How do summit meetings work? Narrated by Pavel Palazhchenko, Mikhail Gorbachev’s translator. The most successful positions of the translator

September 30 is International Translation Day. About the languages ​​most in demand for translation, the qualities necessary for the work of a translator, funny moments in their professional activities, and also whether Google Translate will replace living people, Pavel Palazhchenko, a famous Russian translator who worked for a long time with Eduard Shevardnadze and Mikhail Gorbachev, said in an interview with RIA Novosti.

— What qualities are needed for a translator in the modern world?

- The same as always. The essence of the profession has not changed. The translator serves mutual education, mutual understanding and bringing peoples closer together. Of course, since the time of Pushkin, when foreign authors began to be widely translated in Russia (and he himself, by the way, translated), new types of translation have appeared - primarily simultaneous translation, the range of languages ​​has expanded, and the profession has become widespread. To the qualities and skills required by a translator, perhaps only technical and business ones have been added. It is necessary to master automation tools and improve the efficiency of a translator’s work, and no less market skills, in order to feel confident in a highly competitive environment. Everything else is the same as before: mastery of languages, love of words, hard work and, I would say, dedication.

— Quite often there is an opinion that with the development of electronic gadgets and programs similar to Google Translate, the profession of a translator is gradually fading into oblivion. Do you agree with this point of view?

“There were such predictions even in those years when I started studying at the institute, and that was more than fifty years ago. The breakthrough that Google Translate made (by the way, the quality of its translations has hardly improved in the last few years) allows you to get acquainted with the content of texts in different languages, but the demand for high-quality translation has remained and, quite possibly, will even grow. Another thing is various translation automation tools (electronic dictionaries, translator assistance systems and translation memory systems). They are needed, they must be able to use them, but the final, responsible authority remains the person.

— Which foreign languages ​​are currently most in demand in the field of translation and why?

— For several decades now, English has played the role of a global means of communication. Citizens are mastering it different countries, it is written on it large number texts not only in English-speaking countries. It is by far the most in-demand language. Next come official languages UN - French, Spanish, Chinese, Arabic. Plus German, Portuguese, Japanese. These languages ​​together account for the lion's share of the work. But it seems to me that the role of some other languages, for example Turkish, Korean, Hindi, is also increasing. And there are few highly qualified specialists in these languages.

— Do you encounter any professional difficulties or has translation long ago ceased to be a sealed secret for you?

— The entire life activity of a translator is constant overcoming difficulties. The other day I gave a lecture on the topic “How to learn throughout your life” for the participants and spectators of the “Cosine” competition of interpreters and simultaneous translators, held at Moscow State University. This is the norm for a translator. Otherwise, it is impossible to remain at the level, it is impossible to overcome constantly arising difficulties.

— Have there been any incidents in your professional career that you still remember?

— Of course, what remains in my memory primarily is the period from 1985 to 1991, when I participated in all the Soviet-American summits, negotiations with the heads and ministers of different countries. Moreover, it is not so much individual cases that are remembered as the whole process that led to the end of the Cold War and the race nuclear weapons. If we highlight the most striking events, then these are, perhaps, meetings at top level in Reykjavik and Malta.

— Please tell us about funny, funny episodes from your activities?

— At the very beginning of my translation career, when I was working at the UN Secretariat, I was asked to help compere at a concert of Bolshoi Theater soloists touring in New York. The concert was organized by the Russian Book Club at the UN, and many of my colleagues, both Russian-speaking and foreigners, gathered. The compere announced the following number: "Rachmaninov. Dream." I don’t know what kind of eclipse came over me, but I translated Rakhmaninov. Sleep. A female voice came from the audience: “Dream, Pasha.”

— Have you encountered attempts by strangers to find out from you the content of conversations that you translated?

— In an explicit form, perhaps not. The interlocutors, as a rule, understood what I could talk about and what I could not talk about, and I knew exactly what limits I should stay within.

