Igor Vittel: This story is one of the most vile. Vittel Igor Stanislavovich Vittel left RBC

Among the mass of experts and analysts who flooded the air of Russian television and tirelessly discussing the fate of the world and individual states, he stands out for his super-intelligent appearance and impeccable wardrobe. At first glance, it's just a funny "doughnut" with poor eyesight and a smooth crown. But on the second, third - a strikingly charming and charming intellectual with well-placed manners and speech. It is not surprising that the columnist Igor Vittel is popular with a certain non-format part of the television audience. However, the reasoning of this man is useful to listen to anyone who is at least to some extent interested in politics and modern economics.

It is a pity that Igor is not such a frequent guest on political talk shows (exceptions are made for "Special Correspondent", "Voice Rights", "Evenings with Vladimir Solovyov"). It is noteworthy that Vittel himself says on this occasion: “Real analysts do not go on TV. And the fact that people are running around, you understand that they come to light up ... I am also like that, I go on all TV channels.

Biographical information

Igorek was born in the capital of our Motherland, the hero city of Moscow. This significant event happened on April 1, 1968. His parents came from an artistic environment and were also native Muscovites.

At school, the guy studied very well. Upon graduation, he entered an educational institution with a technical bias, deciding to link his fate with work to ensure the life of manned vehicles. True, over time, Igor realized that a techie diploma and work at one of the not-so-prestigious Soviet enterprises did not really attract him. Vittel made a sharp turn to the humanitarian sphere, became interested in economics and journalism at the same time. Before being on TV, the guy proved to be a successful producer. Under his reverent supervision, homegrown rock stars Alexander Bashlachev, Yuri Naumov and the Eastern Syndrome group worked.

Igor's debut on television happened in 1991, which was fatal for the country. There was very little left before the collapse of the Soviet Union. I had to work a lot both in Russian and foreign media. The experience of producing musicians has come in handy in the creation of many documentaries and other projects. He lived for some time abroad, and upon returning home in 2003, he got a job as a TV presenter on the RBC-TV channel. For more than 12 years of fruitful work, he gained fame as an intelligent specialist and gained popularity among economically savvy viewers. Many representatives of government, science and business visited Igor Vittel at different times. His programs bore names such as “Vittel. Browser", "Forum", "In Focus", "Dialogue", "Sphere of Interests".

I spent a lot of time at the microphone in radio studios at Business FM, Finam FM. He became the author of such publications as AiF, GQ, Lenta.ru.

In 2016, he was expelled from RBC to the displeasure of his fans. Somehow Vittel did not please the authorities, he said something superfluous. Viewers even collected a petition for the return to the broadcast network of their favorite program and in support of the wonderful presenter. However, the local public protest did not have any positive developments.

After leaving RBC, Vittel helped create the program “Results of the Week with Irada Zeynalova” on NTV for six months.

Then he became the TV presenter of the VytrezVITTEL program, which was released on YouTube and Facebook, and the co-host of the talk show Arctic Fox and Capelin, where, together with Maria Baronova, he dissected the political events that took place in the country and the world over the week.

Vittel enjoys great prestige in the journalistic environment, and not only in the Russian Federation. He teaches a lot abroad, in particular, at the London School of PR. And at home - at the Academy of National Economy under the Government of the Russian Federation.

From time to time he participates in various projects as a producer, consultant and expert. He is writing a book on the economic history of Russia.

Member of the Russian Public Council of the Jewish Congress.

In 2016, he made an attempt to run for State Duma deputies in the Tushino constituency from the Party of Growth, but took only 7th place with 3.5% of the vote.

Wittel thinks so

In search of a national idea, we rolled back a century, or even more. With us, this takes on some ugly, obscurantist forms.
We hoped that the 2008 crisis would spur the authorities to take active steps to reform the economy. But the crisis slipped through, this calmed our rulers, and they forgot about the reforms.

It is impossible to predict the future in our country.
Speaking of freedom on the Internet, you can not allow disgusting on the Internet.
It would be good for Russia if a woman became president.
Somehow imperceptibly degraded the profession of a journalist. A person who has to get to the bottom of the matter, to analyze, is now engaged in propaganda. There are almost no normal media left anywhere in the world.
RBC is one of the few remaining islands of objectivity.
The economically literate population is unlikely to take microloans and use such services.
People do not need information, but emotions that coincide with their emotions.
As far as domestic economic policy is concerned, our government, with rare exceptions, is a pest. But in foreign policy it is worthy of our support.
Those who previously would not have been allowed to clean toilets now consider themselves to be outstanding bloggers, and in doing so, they are gathering an audience by promoting accessible ideas.
We have great people with hands and brains in every city, in every garage.

01.04.2018

Vittel Igor Stanislavovich

Russian Journalist

TV presenter

Writer

Igor Vittel was born on April 1, 1968 in Moscow. Certified specialist in life support of manned vehicles. Subsequently, he continued his education in the humanitarian sphere with an economic and journalistic bias. He made his television debut in 1991. He has worked in domestic and foreign media, both electronic and print. Produced several Internet projects and documentaries. From 2003 to 2016, he worked as a TV presenter on the RBC-TV channel. He lived abroad for many years.

