no security helps at all! This issue is solved by the group that removes it - financial, political, mafia. Anyone! If such a goal is set by someone, sooner or later it will be realized.
Vladimir Kara-Murza : Was this a demonstrative lesson to all the obstinate politicians of the twentieth century?
Vladimir Sotnikov : I think that it can be considered so, probably, it was a demonstrative lesson. Still, it seems to me that several factors played its tragic and in some way a mystical role in the fact that John Kennedy died. On the one hand, indeed, he may not have been loved that he was a native of which the presidents usually emerged. He was from a rich, very noble family, from the family of a diplomat. On the other hand, he was the president who, after a stagnation associated with Eisenhower's presidency, dared to make independent decisions.
Grigory Trofimchuk : There are few first persons both then and now, who would be loved. There are groups that will hate the first face and try to eliminate it.
Vladimir Kara-Murza : Victor, what role did Kennedy play and his presidency in the development of relations between Moscow and Washington?
Victor Kremenyuk : I think that despite the short presidency, Kennedy played a big role in how relations were evolved between the USSR and the USA. The decision on Berlin is known when he was clearly provoked by some ill-conceived actions, but he did not go to them. On the other hand, his position, his proposal to resolve the Caribbean crisis, that is, the exchange of figures. We remove our missiles from Turkey, you withdraw from Cuba, with which Khrushchev agreed. This is a slightly different language compared to the 50s. They didn’t talk like that there. They threatened each other, there it was about some new intimidation campaigns. And then Kennedy proposed another tone of relations. It was very good. This opened the road for further steps on both sides, which led us to the end of the "cold" war.
Kennedy is the best part of the American elite. He is from this cohort. It was just in terms of intelligence, in terms of human qualities higher than the average level of the elite. This is a very serious thing. Because many leaders, on the contrary, try to play under the average level of the elite in order to remain popular in order to remain their own. They remain like that, but cease to be leaders. Kennedy was the leader, walked ahead, was not afraid of it. Of course, he was not forgiven for him, because he began to become a stranger to some part of the American elite. And when they understood this, they got rid of him. This is a very serious thing. The leader must be a leader, but he should be understandable to most of that class that puts forward him. Kennedy violated this rule, for which he eventually paid.
Vladimir Kara-Murza : Alexey Ivanovich, what is the personal role of Kennedy in the settlement of the Caribbean crisis, which put the world on the brink of thermonuclear war?
Alexey Podberezkin : I believe that in this crisis a person played a huge role. Kennedy and his brother led a very subjective, very personal policy, not paying attention and very often opposing the traditions of the American establishment, against the inertia that was there. In this sense, of course, a lot of stresses arose there. At that time, they were not very afraid of the use of nuclear weapons. Firstly, the Americans used it before and roughly represented its consequences. They were not very afraid of our missiles, which were largely a fiction. I mean those missiles that were placed. Yes, there were missiles located in Turkey, but there were heavy bombers against which an effective air defense system was created.
People were preparing not just in case for war, they were preparing for a completely real war. Kennedy pushed to this conflict. There were very influential forces that were interested so that he would not stop, so that he would destroy the Castro regime, and behave more actively on the European front. Kennedy did not succumb to this pressure. Yes, he was in power for a very short time, but we do not remember President Johnson or Carter, who were more in power. They somehow passed by, there were passing presidents. And with Kennedy we associate a certain turn towards realism. That's the main thing. And just that, it seems to me that they did not forgive him.
Grigory Trofimchuk : A very interesting point about the relationship of American elites, including shadow American elites, a negative attitude towards Kennedy. For some reason, for some reason, it is not said that Kennedy was killed at the dawn of the new next expansion of the Soviet empire. Cuba actually became pro -Soviet. And there, Vietnam, after some time, entered the socialist camp, and a whole group of countries in Africa. In general, the world has changed very much. Maybe just some kind of shadow groups in America did not like how Kennedy reacted to the confrontation during the Cuban or Caribbean crisis (it can be called differently). And America as a whole, perhaps, felt the danger that it was Kennedy who gave the situation.