July 16th, 2018

On July 16, bilateral negotiations between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump will take place in Helsinki. The leaders of the United States and Russia have not communicated in this format for almost 15 years - usually the presidents simply came to visit each other. To imagine how a meeting might take place, Meduza special correspondent Ilya Zhegulev spoke with Pavel Palazhchenko, a translator for Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze, who participated in similar summits many times in the second half of the 1980s.

You took part in almost all Russian-American summits during Gorbachev’s time?

In everyone. Starting from Geneva in November 1985 and ending with Bush's visit [to Moscow] in July-August 1991. There are ten summits in total.

That's a lot. It turns out that of all the Russian, Soviet and post-Soviet politicians, it was Gorbachev who met with American presidents the most.

Yes, ten times in six years. Now, a year and a half has passed since Trump assumed the presidency, and the presidents of Russia and the United States have never met in full. This is, of course, a serious negative factor. Two such countries cannot afford the almost complete absence of negotiations at the highest level for a year and a half. This shouldn't happen. Therefore, the task for both those preparing the summit and the presidents themselves is quite difficult. During this time, a lot of things have accumulated, and how to clear it all out, in general, is not very clear. What tasks the presidents set is also not yet very clear. Still, a summit is good when there is something to offer each other. And today, in my opinion, they can only offer each other mutual sympathy.

Let's go back to the times when you yourself participated in such meetings. What role do translators usually play in them?

Translators have one role - to translate. If the conversation is completely face-to-face, without assistants, then another role is to record the conversation. I don’t know how it is now, but when I was there, translators or assistants were responsible for this.

Weren't voice recorders or technical equipment used?

As far as I know, no. I wrote it down from my notes and from memory.

In rare cases, the translator may be asked something, reminded, perhaps, of some number or a forgotten surname, but this happened quite rarely. Gorbachev was of such an age that he had everything in his memory and did not need any prompting.

An interpreter in such negotiations is probably not just a simultaneous interpreter. He must also be a diplomat.

Certainly. I was an employee of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but for the last year I already worked in the presidential apparatus [of the USSR]. At the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, all employees of the translation department are assigned a diplomatic rank depending on their length of service. When I started, I was, in my opinion, the third secretary, when I finished I was a senior adviser. If I had not left the Foreign Ministry after the collapse of the Soviet Union, I probably would have risen to the rank of ambassador without any problems. But I didn't have such a goal.

There is official rank, and there is influence. I didn't claim any influence. But when, after 1987, I already had a certain relationship with Gorbachev, the translator could have asked some questions. And if the president asked him questions, he answered. When Shevardnadze asked me, when Gorbachev asked me, I expressed my opinion.

Did this happen right during negotiations?

Of course not. In October 1986, we were with then Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze in Washington. There was a conversation with Reagan, it took place at a time of deterioration in relations due to the spy scandal. Reykjavik was hanging by a thread, and if this spy scandal had not been resolved, it would not have happened. I was present at that conversation with Shevardnadze alone, Reagan was with an interpreter, and there was no one else. Afterwards we went into a secure room where no one could listen to us, and in the presence of the ambassador and his assistants, Shevardnadze asked me to express my opinion on how the conversation went. I said that, considering the situation, it went well. In any case, I was sure that Reagan decided not to aggravate the situation; he also needed the meeting in Reykjavik. That is, such situations happen, but the translator should not voluntarily, so to speak, own initiative climb.
“Bush sat in the security room and waited for Gorbachev”

Is there a strict protocol during such meetings?

There was a protocol, of course. Heads of state are always bound by some protocol requirements. Each summit necessarily has a number of more formal events - lunches, dinners. Usually, protocol officers want everything to be calculated literally to the minute. When they sent us their proposals, everything was written out there: who was coming when, when to take photographs, a handshake. Then in different ways, but usually from 30 minutes to an hour - tete-a-tete. This is mandatory, this is a standard algorithm. Then a meeting among delegations. Most of the negotiations in which I participated - both at the ministerial level and at the level of heads of state - followed approximately this algorithm.