The main activity of Igor Vittel on RBC-TV was connected with the conduct of popular socio-political programs, in which representatives of government, science, business and other industries acted as guests of the studio. The format of the programs changed periodically. There were programs with the names “Vittel”, “Vittel. Browser", "Forum", "In Focus", "Dialogue", "Sphere of Interests".

He also hosted regular author's programs on Business FM radio, as well as on Russian News Service and Finam FM radio stations. A regular contributor to a number of print and online media, in particular, AiF, Polit.ru, Pravda.ru, GQ, Lenta.ru.

As an expert, he regularly takes part in various television and radio shows: "Politics" on Channel One, "Special Correspondent" on the Russia channel, "The Right to Know" on the TVC channel. From December 2016 to the present - a political observer the final information program "Results of the week with Irada Zeynalova" on NTV.

Head of the Politics and Security Information Center, Advisor to the Chairman of the International Civil Society Public Foundation Vympel-Garant, Corresponding Member of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems and the Marketing Guild, Member of the Boards of Trustees of the Analytics and Security Research Center and the Post-Crisis World Foundation, Member of the Council for Foreign and Defense politics, the National Anti-Corruption Committee and the Union of Journalists of Russia.

He teaches at the London School of PR and Maimonides State Classical Academy. Scientific supervisor of the professional retraining program "Economic Observer" at the Academy of National Economy under the Government of the Russian Federation.

In the second half of the 1980s, he was engaged in musical production, was the director of such performers as Alexander Bashlachev, Yuri Naumov and the Eastern Syndrome group.

In 2011, he produced the documentary film “There is no blood on me”, dedicated to the case of officers Arakcheev and Khudyakov who fought in Chechnya. In 2013, he produced the documentary Diary of a Drug Addict.

Periodically participates in media and PR projects of various kinds, including on the Internet as a producer, works as a consultant, conducts trainings. Works on a book about the latest economic history of Russia.

Member of the Public Council of the Russian Jewish Congress. In 2016, he ran for elections to the State Duma of the Russian Federation in the Tushino constituency from the Party of Growth. He took 7th place with 3.54% of the vote, Gennady Onishchenko won in the constituency.

Transcript of an online conference with TV journalist Igor Vittel. Part 1.

During the online conference, Igor Vittel struck me either with the irony of his statements, or with the peremptory views. During the first half hour of the meeting, we managed to talk with the famous TV journalist and interviewer about the “fates of Russia”, and about patriotism, and about bloggers who were not allowed to clean toilets before, and about the Internet in a madhouse, and about Boris Berezovsky, and about Alexander Bashlachev, and flight to the janitors and stokers.

Igor Vittel- TV journalist, RBC journalist
Albert Bikbov- moderator, analyst of the online newspaper Realnoe Vremya

“The cashier in the GUM toilet says to me: “I used to be on the air with you often, but now I’m here”

Hello dear audience of Realnoe Vremya. Today we have a rare case: usually people come to Vittel, and now Vittel came to us in Realnoe Vremya. The famous Vittel - the master of journalism ...

Still, the meter is 63 cm.

Master of television. Meter 63, but what. My friends, I am pleased to introduce our interlocutor to you. Probably, all of you have seen for the past 12 years, Igor Stanislavovich led ...

Why led? Still doing, sorry to interrupt. I'm still on the air.

But there were...

Were, but don't wait.

Igor Stanislavovich has hosted, is hosting and will continue to host this absolutely gorgeous program "Vittel the Observer". I want to ask you this question: for so many years, so many people - what are the brightest people who came to your program?

You know, the program, of course, changed, it was not always called “Vittel-Observer”, and before it appeared on RBC, it was called “Industry”, then it was called “In Focus”, then I don’t remember. Now it is simply called "Vittel". I won't say who is the brightest, not because I can't remember them, but because there were a lot of bright ones. I can remember some bright moments, some funny, tragic ones, but I can say that the brightest people ... They are all special to me.

Of course, there are anecdotal situations, you will forgive me for talking about this on the air, but in GUM I had to run into a paid toilet, and the cashier who was sitting said: “Igor Stanislavovich, don’t you remember me?” I say, "No, I don't remember." She: “I used to be on the air with you often, but now I’m here.” Therefore, I now say that when you are in my programs, remember where everything can end. But in fact, I remember some tragic moments, bright moments, but bright people - they are all bright.

Propaganda is, in fact, not when they broadcast to you from behind the Kremlin wall what to say and what not to say, it is when you begin to broadcast your own convictions, passing them off as the ultimate truth, or you start already there as a pro-government a journalist sincerely believes in what you don't believe outside the frame

So there were so many of them? They are all equal...