If all this is considered with a cold head, Khrushchev, by and large, won in this situation. Therefore, the USSR could go further. I am not saying that the USSR could crush Mexico, Canada and part of the American states for himself. But the situation could at some point become uncontrollable. Yes, maybe the missiles did not shoot, no one threw bombs at each other, but, nevertheless, this precedent was very dangerous for the power pole of those times.
Vladimir Sotnikov : Kennedy was not afraid to go against a certain part of the US elite, which was represented by intelligence representatives, representatives of the military. Nevertheless, he probably went down in history as a politician who made independent decisions.
Vladimir Kara-Murza : Victor, did Kennedy enter the conflict with the military-industrial complex?
Victor Kremenyuk : Yes, no. Yes, the American president is independent of the constitution. What is the president? Is this a pawn, a collective leadership? Nothing of the kind! This is a person chosen by the people who are responsible for the state of the country. He must be independent. It should be independent. He should not succumb to some lobbying influences. Therefore, the reasoning that he showed independence is complete nonsense!
Vladimir Sotnikov : Then it is not necessary to kill him.
Victor Kremenyuk : What did Kennedy want? Firstly, if we talk about the Cuban crisis, he was the first to introduce the concept of "crisis management" into circulation. He managed with the help of the headquarters that he created, to put control of the development of events. He managed to prevent them from going out for the unacceptable framework. He managed to offer a decision that arranged the other side. He demonstrated the superior quality of the leader in this very situation. Why did this outraged someone in America? Probably because it was the highest mathematics for people who did not go further than arithmetic. They did not understand why he was doing this. They believed that he, if he does not betray the interests of the country, then showed weakness and compliance with Khrushchev.
Kennedy is not an outcast. Why did they begin to be proud of it over time? The group that surrounded Kennedy, which formed some ideas that helped America come out of the gloomy captivity of the 50s, when people did not see the future in front of themselves, helped Kennedy to do. Heroes should always die. This is the law of human drama.
Vladimir Kara-Murza : Alexey Ivanovich, was there such a tragic finale of John Kennedy, and the resignation of Nikita Khrushchev? Maybe they got ahead of their time?
Alexey Podberezkin : Still, these are two different stories. On the one hand, the most influential part of the establishment is rich, noble, with chic connections, independent. The real motive for the destruction of Kennedy was partly, in my opinion, inevitable and programmed. The man went too quickly and too briskly, without being considered very often with the opinion of the establishment and his individual representatives. I am afraid that he ended up in this establishment in the minority. It began to annoy. I believe that this fate was inevitable.
The story with Khrushchev is completely different. In my opinion, it was a very near, poorly educated adventurer who harm our country a lot, catastrophically a lot. Sometimes these liberal sighs about the thaw, still about something-but it was no less bloodthirsty than his associates in the 30-40s. He did not need any courage in order to deploy the situation, because the leadership of the CPSU already had the opinion that the Stalin's excesses at least for security, the preservation of the ruling party elite should be prohibited. After the destruction of Beria, there were no physical, and even more massly massacre. But the adventurism and non -education of Khrushchev led to the fact that the same kind of upstarts went to the elite, and after 20 years another upstart appeared, Gorbachev, who had no leadership experience. He came from the rural regional committee. Each time, such people caused very serious damage to our country.
Grigory Trofimchuk : About the fact that John Kennedy, like young and green, went too fast and sharply. Maybe he went too quickly and abruptly in the domestic economy of the United States, in economic policy. After all, not Kennedy built the Berlin Wall. Not Kennedy won the Cuban crisis. If he won there, then - yes. He would go both quickly and sharply.
The thesis of our colleague Kremenyuk caused surprise that the president of America is an inaccessible, non -impudent person, such a demigod who reigns and leads all this policy. I will not talk about the political system. After all, it is not written in the Constitution that the president should be killed if he does something wrong. Now, if we come from such a formal point of view, then we will not understand this situation at all and entangle it even more.