Does it happen that half an hour or an hour is allotted for a meeting, but the negotiations drag on?

Happens. Everyone sits and waits like little ones. Ministers, heads of staff. There are cases, such as in 1987 during the Washington summit, when an agreement on medium- and short-range missiles was signed. There were some questions that hung until the end, which Gorbachev had to coordinate with Defense Minister Yazov via closed communication. And while he was talking with him (probably for half an hour), everyone sat and waited. George Bush, who was then vice president and arrived just at the Soviet embassy for a protocol meeting with Gorbachev, decided to wait. Gorbachev says: go, I’ll talk now and drive up to the White House. Bush says: let's go together, I'll wait. And I sat in the security room on the first floor, waiting for him for probably half an hour.

Bush really wanted to ride in the car with Gorbachev. And at some point, before reaching the White House, Gorbachev says: let’s talk to people. They stopped the car, stopped the motorcade, got out, and there was such a triumphant scene: people shook their hands and wished them success. Bush was then vice president and was already planning to run for president.

That is, it was to his advantage. There was something to look forward to.

Certainly. And this photo was later used. It worked very well for the Republicans and for him. And the contract was signed. Gorbachev talked with Yazov, the last issues were resolved - and everything was signed. The first treaty on real arms reduction, on the elimination of intermediate- and shorter-range missiles. The agreement is historic and has been fully implemented.

When they say that leaders meet one-on-one - is it two people plus translators?

Yes, plus perhaps two more people - usually assistants. At the same time, Trump at the meeting with Kim Jong-un insisted that there be only translators. This is very unusual. In my day, most one-on-one conversations actually involved three people on each side. Thanks to such negotiations, some things may arise that were not agreed upon in advance.

For example?

There was a typical example of this in Reykjavik. There were proposals on our part, there was a meeting working group literally at night. Then Reagan and Gorbachev met again and agreed on the basic parameters of arms reduction. Yes, based on our proposal, which took into account the American position. Who could have predicted in advance that there would be such a breakthrough? True, it was not possible to agree on missile defense then, and therefore all other agreements seemed to hang in the air. But then they were fixed.

Diplomats leave some issues that need to be resolved by the “principals,” the leaders, during communication. This is natural - otherwise the leaders will be just some kind of dolls who perform body movements agreed upon in advance. Nobody wants this. Trump, for example, after a meeting with Kim Jong-un announced that he was suspending American military exercises that they were conducting jointly with the South Koreans. It was a complete surprise. And it is the president’s sovereign right to make such decisions and announce them. I think that no one on the American side even foresaw this; this was his personal decision.

“Trust is not built on personal relationships”

You spoke about mutual sympathy between Putin and Trump. We all remember Bush’s phrase “I looked into Putin’s eyes and saw his soul there.” How does such negotiation develop trust between people?

This is the first meeting between Gorbachev and Reagan [in Geneva]. It lasted two days in November 1985. There was lunch at the Soviet embassy. The conversation was attended by the spouses and, in my opinion, the foreign ministers - Shultz and Shevardnadze. And there the conversation also focused on personal topics. He was rather distracted from the negotiations, also because ladies were present. There were things said that, in my opinion, contributed to the establishment of personal contact. However, trust is still established over a certain period, and it depends on whether the relationship can be advanced. If it succeeds, trust gradually grows.

For example, when we agreed to Reagan's "zero option" proposal for medium-range missiles, there was tremendous pressure [in the US] on him to back off. But Reagan insisted that America accept this offer, and there was a step towards trust. When we saw that our decision to withdraw troops from Afghanistan was taken correctly, that they did not create for those being withdrawn Soviet troops difficulties, this was also a step towards trust. Already under Bush, the Americans saw that we supported the demand for the withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait and put pressure on Iraq. This was the first military conflict that did not develop according to the laws of the Cold War - according to the laws of the Cold War, if America supports one side, we support the other. We then moved away from this for the first time - and this also contributed to trust.