I can’t say that they are equivalent, but, pardon me, you say 12, in fact almost 14 years several times a day every day, now there is once a week. And people came, and I remember not because the person is bright, but because the moment is either funny or it hurts separately. The president did not come, the prime minister did not come either.

- I thought you would name Stepan Demura.

Stepan is my co-host, my friend. This is one of the most scandalous, but I can't say the brightest. It's far from the brightest.

“People who previously would not have been allowed to clean toilets now consider themselves to be outstanding bloggers”

We're looking at journalism now, and I've seen a lot of your articles on the crisis in journalism. They say that the crisis is in journalism, and the heyday is in propaganda. This is such an eternal theme and eternal confrontation.

For me, propaganda is not state propaganda. Very many people who do not know what television is, what journalism is, believe that in the morning somehow instructions are immediately broadcast to our brain directly from the presidential administration. To be honest, I'm tired of making excuses. Propaganda is, in fact, not when they broadcast to you from behind the Kremlin wall what to say and what not to say, it is when you begin to broadcast your own convictions, passing them off as the ultimate truth, or you start already there as a pro-government a journalist sincerely believe in what you don't believe outside the frame. This is propaganda.

As for journalism, its heyday or decline, it is connected not only with ideologization, it is connected with the general decline in the quality of education in the country and the world, with the general level of intelligence. A lot of social networks have brought a decline to the profession, because people who would not have been allowed to clean toilets before now consider that they are outstanding bloggers and at the same time gather a certain audience precisely by promoting accessibility, broadcasting accessible ideas.

“When the Air Force releases a film about Putin, I rub my eyes - is this really the Air Force logo?”

- You correctly said that erosion occurs not only in journalism ...

This erosion… Now they turn on TV, turn on the Internet, read a magazine, read a newspaper not to learn something new, but to hear an opinion that coincides with your personal opinion or, conversely, the opposite, in order to say: “I told you, that's what they are." Unfortunately, analysis and intellect are replaced by such simple chewing gum. This, in fact, is not a problem for Russia. This is the problem of the world, but there it is a long-passed stage: in the evening they click the channels, jumping from one thoughtless show to another. We, unfortunately, do not jump from some everyday shows (I have a very good relationship with Andrei Malakhov, he is my friend, he does his job well), but all these shows a la Malakhov. It would be nice if there were 20 of them on television, because instead of them there are socio-political programs. When people discuss someone else's bed, of course it's unpleasant, but it's not fatal. When people also discuss politics and believe that they are specialists: we all understand politics and football ... This light gum, when you think: here are your own, here are strangers - you chew it endlessly, this is a disaster.

When the Air Force releases a film about Putin, I rub my eyes - is this really the Air Force logo? And the next day I see a film about Obama, which is filmed by the Rossiya TV channel, I understand that both channels, Western and Russian journalism in general, are now competing not in who is better and more professional, but in the fall of professional standards

It's horrible. And it’s hard for a person to navigate when such a multipolar one is going on ... Even now, television cannot be called narrowly targeted propaganda: if you want to watch Channel One, if you want - Rain ...

And again, you are comparing: “Channel One” is “Channel One”, “Rain” is a channel that can be seen only by searching and paying, and not on television. I’m not a big supporter of Dozhd, but let’s at least compare… If you want, compare Pervy with RBC, but these are different things, and it’s hard to compare the audience of RBC with Pervy, but it’s possible. But "Rain" has nothing to do with it. And then, all the same, it’s not that there are no different opinions, but there are fewer and fewer of them. Yes, this is not what scares me: if there were only opinions, but with a good level of journalism, I would still be ready to put up with it, but analysis is replaced by cheap journalism. This is scary, this is scary.

- Is it different abroad? You lived there for a long time...

No. As it was… This is my third interview today in my beloved city of Kazan, and I can repeat what I have already said: abroad, I have encountered and worked with many foreign media, but understand, there has always been such a brand book at the BBC: what possible and impossible. There is a standard, there is a level of profession. And when the Air Force releases a film about Putin, I rub my eyes - is it really the Air Force logo? And the next day I see a film about Obama, which is filmed by the Rossiya TV channel, I understand that both channels, Western and Russian journalism in general, are now competing not in who is better and more professional (and there are many challenges: new technologies , new media, everything has changed with the advent of the Internet and continues to change daily), and in the fall of the standards of the profession, not in the rise, but in the fall, they simply deepen the bottom. And I don’t know which is worse today: the Rossiya channel or the BBC.

If earlier it was possible to say: we have a free press, in the West - not very free, now it is free everywhere - now everything is worse. As Comrade Stalin said when they brought him the Moskva Hotel with two variants of the facade: "Both are worse." What can you do?

- I have no other writers for you.

This is another story, but no yes, you have to live with these.

“In a madhouse now the Internet has been spent”

The Internet has made information accessible, it has revolutionized all work in journalism. What challenges do you currently see with the insane amount of new media emerging from the Internet?

Where is the new media emerging?

- The Huffington Post, for example.