As for Khrushchev. It is precisely such so-called, uneducated people, perhaps stupid, from someone’s point of view, just hold the whole world in Shah. There is some kind of relationship here. And the so -called educated cannot cross this line.
Vladimir Sotnikov : Because they are educated.
Grigory Trofimchuk : And just Khrushchev without smiles, compared to the smile that was constantly on Kennedy, was able to bluff. But the beautiful, fashionable Kennedy could not do this. Here, it seems to me, the big problem was for Kennedy.
Vladimir Kara-Murza : Vladimir, do you think that this image of the president as an American celestial does not fit the political system of the United States?
Vladimir Sotnikov : No, I don't think so. Yes, the president is elected. He must make independent decisions. But there are some groups that limit it. The military -industrial complex has always been very noticeable over the post -war years. Actually, he is still noticeable when Obama became president for a second term. Look what happened to Syria. What pressure was on Obama from the new conservatives and a military-industrial complex.
Probably the main thing, in my opinion, was the fact that for the first time the Americans saw a young, independent, brilliant leader who personified the American future. And for some reason, this person was gone after 1036 days. Historical analysis can be done as much as you like. But we are now looking at the era that was 50 years ago, on this day, already from the point of view of our modern time.
Vladimir Kara-Murza : What does your thought mean that Kennedy could not look back at his political elite and act quite independently? Do you mean that he paid for it?
Victor Kremenyuk : In a sense, yes. The leader is a complex position of a person. The leader must lead. At the same time, the leader must watch that his rear does not lag behind. Kennedy was self -confident. Он происходил из прекрасной семьи. Он был аристократичен. Он был прекрасно образован. У него была хорошая карьера. Он воевал. Уже это придавало ему определенный вес среди своих же, которые отсиживались в тылах. У него было много позитивных сторон. Он понимал, что Америка попадает в сложное положение. Она начинала тормозить, начинали проскальзывать ее колеса. Поэтому надо было искать выход и выходить из него, что он и делал. У него была прекрасная команда. У него были прекрасные сотрудники. Они в какой-то момент перестали оглядываться назад, перестали думать о том, что за ними остается огромное консервативно мыслящее большинство, которое все больше и больше не понимает их действий, мотиваций и начинает рассматривать их чуть ли не как врагов. Вот это была, как мне представляется, коренная ошибка Кеннеди.
Владимир Кара-Мурза : Алексей Иванович, вы согласны, что к периоду прихода Кеннеди к власти Америка буксовала, и он вывел ее на новый уровень?
Алексей Подберезкин : Я бы не сказал, что она буксовала. Закончился определенный этап развития США. Американская система достаточно гибко на него реагирует. Я поражаюсь, как быстро Америка может принимать решение и реализовывать эти решения. Американцы динамичны, умеют формулировать цели и их добиваться. В этом смысле Кеннеди добился, конечно, фантастических результатов, которые нельзя мерить периодом нахождения его у власти. This is wrong. Кстати, любопытно – то, что заложил Кеннеди в советско-американских отношениях, через 10 лет республиканец Никсон реализовал договор по СНВ и по ПРО. 10 лет – это крошечный период, но он очень показателен. Все-таки психологическую основу заложил Кеннеди.
Владимир Кара-Мурза : Согласны, что Кеннеди был в какой-то мере творцом новой американской реальности?
Григорий Трофимчук : В каком-то смысле – да. При том, что там был современный, модный, продвинутый лидер, а у нас был в это же время несовременный, немодный, даже отталкивающий для кого-то, тем не менее, русских, советских людей стали невероятно любить во всем мире. Казалось бы, непонятно – лидер непопулярен, а людей начинают любить. А бывает и наоборот – лидер популярен, а людей народ не любит.
Прецедент с убийством президента Джона Кеннеди актуален и сегодня, спустя 50 лет по, как минимум, двум причинам. Во-первых, мы здесь не говорили о мистике. Но практически вся семья пострадала. Я думаю, что здесь все-таки какой-то элемент мистики присутствует. Более того, мне кажется, убивают тех президентов или когда они еще находятся при должности, при власти, или сразу после того как они ее теряют, когда государство дает слабину. Здесь мы должны очень внимательно на этот момент обратить внимание и посмотреть, а что же может произойти на нашем постсоветском пространстве в ближайшее время.