What else? When it became clear that Soviet Union indeed will not use troops to impede the changes that have begun in Eastern Europe and the GDR. We had tens of thousands of armed people there with tanks, and bringing these tanks into the streets at the time of mass demonstrations could have a terrifying effect. We refused this.

That is, after all, trust is mainly built not on personal relationships, but on how the problems of bilateral relations are resolved, whether cooperation and interaction can be established.

Reagan was a very conservative politician. Surely at first he didn’t trust Gorbachev at all - just how to the Soviet man and the Secretary General.

Certainly. We started with a very high level of mutual mistrust. But firstly, and this is the main thing, we managed to gradually solve the problems. And secondly, Reagan was a conservative man, but quite friendly. Just like Gorbachev. Although he had a different sense of humor. For Gorbachev, humor is more of a reaction to something. Reagan mostly had prepared things: anecdotes, jokes, sayings. Nevertheless, this goodwill was common in their psychotype. Roughly speaking, this generally optimistic attitude is the belief that the problem can be solved and that people will support it. This is what they had. Not the Hobbesian approach that the world is a war of all against all, but the conviction that you need to sit, talk, and you can achieve something.

Were there any things that were not brought into public space? Any conflicts or disputes?

There were things that were never resolved during the entire period of relations between Gorbachev and Reagan. This is, first of all, a program star wars" - as we called it, the problem of missile defense. The Americans had a concrete position: under no circumstances should they abandon this program. This irritated Gorbachev. I even saw sometimes how he had to literally fight with himself. And Reagan, when negotiations reached a dead end because of this program, to which he was very committed, literally brought tears to his eyes.

The famous photograph where they say goodbye in Reykjavik, and Reagan says: “I didn’t ask you for much, you could agree to agree to the deployment of missile defense systems.” Gorbachev told him: “For my part, I did everything I could. I can’t do more for you or anyone else.” The conversation took place right next to the car when they were saying goodbye. Not much pleasant, of course.

In general, under Gorbachev and Bush, we managed to greatly slow down the missile defense program by the very process of reducing nuclear weapons. The Americans abandoned many areas of this program: kinetic weapons in space, laser stations in space. But Reagan believed in her. Few people believed in it, but he did.
“One hundred thousand people are not demonstrating at the behest of the State Department”

In those years, Gorbachev managed to seize the initiative and actually become the main peacemaker in the eyes of the public. Reagan himself had to put forward some ideas on disarmament in order to look like a leader in this sense. Do you remember this competition between them? Did it somehow manifest itself during the negotiations?

Everyone wants to look like peacemakers. In the eyes of a significant part of the international public, when [in the summer of 1985] we declared a moratorium on the deployment of new missiles in Europe, the Americans really looked as if they were not for peace, but for an arms race, maybe even for war. This put them in a difficult position.

And later, when we said, okay, you finished your missile deployment program, we finished ours, and now let’s remove all these missiles, here, I think, a really difficult moment for Reagan came. Kissinger was against it, Thatcher was against it, everyone said that it was impossible to withdraw all American missiles, leave at least some. But we felt from some technical details that the Americans were afraid that they would look like arsonists. And they began to make concessions.

At some point, it was possible to agree on the elimination of missiles that were in the arsenal of the Federal Republic of Germany and had a range that reached the territory of the USSR. The initial position of the United States was this: these are not our missiles - negotiate with Germany. We said: we are negotiating with America, we will not negotiate with Germany. As a result, [then German Chancellor Helmut] Kohl made a statement in August 1987: we are scrapping these missiles. He made this statement himself under pressure from the United States, I think, although he himself wanted it. This was in August 1987.