Sorry, but The Huffington Post is not about Russia and not about now. He certainly definitely changed the world. And I think that Russia should have its own The Huffington Post and The Huffington live television, but it doesn't. And go to an investor now and say, “I want a new The Huffington Post. He: “What is it? You are crazy?". Who in Russia will open the media now?

For The Huffington Post, formats have changed a long time ago, and 115 new ones have already appeared. And we are all sitting, as in the 17th century: “The Internet appeared” ... The fact is that with the advent of the Internet ... My good friend Dima and I, from such a great Soviet, now Russian group Blue Bird, discussed the deeds of youth old: many ran away from the army, lay in a madhouse. And we came to the conclusion that the Internet has now been brought into a madhouse, because with the advent of the Internet, people appeared who could not be allowed anything at all, and now any person who can press the button to access the Internet ... Before, something else even though the modem had to be pressed, thought out, and now the high-speed Internet was taken to a madhouse. And everyone has an opinion, everyone sits, clicks their fingers, writes all sorts of garbage and believes that they express an opinion. What is professional journalism? Professional journalism with the advent of the Internet has not raised the standards, but has fallen to the standard of people who consider themselves bloggers. Do you know a lot of bloggers who really broadcast something interesting?

I come to a meeting with students or to teach them, my eyes burn, and my mouth starts to open - I get scared. At least the books went and read at school

- On the fingers of one hand.

How many journalists are left? More on the fingers of one hand.

- They're dying out.

Where are the youth? So I come to a meeting with students or to teach them, my eyes are burning, and my mouth is starting to open - I get scared. At least the books went to be read at school. Previously, under the Soviet regime, there was no Internet, what did people do? They went to the library. Everyone had a basic set of intellectual concepts; now everyone has arrived.

“People who are serious analysts sit deep underground and work for conspiratorial structures”

And there was a passion for learning. And there are even such jokes that now the quality of analytics has dropped sharply, since the new academic year has begun, now schoolchildren have gone to school, and, accordingly, there is no time: there have been fewer experts in geopolitics and economics. You worked face to face with real analysts, experts; now the level of analytics, I mean adult, advanced analytics, is the level of analytics falling?

What kind of face to face are you talking about with real analysts? Real analysts don't go on TV. And the fact that people are running around, you understand that they come to light up: “This dude came, said something, but we need the same one, let's pay him.” Yes, even media capital, for another official to say: “Listen, we need to create an institute for studying the geopolitics of Tatarstan and deepening oil refining. So I saw Vasya on the air at Vittel, probably a normal dude, since Vittel had one. Let's take it. And people who are really serious analysts, with rare exceptions (I don’t want to offend all my guests), sit deep in the underground and work for deeply conspiratorial structures, and do not go to TV channels.

I, too, like that, I go to all TV channels. Besides television, I also have my own politics and security, I know for sure what people who know more than me give, they don't go on television. This is not the point, because serious analysts cannot even say two words on the air. In most cases, they are tongue-tied, downtrodden people. And there are media people, TV needs a picture. Here they need Zhirinovsky: he will arrange a scandal, he will throw a mug - that's all, he is already a good media character. They also need to collect the rating. And the fact that Malakhov sits swearing, let it be about geopolitics in the same way as Malakhov’s. Here is the gear level.

"I'm most interested in the fork where I think we went the wrong way"

It's hard to add anything here. There has been information that you are now preparing a book on recent economic history.

Now - this is loudly said, I can’t finish it for 10 years. When I sat down for it, it seemed to me that it would take about two months. When I take on a documentary, they tell me: “You can’t shoot it in a year.” I say, “Come on, stop it. Let's bet that I'll take it off by April? And it’s a shame sometimes: now I still can’t finish editing my last film, because I promised by April, but two years have passed and it doesn’t add up. And with the book, it’s exactly the same, because it turned out not so much material as general awareness of what was happening. It turned out that it is much deeper, and I myself must first realize how it all ends. That is, there were many questions, and I naively tried to ask them to my friends, with whom we started together in the late 80s, and I thought that a month or two - and the book would be. But then I decided that it would be dishonest to do unfinished material.

Have you concluded that I am fascinated by him? I wrote several of them, and you are probably talking about an obituary. No, I have never been fascinated by this character. But you know, against the backdrop of today's ghouls, Berezovsky looks no worse, and even better.

What is the book about, about the 90s?

No, about the 80s and 90s. But what I'm most interested in is the fork where I think we went the wrong way. It's hard to say where it is: 87th ...

- The 93rd is usually said: the execution of parliament, everything went wrong ...

No no no. For me, it's much earlier. The execution of the parliament is for me, rather, political, but I'm more interested in economics. It's somewhere in there: from the 87th to the 92nd. In 1993, this was no longer a fork, but a bold point, just as in 1991 there was a bold political point, in 1992 - an economic one. Then everything started.

“Against the background of today's ghouls, Berezovsky looks no worse, and even better”

- I saw your brilliant article about Berezovsky. Are you fascinated by this character?