Владимир Кара-Мурза : Что вы имеете в виду, говоря, что Кеннеди дал слабину?
Григорий Трофимчук : А он проиграл – и Берлинская стена, и Кубинский кризис и т. д. Выиграл советский народ, который стали любить невероятно во всем мире. Это была опасность.
Владимир Кара-Мурза : Владимир, с каким бы знаком вы подытожили эпоху правления Кеннеди и его роль в политике своего времени?
Владимир Сотников : Мне кажется, во-первых, Кеннеди вошел в историю как человек, который развернул Америку к мирному сосуществованию с другой социальной системой, которая была неприемлема для правящей элиты США с самого начала существования Советского государства. Во-вторых, он продемонстрировал, каким может быть динамичный лидер. В-третьих, это то, что в какой-то степени он явился предтечей того, что потом нашло свое воплощение в 70-е годы, когда началась разрядка. Кеннеди повернул общественное мнение Америки к Советской России, а Советская Россия повернулась к Америке. Вот в этом, наверное, его основное отличие, его основной вклад в историю.
Григорий Трофимчук : Мы можем зафиксировать главный момент, что время, когда в СССР работал на высшей должности Хрущев, а в США – Джон Кеннеди, конечно, совершенно особое время. И убийством Джона Кеннеди это было прекращено. Потом началась разрядка. Потом многое было восстановлено. Но убийство – это определенного рода обвал, провал, который, может быть, не удался тем группам, которые рассчитывали что-то изменить в глобальном мире.
Полная видеоверсия доступна на нашем канале в Youtube по ссылке .
The tragedy in Dallas - through the eyes of Russian Americanists of different generations. This is the topic of our conversation with the First Vice President of the Center for Strategic Development Modeling Grigory Trofimchuk , senior researcher at the International Security Center IMMO RAS Vladimir Sotnikov . On direct telephone communications, we have the deputy director of the Institute of the USA and Canada Viktor Kremenyuk and Vice -Rector MGIMO Alexey Podberezkin .
Grigory Pavlovich, "anniversary" sad films that are now broadcast on Russian television channels - are they shed a new light on this tragedy or only confuse the matter?
Grigory Trofimchuk : I think that all new films are just confusing the topic. It can be assumed that when this tragic event is 10 years old, there will be an order of magnitude more versions. I begin from the fact that everything is always much easier, even based on some everyday situations. When some secret clarifies, it turns out to be much easier than someone seemed to someone. I think that here the situation in reality is much easier, that is, it is impossible to dig deep. We must, having all the facts in our hands, understanding the entire system of causal connections, to isolate some one version for ourselves.
I believe that this version approximately coincides with the one that Valentin Zorin spoke about in the book "Vladyka without masks" with the corresponding photos of the moment of murder. She just captured me. There was a bias in the mafia. There are several more versions - the Soviet Union could take revenge on the Caribbean crisis, South Vietnam - for the murder of the first president of South Vietnam. So, neither South Vietnam, nor the Soviet Union would be engaged in mafiosi who were there. There was a whole series of murders massive murders. Only the mafia could do it.
Vladimir Kara-Murza : Vladimir, when are you interested in this topic?
Vladimir Sotnikov: When I was a schoolboy, the same book fell into my hands. I already knew then that Valentin Zorin is one of our leading America experts, a famous journalist. And she captured me. Then I started reading more.
It seems to me that in 100 years they will forget about it. It may be strange and paradoxical, but after 100 years America will worry some other topics. Not even today Obama. 50 years is such a period in history, when the events are still fresh in memory. And 100 years-this is probably still ...
Grigory Trofimchuk : Only some new next killings of the first persons can close this topic. It's like war. The war is forgotten when another major war comes.
Vladimir Sotnikov : Yes, when the attention of the Americans will already switch to other things. Personally, I am still humanly sorry for this charming president, who, indeed, was probably the first American president who realized that we had to coexist peacefully with the USSR and move away from the abyss-not to balance on the verge of nuclear war.
Grigory Trofimchuk : It was precisely when his presidency was the Caribbean crisis.
Vladimir Sotnikov : Yes, in the West it is called the Cuban crisis.
Vladimir Kara-Murza : To which version are you leaning?
Victor Kremenyuk : You mean who killed?
Vladimir Kara-Murza : Yes, the revenge of the mafia or the Soviet trace, relatively speaking.
Victor Kremenyuk : I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. I don't think this is so important. Another thing is important that some elements of society killed the president-young, promising, whom most Americans loved. And he was killed. Such time was evil, cruel, in international relations, which is inside individual countries. Such a reaction of people prone to violence, to the evil thinking-yes, they killed the president.
Vladimir Kara-Murza : Alexey Ivanovich, what is the lesson of this tragedy for the world history of the twentieth century?
Alexey Podberezkin : I believe that the ruling US elite is quite harshly dealt with those even the highest leaders of the country, who, in her opinion, begin to behave incorrectly. In general, in modern political history, I'm not talking about the past, both attempts and murders were enough. Kennedy was dangerous for the ruling elite. And even more dangerous because it came from a very noble and rich family. That family could afford a lot, which the ruling elite of the United States did not allow itself, which was supposed to play according to certain rules. As soon as these rules were violated, as Nixon did, for example, the American establishment found a way to get rid of the president. And it is not the essence of it is important in how and what social group stood behind this. Kennedy was inconvenient. He began to play not according to the rules, firstly. Secondly, he was too independent-by virtue of his status, which was very much appreciated in the United States, and personal wealth.
Vladimir Kara-Murza : Did President Kennedy pay for his independence, for being knocked out of the general series of the US political elite?
Grigory Trofimchuk : I think he did not get out of anything special, because he did not have time to just do this. On the contrary, he was beneficial, as it seems to me, to America, because he worthy of this crisis. It seems to me that it is not without reason that the cause of the murder is still beating and will still beat for many centuries. She is very important. Because if we knew exactly the reason, then we could predict some other cases where this could happen due to some similar circumstances.
Another very important conclusion that we must draw from the murder of Kennedy. If they want to remove the first person, no security helps at all! This issue is solved by the group that removes it - financial, political, mafia. Anyone! If such a goal is set by someone, sooner or later it will be realized.
Vladimir Kara-Murza : Was this a demonstrative lesson to all the obstinate politicians of the twentieth century?
Vladimir Sotnikov : I think that it can be considered so, probably, it was a demonstrative lesson. Still, it seems to me that several factors played its tragic and in some way a mystical role in the fact that John Kennedy died. On the one hand, indeed, he may not have been loved that he was a native of which the presidents usually emerged. He was from a rich, very noble family, from the family of a diplomat. On the other hand, he was the president who, after a stagnation associated with Eisenhower's presidency, dared to make independent decisions.
Grigory Trofimchuk : There are few first persons both then and now, who would be loved. There are groups that will hate the first face and try to eliminate it.
Vladimir Kara-Murza : Victor, what role did Kennedy play and his presidency in the development of relations between Moscow and Washington?
Victor Kremenyuk : I think that despite the short presidency, Kennedy played a big role in how relations were evolved between the USSR and the USA. The decision on Berlin is known when he was clearly provoked by some ill-conceived actions, but he did not go to them. On the other hand, his position, his proposal to resolve the Caribbean crisis, that is, the exchange of figures. We remove our missiles from Turkey, you withdraw from Cuba, with which Khrushchev agreed. This is a slightly different language compared to the 50s. They didn’t talk like that there. They threatened each other, there it was about some new intimidation campaigns. And then Kennedy proposed another tone of relations. It was very good. This opened the road for further steps on both sides, which led us to the end of the "cold" war.