I? No. Have you concluded that I am fascinated by him? I wrote several of them, and you are probably talking about an obituary. No, I have never been fascinated by this character. But you know, against the background of today's ghouls, Berezovsky looks no worse, and even better.

- Brilliant Scientist.

What scientist?

- Well, how? Corresponding Member of the Academy of Sciences.

You know, there is such a thing as a "trickster" - a devil from a snuffbox who knows how to perform tricks, and does it brilliantly. Of course, I'm not a mathematician, but those people who understood... I don't want to speak badly about Boris Abramovich: either nothing about the dead, or on the air, as I once said on the air. I will not speak badly, but never in my life have I been fascinated. It is women who can be fascinated by such shiny devils, but I am not a woman to be fascinated by such. Yes, it seems to me that we are burying him early, go, he is alive somewhere. I still do not believe in his death.

- Yes, probably lying in the Bahamas, watching our program, giggling.

If he has nothing else to do in the Bahamas, except to watch our program, then I should only feel sorry for him, then it’s better to go to hell.

“Sasha (Bashlachev) was a genius, Sasha was, sorry for the blasphemy, Sasha was God”

- And you are still in the 90s ... You have such a hypostasis, quite unexpected: you were a producer and director ...

More like the 80s than the 90s.

- Yes, this is the 80s, turning into the 90s. You were...

Why unexpected? It is now, looking back, unexpectedly, but then it is quite natural.

Such a hypostasis, I still want to tell our viewers: you were a producer, director of such extraordinary bright figures who left a significant mark on Russian rock, Alexander Bashlachov alone is worth something. You have been working closely. How would Bashlachov live now?

Wouldn't live. It was surprising for me, I have been interviewed a lot lately, and often, almost the first question is asked how Bashlachov would live now. I cannot answer for Sasha and I cannot imagine now that he would somehow live in our time, just as I cannot imagine Vysotsky in our time. Probably Sasha was the last Russian genius. A man who is so incompatible with all the dead that it is impossible to imagine Sasha now. And imagine him in general with the whole era that just ended in February of that year, when Sasha jumped out of the window, because real life and what began after are incompatible.

This generation of young people, which (Bashlachev says little to them) grew up in such fat years, they cannot withdraw into themselves. They are already accustomed to living, as it seems to them, in an amicable way. They won’t go back to the cellars, but it’s easy for us: stew and a machine gun, as Stepan Demura says

- The time of the bells - is it now or was it?

I don't know what he meant then. You see, I don’t remember who, in my opinion, Tema Troitsky, when they asked him a question in an interview, said: “Leave me alone, I saw a living Bashlachov, I saw a living genius, I don’t need anything else in this life.” Sasha was a genius, Sasha was, sorry for the blasphemy, Sasha was God. What he meant by the time of the bells is not for me to judge. Unfortunately, I spent very little time with this man, but lately I have tried to be close, and I consider myself to blame for his death. I don't know what he meant by the time of the bells, but it's not now anyway.

- Now...

Now we call others completely, I can’t say this on the air. Call time.

People are now hearing this ringing, and many are leaving for internal emigration. There is aversion to politics, economics, some kind of apathy, many simply, pardon the expression, just give up on everything. They withdraw into themselves, live by culture.

What's wrong with withdrawing into yourself and living a culture? You know, I feel sorry for those ... I'm just from that generation, from stokers, from janitors, as there was a generation of janitors and watchmen - it's easy for us to go back. I have a bad attitude towards Alexander Abramovich Kabakov, but somehow he wrote, as it seemed to us then, a stupid and artificial dystopian book, and when we read it, it seemed to us that the USSR could not disintegrate like that. And then that's how this book went. It’s easy for us: we always have time, as it is written in this book, to snuggle up to the ground, and we managed to find little good. And this generation of young people, which (Bashlachev says little to them) grew up in such fat years, they cannot withdraw into themselves. They are already accustomed to living, as it seems to them, in an amicable way. They won’t go back to the cellars, but it’s easy for us: stew and a machine gun, as Stepan Demura says.

“If those people who brought the country to the brink of an economic disaster remain in control, then everything will really be bad”

And here is the question: returning to the topic of the current economic situation, we see that the reserve fund is running out, a very difficult situation in the budget (1.5 trillion rubles deficit), privatization is being dragged out with the same Bashneft. It is time to make really difficult decisions, and now they are openly saying that they will raise taxes. Your vision - everything will be bad?

If nothing changes, everything will be bad. Our government, at the very least, was not very good at fulfilling its duties in an economy that was growing. But when such upheavals take place in the economy that are happening now ... I don’t know why Bashneft was mentioned here, this is not the worst thing that has happened to our country, this is not the biggest problem. The fact that the country is on the verge of an economic disaster and has been standing for a long time is obvious. If those people who brought it to the brink of an economic disaster continue to run the country, realizing that some other people should solve this economic catastrophe if they can’t cope (I’m talking about the government, without touching the supreme power, there is another sad story), then everything will be really bad. But we are always in the basements, and we can work as janitors.