Kennedy is the best part of the American elite. He is from this cohort. It was just in terms of intelligence, in terms of human qualities higher than the average level of the elite. This is a very serious thing. Because many leaders, on the contrary, try to play under the average level of the elite in order to remain popular in order to remain their own. They remain like that, but cease to be leaders. Kennedy was the leader, walked ahead, was not afraid of it. Of course, he was not forgiven for him, because he began to become a stranger to some part of the American elite. And when they understood this, they got rid of him. This is a very serious thing. The leader must be a leader, but he should be understandable to most of that class that puts forward him. Kennedy violated this rule, for which he eventually paid.
Vladimir Kara-Murza : Alexey Ivanovich, what is the personal role of Kennedy in the settlement of the Caribbean crisis, which put the world on the brink of thermonuclear war?
Alexey Podberezkin : I believe that in this crisis a person played a huge role. Kennedy and his brother led a very subjective, very personal policy, not paying attention and very often opposing the traditions of the American establishment, against the inertia that was there. In this sense, of course, a lot of stresses arose there. At that time, they were not very afraid of the use of nuclear weapons. Firstly, the Americans used it before and roughly represented its consequences. They were not very afraid of our missiles, which were largely a fiction. I mean those missiles that were placed. Yes, there were missiles located in Turkey, but there were heavy bombers against which an effective air defense system was created.
People were preparing not just in case for war, they were preparing for a completely real war. Kennedy pushed to this conflict. There were very influential forces that were interested so that he would not stop, so that he would destroy the Castro regime, and behave more actively on the European front. Kennedy did not succumb to this pressure. Yes, he was in power for a very short time, but we do not remember President Johnson or Carter, who were more in power. They somehow passed by, there were passing presidents. And with Kennedy we associate a certain turn towards realism. That's the main thing. And just that, it seems to me that they did not forgive him.
Grigory Trofimchuk : A very interesting point about the relationship of American elites, including shadow American elites, a negative attitude towards Kennedy. For some reason, for some reason, it is not said that Kennedy was killed at the dawn of the new next expansion of the Soviet empire. Cuba actually became pro -Soviet. And there, Vietnam, after some time, entered the socialist camp, and a whole group of countries in Africa. In general, the world has changed very much. Maybe just some kind of shadow groups in America did not like how Kennedy reacted to the confrontation during the Cuban or Caribbean crisis (it can be called differently). And America as a whole, perhaps, felt the danger that it was Kennedy who gave the situation.
If all this is considered with a cold head, Khrushchev, by and large, won in this situation. Therefore, the USSR could go further. I am not saying that the USSR could crush Mexico, Canada and part of the American states for himself. But the situation could at some point become uncontrollable. Yes, maybe the missiles did not shoot, no one threw bombs at each other, but, nevertheless, this precedent was very dangerous for the power pole of those times.
Vladimir Sotnikov : Kennedy was not afraid to go against a certain part of the US elite, which was represented by intelligence representatives, representatives of the military. Nevertheless, he probably went down in history as a politician who made independent decisions.
Vladimir Kara-Murza : Victor, did Kennedy enter the conflict with the military-industrial complex?
Victor Kremenyuk : Yes, no. Yes, the American president is independent of the constitution. What is the president? Is this a pawn, a collective leadership? Nothing of the kind! This is a person chosen by the people who are responsible for the state of the country. He must be independent. It should be independent. He should not succumb to some lobbying influences. Therefore, the reasoning that he showed independence is complete nonsense!
Vladimir Sotnikov : Then it is not necessary to kill him.
Victor Kremenyuk : What did Kennedy want? Firstly, if we talk about the Cuban crisis, he was the first to introduce the concept of "crisis management" into circulation. He managed with the help of the headquarters that he created, to put control of the development of events. He managed to prevent them from going out for the unacceptable framework. He managed to offer a decision that arranged the other side. He demonstrated the superior quality of the leader in this very situation. Why did this outraged someone in America? Probably because it was the highest mathematics for people who did not go further than arithmetic. They did not understand why he was doing this. They believed that he, if he does not betray the interests of the country, then showed weakness and compliance with Khrushchev.