But not everyone agrees with this.

- Work as janitors.

But that's their problem. If you are not ready to work as janitors, then you may not work at all.

- But I want to live like a human, as they live in good countries.

And that janitors are not people? In good countries, then? People should go to a good country, as it seems to them. I prefer to live in my homeland and make the country more and more habitable. Basically, I'm satisfied with it for now. In the end, we have vast Siberia, I have a lot of friends there, we will hide there. We live in taiga.

Somehow I don't want to believe that my country will fall into a hole again. To be honest, I hoped that perestroika and subsequent years were the worst thing we have experienced.

- You have your optimism in assessing the situation.

Do you call it optimism? I have no optimism in assessing the situation. I have some hope that we ... You know, we have a very lucky president, he, as they say in the cards, is lucky, and if he gets lucky again, then we will slip through a short distance. If he does not get lucky, and the country takes up his mind (both the government and he), then we will live well for a long time, we will somehow get out. Somehow I don't want to believe that my country will fall into a hole again. To be honest, I hoped that perestroika and subsequent years were the worst thing that we experienced (1992-1998). It seemed to me that we got out, if we fall into this hole again, it means that this is not what we experienced in the end, but we would not want to.

“This is not patriotism, this is faith in the country”

- To take up the mind according to Glazyev or according to Kudrin?

I always say, probably repeating this phrase for the hundredth time lately, and I think that all the people who listen to my interviews are already tired of this phrase: the saying that the devil has two hands, and if one hand is Kudrin, and the other - Glazyev, please give me another devil. I have a very good, friendly, warm, humane attitude towards Kudrin, and I have a good attitude towards Sergei Yuryevich, but please, I don’t want to choose an economic program between Glazyev and Kudrin and a political one, by the way. Both are worse. Comrade Stalin said simply: "Give another devil then."

- And what kind of angel should you have?

Listen, in politics, in economics, there can be no angels. There may be some consensus. 30 years. How many years have we had since perestroika? From the April plenum, he is 1985. If in 31 years we have not developed a new concept for the development of the country, we have not sat down, we have not thought: that's it - there is no USSR, let's build a different world. What should it be? Not this world of robbery, when: “Oh, cool, the USSR collapsed - this plant was left unattended, we will destroy it, the factory remained there, and here we will make a road altogether, and here we’ll generally steal the road better.” This was the concept of our development. No one said: “Guys, there is no USSR, but let's think about where we are now in the global division of labor? What we can? What can't we? How we can? Why can we?" Was it? Did not have.

No one has yet realized where we are. And when McCain says that we are a gas station country, on the one hand, I want to punch him in the face, and on the other hand, I realize the correctness of his words: yes, we have done a lot, but we still remain a gas station country. I don't want McCain to make fun of our country. I don't want to be a gas station country. I want to be a high-tech supplier country, we have an amazing human resource in the country, that's enough already.

- Well, where did he go?

So, it is necessary to return ... He has not gone anywhere, listen, I have just been to Altai. They bring me to the garage at night and show me: people make small aircraft with their own hands in the garage. In every city, the Kulibins sit in the garage. We still have these people, they are alive, nothing has gone anywhere. We have amazing human capital, our country has been killed and ruined for centuries. Everyone is alive, stop burying yourself. The fact that we have idiots in our government does not mean that we are idiots. We have great people with hands and brains in every city, in every garage. Yes, perestroika broke, yes, the hungry post-perestroika years broke, but they are still alive, thank God, alive. Yes, Fursenko and Livanov buried education, but did not bury it, and we will live - enough to bury the country.

You won't strangle this song, you won't kill it...

You won't kill, it's absolutely, I promise you that.

- This is your patriotism ...

This is not patriotism, this is faith in the country.

- This is admiration for one's people - isn't this patriotism?

And I have no other country and never will. I really like other countries, I like to travel, I like to live in them for a long time, but I don’t have another country and never will. This is my country, I always have time to snuggle up to the ground here. By the way, Kabakov's book is called "Defector".

Dilara Akhmetzyanova, photo by Maxim Platonov

Permanent author of a number of print and online media, in particular, the publications AiF, Polit.ru, Pravda.ru, Lenta.ru.

As an expert, he regularly takes part in various television and radio shows: “Politics” on Channel One, “Special Correspondent” on the Russia channel, “The Right to Know” on the TVC channel.

Awards

Public, scientific and creative activity

Head of the Politics and Security Information Center, Advisor to the Chairman of the International Civil Society Public Foundation "Vympel-Garant", Corresponding Member of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems and the Guild of Marketers, Member of the Boards of Trustees of the Research Center "Analytics and Security" and the Post-Crisis World Foundation, Member of the Council for Foreign and Defense politics, the National Anti-Corruption Committee and the Union of Journalists of Russia.