Kennedy is not an outcast. Why did they begin to be proud of it over time? The group that surrounded Kennedy, which formed some ideas that helped America come out of the gloomy captivity of the 50s, when people did not see the future in front of themselves, helped Kennedy to do. Heroes should always die. This is the law of human drama.
Vladimir Kara-Murza : Alexey Ivanovich, was there such a tragic finale of John Kennedy, and the resignation of Nikita Khrushchev? Maybe they got ahead of their time?
Alexey Podberezkin : Still, these are two different stories. On the one hand, the most influential part of the establishment is rich, noble, with chic connections, independent. The real motive for the destruction of Kennedy was partly, in my opinion, inevitable and programmed. The man went too quickly and too briskly, without being considered very often with the opinion of the establishment and his individual representatives. I am afraid that he ended up in this establishment in the minority. It began to annoy. I believe that this fate was inevitable.
The story with Khrushchev is completely different. In my opinion, it was a very near, poorly educated adventurer who harm our country a lot, catastrophically a lot. Sometimes these liberal sighs about the thaw, still about something-but it was no less bloodthirsty than his associates in the 30-40s. He did not need any courage in order to deploy the situation, because the leadership of the CPSU already had the opinion that the Stalin's excesses at least for security, the preservation of the ruling party elite should be prohibited. After the destruction of Beria, there were no physical, and even more massly massacre. But the adventurism and non -education of Khrushchev led to the fact that the same kind of upstarts went to the elite, and after 20 years another upstart appeared, Gorbachev, who had no leadership experience. He came from the rural regional committee. Each time, such people caused very serious damage to our country.
Grigory Trofimchuk : About the fact that John Kennedy, like young and green, went too fast and sharply. Maybe he went too quickly and abruptly in the domestic economy of the United States, in economic policy. After all, not Kennedy built the Berlin Wall. Not Kennedy won the Cuban crisis. If he won there, then - yes. He would go both quickly and sharply.
The thesis of our colleague Kremenyuk caused surprise that the president of America is an inaccessible, non -impudent person, such a demigod who reigns and leads all this policy. I will not talk about the political system. After all, it is not written in the Constitution that the president should be killed if he does something wrong. Now, if we come from such a formal point of view, then we will not understand this situation at all and entangle it even more.
As for Khrushchev. It is precisely such so-called, uneducated people, perhaps stupid, from someone’s point of view, just hold the whole world in Shah. There is some kind of relationship here. And the so -called educated cannot cross this line.
Vladimir Sotnikov : Because they are educated.
Grigory Trofimchuk : And just Khrushchev without smiles, compared to the smile that was constantly on Kennedy, was able to bluff. But the beautiful, fashionable Kennedy could not do this. Here, it seems to me, the big problem was for Kennedy.
Vladimir Kara-Murza : Vladimir, do you think that this image of the president as an American celestial does not fit the political system of the United States?
Vladimir Sotnikov : No, I don't think so. Yes, the president is elected. He must make independent decisions. But there are some groups that limit it. The military -industrial complex has always been very noticeable over the post -war years. Actually, he is still noticeable when Obama became president for a second term. Look what happened to Syria. What pressure was on Obama from the new conservatives and a military-industrial complex.
Probably the main thing, in my opinion, was the fact that for the first time the Americans saw a young, independent, brilliant leader who personified the American future. And for some reason, this person was gone after 1036 days. Historical analysis can be done as much as you like. But we are now looking at the era that was 50 years ago, on this day, already from the point of view of our modern time.
Vladimir Kara-Murza : What does your thought mean that Kennedy could not look back at his political elite and act quite independently? Do you mean that he paid for it?