He teaches at the London School of PR (London School of Public Relations) and Maimonides State Classical Academy. Scientific supervisor of the professional retraining program "Economic Observer" at the Academy of National Economy under the Government of the Russian Federation.

In 2011, he produced the documentary film “There is no blood on me”, dedicated to the case of officers Arakcheev and Khudyakov who fought in Chechnya (the film received a number of Russian and foreign film awards). In 2013, he produced the documentary film Diary of a Drug Addict (directed by Svetlana Stasenko).

In 2016, he ran for elections to the State Duma of the Russian Federation in the Tushinsky (206) constituency from the Party of Growth. Took 7th place with 3.54% of the vote, Gennady Onishchenko won in the constituency.

Write a review on the article "Vittel, Igor Stanislavovich"

Notes

An excerpt characterizing Vittel, Igor Stanislavovich

An Austrian officer with a green plume on his hat, in a white uniform, galloped up to Kutuzov and asked on behalf of the emperor: did the fourth column come forward?
Kutuzov, without answering him, turned away, and his eyes accidentally fell on Prince Andrei, who was standing beside him. Seeing Bolkonsky, Kutuzov softened the angry and caustic expression of his gaze, as if realizing that his adjutant was not to blame for what was being done. And, without answering the Austrian adjutant, he turned to Bolkonsky:
- Allez voir, mon cher, si la troisieme division a depasse le village. Dites lui de s "arreter et d" attendre mes ordres. [Go, my dear, see if the third division has passed through the village. Tell her to stop and wait for my order.]
As soon as Prince Andrei drove off, he stopped him.
“Et demandez lui, si les tirailleurs sont postes,” he added. - Ce qu "ils font, ce qu" ils font! [And ask if the arrows are placed. – What are they doing, what are they doing!] – he said to himself, still not answering the Austrian.
Prince Andrei galloped off to fulfill the order.
Having overtaken all the battalions walking in front, he stopped the 3rd division and made sure that, indeed, there was no firing line in front of our columns. The regimental commander of the regiment in front was very surprised by the order given to him by the commander in chief to scatter the shooters. The regimental commander stood there in full confidence that there were still troops ahead of him, and that the enemy could not be closer than 10 versts. Indeed, there was nothing to be seen ahead, except for the desert area, leaning forward and covered with thick fog. Ordering on behalf of the commander-in-chief to fulfill the omission, Prince Andrei galloped back. Kutuzov stood still in the same place and, senilely lowering himself in the saddle with his fat body, yawned heavily, closing his eyes. The troops were no longer moving, but their guns were at their feet.
“Good, good,” he said to Prince Andrei and turned to the general, who, with a watch in his hands, said that it was time to move, since all the columns from the left flank had already descended.
“We’ll still have time, Your Excellency,” Kutuzov said through a yawn. - We'll make it! he repeated.
At this time, behind Kutuzov, the sounds of greeting regiments were heard in the distance, and these voices began to quickly approach along the entire length of the stretched line of advancing Russian columns. It was evident that the one with whom they greeted was driving quickly. When the soldiers of the regiment in front of which Kutuzov stood shouted, he drove a little to the side and looked around with a frown. On the road from Pracen, a squadron of multi-coloured riders galloped, as it were. Two of them galloped side by side ahead of the rest. One was in a black uniform with a white plume on a red english horse, the other in a white uniform on a black horse. These were two emperors with retinue. Kutuzov, with the affectation of a campaigner at the front, commanded the troops standing at attention and, saluting, rode up to the emperor. His whole figure and manner suddenly changed. He took on the appearance of a subordinate, unreasoning person. He, with an affectation of deference, which obviously struck the Emperor Alexander unpleasantly, rode up and saluted him.
An unpleasant impression, only like the remnants of fog in a clear sky, ran across the young and happy face of the emperor and disappeared. He was, after ill health, somewhat thinner that day than on the Olmutz field, where Bolkonsky had seen him for the first time abroad; but the same charming combination of majesty and meekness was in his beautiful gray eyes, and on his thin lips the same possibility of various expressions and the prevailing expression of complacent, innocent youth.
At the Olmyutsky review he was more majestic, here he was more cheerful and energetic. He flushed a little as he galloped those three versts, and, stopping his horse, sighed with relief and looked around at the faces of his retinue, just as young, just as animated as his own. Chartorizhsky and Novosiltsev, and Prince Bolkonsky, and Stroganov, and others, all richly dressed, cheerful, young people, on beautiful, well-groomed, fresh, just slightly sweaty horses, talking and smiling, stopped behind the sovereign. Emperor Franz, a ruddy, long-faced young man, sat extremely upright on a handsome black stallion and looked around him anxiously and unhurriedly. He called one of his white adjutants and asked something. "That's right, at what time they left," thought Prince Andrei, watching his old acquaintance, with a smile that he could not help remembering his audience. In the retinue of the emperors were selected fine fellow orderlies, Russian and Austrian, guards and army regiments. Between them, the beautiful spare royal horses were led by bereytors in embroidered blankets.
It was as if through the dissolved window it suddenly smelled of fresh field air into the stuffy room, so the gloomy Kutuzov headquarters smelled of youth, energy and confidence in success from this brilliant youth who galloped up.
- Why don't you start, Mikhail Larionovich? - Emperor Alexander hastily turned to Kutuzov, at the same time looking politely at Emperor Franz.
“I am waiting, Your Majesty,” answered Kutuzov, leaning forward respectfully.
The Emperor ducked his ear, frowning slightly to show that he hadn't heard.
“I’m waiting, your Majesty,” Kutuzov repeated (Prince Andrey noticed that Kutuzov’s upper lip trembled unnaturally while he was waiting for this). “Not all the columns have gathered yet, Your Majesty.
The sovereign heard, but this answer, apparently, did not please him; he shrugged his stooped shoulders, glanced at Novosiltsev, who was standing beside him, as if complaining about Kutuzov with this look.
“After all, we are not in the Tsaritsyn Meadow, Mikhail Larionovich, where they don’t start the parade until all the regiments arrive,” said the sovereign, again looking into the eyes of Emperor Franz, as if inviting him, if not to take part, then listen to what he He speaks; but Emperor Franz, continuing to look around, did not listen.
“That’s why I don’t start, sir,” said Kutuzov in a sonorous voice, as if warning the possibility of not being heard, and something trembled in his face again. “That’s why I don’t start, sir, because we are not at the parade and not on the Tsaritsy’s Meadow,” he said clearly and distinctly.
In the retinue of the sovereign, all the faces, instantly exchanging glances with each other, expressed murmuring and reproach. "No matter how old he is, he shouldn't, he shouldn't speak like that," these faces expressed.
The sovereign looked intently and attentively into Kutuzov's eyes, waiting for him to say something else. But Kutuzov, for his part, bowing his head respectfully, also seemed to be waiting. The silence lasted for about a minute.
“However, if you order, your Majesty,” said Kutuzov, raising his head and again changing his tone to the former tone of a stupid, unreasoning, but obedient general.
He touched the horse and, having called the head of the column Miloradovich to him, gave him the order to advance.
The army stirred again, and two battalions of the Novgorod regiment and a battalion of the Apsheron regiment moved forward past the sovereign.
While this Apsheron battalion, ruddy-faced Miloradovich, without an overcoat, in a uniform and orders and with a hat with a huge sultan, put on sideways and from the field, was passing, the march galloped forward and, valiantly saluting, reined in the horse in front of the sovereign.