Victor Kremenyuk : In a sense, yes. The leader is a complex position of a person. The leader must lead. At the same time, the leader must watch that his rear does not lag behind. Kennedy was self -confident. Он происходил из прекрасной семьи. Он был аристократичен. Он был прекрасно образован. У него была хорошая карьера. Он воевал. Уже это придавало ему определенный вес среди своих же, которые отсиживались в тылах. У него было много позитивных сторон. Он понимал, что Америка попадает в сложное положение. Она начинала тормозить, начинали проскальзывать ее колеса. Поэтому надо было искать выход и выходить из него, что он и делал. У него была прекрасная команда. У него были прекрасные сотрудники. Они в какой-то момент перестали оглядываться назад, перестали думать о том, что за ними остается огромное консервативно мыслящее большинство, которое все больше и больше не понимает их действий, мотиваций и начинает рассматривать их чуть ли не как врагов. Вот это была, как мне представляется, коренная ошибка Кеннеди.
Владимир Кара-Мурза : Алексей Иванович, вы согласны, что к периоду прихода Кеннеди к власти Америка буксовала, и он вывел ее на новый уровень?
Алексей Подберезкин : Я бы не сказал, что она буксовала. Закончился определенный этап развития США. Американская система достаточно гибко на него реагирует. Я поражаюсь, как быстро Америка может принимать решение и реализовывать эти решения. Американцы динамичны, умеют формулировать цели и их добиваться. В этом смысле Кеннеди добился, конечно, фантастических результатов, которые нельзя мерить периодом нахождения его у власти. This is wrong. Кстати, любопытно – то, что заложил Кеннеди в советско-американских отношениях, через 10 лет республиканец Никсон реализовал договор по СНВ и по ПРО. 10 лет – это крошечный период, но он очень показателен. Все-таки психологическую основу заложил Кеннеди.
Владимир Кара-Мурза : Согласны, что Кеннеди был в какой-то мере творцом новой американской реальности?
Григорий Трофимчук : В каком-то смысле – да. При том, что там был современный, модный, продвинутый лидер, а у нас был в это же время несовременный, немодный, даже отталкивающий для кого-то, тем не менее, русских, советских людей стали невероятно любить во всем мире. Казалось бы, непонятно – лидер непопулярен, а людей начинают любить. А бывает и наоборот – лидер популярен, а людей народ не любит.
Прецедент с убийством президента Джона Кеннеди актуален и сегодня, спустя 50 лет по, как минимум, двум причинам. Во-первых, мы здесь не говорили о мистике. Но практически вся семья пострадала. Я думаю, что здесь все-таки какой-то элемент мистики присутствует. Более того, мне кажется, убивают тех президентов или когда они еще находятся при должности, при власти, или сразу после того как они ее теряют, когда государство дает слабину. Здесь мы должны очень внимательно на этот момент обратить внимание и посмотреть, а что же может произойти на нашем постсоветском пространстве в ближайшее время.
Владимир Кара-Мурза : Что вы имеете в виду, говоря, что Кеннеди дал слабину?
Григорий Трофимчук : А он проиграл – и Берлинская стена, и Кубинский кризис и т. д. Выиграл советский народ, который стали любить невероятно во всем мире. Это была опасность.
Владимир Кара-Мурза : Владимир, с каким бы знаком вы подытожили эпоху правления Кеннеди и его роль в политике своего времени?
Владимир Сотников : Мне кажется, во-первых, Кеннеди вошел в историю как человек, который развернул Америку к мирному сосуществованию с другой социальной системой, которая была неприемлема для правящей элиты США с самого начала существования Советского государства. Во-вторых, он продемонстрировал, каким может быть динамичный лидер. В-третьих, это то, что в какой-то степени он явился предтечей того, что потом нашло свое воплощение в 70-е годы, когда началась разрядка. Кеннеди повернул общественное мнение Америки к Советской России, а Советская Россия повернулась к Америке. Вот в этом, наверное, его основное отличие, его основной вклад в историю.
Григорий Трофимчук : Мы можем зафиксировать главный момент, что время, когда в СССР работал на высшей должности Хрущев, а в США – Джон Кеннеди, конечно, совершенно особое время. И убийством Джона Кеннеди это было прекращено. Потом началась разрядка. Потом многое было восстановлено. Но убийство – это определенного рода обвал, провал, который, может быть, не удался тем группам, которые рассчитывали что-то изменить в глобальном мире.
Полная видеоверсия доступна на нашем канале в Youtube по ссылке .