Igor Vittel

Igor Vittel is a well-known Russian journalist, TV presenter, producer and writer who today heads the consulting company Vittel & Partners. His trainings are very popular - that's why many today seek to invite business coach Igor Vittel to their company. Master classes on personal effectiveness give a big impetus to the development of everyone. This person knows and knows how to convey his thoughts and ideas to everyone.

From the biography of Igor Vittel

Igor Stanislavovich was born in 1968 in Moscow. Initially, he was educated as a specialist in manned vehicles. But then he continued his education in the humanitarian sphere with a journalistic and economic bias. In 1991, he first appeared on TV screens. He worked in various media, including Russian and foreign ones, and if you order a business speaker Igor Vittel, you can learn about the specifics of working in these areas. It was thanks to his participation that interesting Internet projects were implemented, documentaries were shot. In 2002, he began working on the RBC-TV channel.

Journalistic career

The RBC-TV channel has become the main place of activity for the Russian journalist. Basically, he was busy running political programs, inviting well-known representatives of government, business, science and other industries to discussions. Knowing his skill in communicating with an audience of any scale and level, many seek to book a business speaker Igor Vittel for client events or discussions within their companies. The journalist easily brings to an open level of communication and competently reveals topics. On the website of the Bolshoy Gorod holiday agency, you can conduct master classes.

In general, Igor Stanislavovich had interesting projects on television. Focus, Dialogue, Forum, Sphere of Interests - this is not a complete list of television programs in which the journalist was involved. In addition, Vittel has a lot of interesting author's projects on the radio. He is a very competent expert, which is why they so often want to invite business coach Igor Vittel to their company or on the radio, TV show.

Social and creative activities

In addition to the fact that Vittel is a bright media personality, he is actively involved in other areas that are not related to television and other media. At some stages of his life, he was even a music producer for famous artists. He became the author of a number of journalistic publications - today he is writing a book about the economic history of Russia. In addition, Igor Stanislavovich is an active politician, a member of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, as well as the Anti-Corruption Committee. On our website for a business event.

The master classes of the Russian journalist are very popular. If you order a business speaker Igor Vittel, you can learn from him the skills of public speaking and behavior in front of the camera. During such trainings, performances are filmed on camera, and then the results are worked out - all the minuses and pluses of the speaker are revealed. Such master classes are very useful not only for top managers, who are sometimes public figures. They will also be useful to ordinary employees of companies, because they help to liberate themselves and learn the correct tactics of behavior in everyday life.