Then it became clear to me that the agreement [on the elimination of intermediate- and shorter-range missiles] would be signed. Nevertheless, negotiations on technical issues and the text of the agreement continued until the very end. Delegations in Geneva worked until 4 am. They literally sent one telegram after another: such and such an issue has been agreed upon, there is such a proposal on such and such an issue, if we do not receive an answer within two hours, we will assume that this is acceptable. Literally at this pace.

There was no talk about the unification of Germany?

No. There was a famous statement Reagan made in Berlin: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” Naturally, Gorbachev could not tear down the wall, but in 1989, when Gorbachev and Bush met in Malta, it was already clear that things were moving towards at least a change of power in all countries of Central and Eastern Europe - including the GDR. Bush then told Gorbachev: we see what is happening, we don’t want to put you in an awkward position. Therefore, Bush said, “I will not jump on the wall,” I will not arrange ritual dances and rub my hands. And he did it, really did it.

Today, the Russian authorities usually act in the sense that the change of power in the states adjacent to Russia is taking place under the leadership of the United States. Did Gorbachev perceive the events of that time differently?

Don't know. In my opinion, one hundred thousand people are not going to demonstrate at the behest of the State Department. Gorbachev said: if we allowed democracy in our country, if we give people in our country the opportunity to vote in real elections, how can we deprive the peoples of our allies of the same opportunities? It was, of course, a difficult moment. But it must be said that then the Politburo supported Gorbachev.

Putin and Trump will meet in Helsinki. In September 1990, Gorbachev and Bush met there. What do you remember about that meeting?

It was organized very quickly. In August, Iraqi troops invaded Kuwait. It was necessary to develop some kind of position. The first statements of both the American side and the Soviet side were quite cautious, but in one direction: Iraq must withdraw its troops from Kuwait. We were then bound with Iraq by a treaty of friendship, plus hundreds of our specialists worked in various Iraqi structures - economic and even military; they had our weapons. Well, there was a long tradition - we, as a rule, supported Iraq in such cases. So everything was not so simple - and we agreed that we needed to meet with Bush in Helsinki and develop a joint position.

And it was worked out. There was a joint statement by Bush and Gorbachev - condemning the invasion, calling for the withdrawal of troops, and calling on the countries of the UN Security Council to adopt an appropriate resolution. The negotiations were serious. The most difficult thing is always working on the text.

Why Helsinki?

There was a certain symbolism here. Helsinki is much closer to Moscow than to New York. When Bush suggested Helsinki, he seemed to make it clear that he was symbolically ready to go most of the way. I think now this is the same gesture from Trump - that he is purely symbolically ready to go most of the way to meet Putin. But the symbolism is ultimately not as important as the actual content of the negotiations.

You say that negotiations are often about some kind of concessions. Putin seems to view concessions as a sign of weakness.

Why? At first, Putin generally took unilateral steps - with China, for example, on the territorial issue. There were also unilateral steps with America. Putin reacted very cautiously and softly to the United States' withdrawal from the ABM Treaty [in 2001]. It was sometime after 2007 that he took such a sharp, tough position.

Putin and Trump have a lot in common. They play to win, they are persistent, they are very purposeful. But it is impossible to play for a one-sided victory in bilateral negotiations - by doing this you put the other side in an awkward position. Therefore, we must strive to present what happened as a common victory. According to their psychotype, this is not so easy, but it will have to be done, they are interested in it. I think that now diplomats are trying to work towards this, because both Trump and Putin need foreign policy success within the country.

In your opinion, are there any rhymes here? What summits can be compared to the current meeting between Trump and Putin?

Maybe with the meeting between Khrushchev and Kennedy in June 1961. Unfortunately, the meeting was unsuccessful - also because both Khrushchev and Kennedy were living people, and both apparently made some mistakes. After this, the relationship fell apart rather than improved. It took the Cuban Missile Crisis for them to realize how close they were to the brink of the abyss. After this, a gradual process of improving relations began, which culminated in the signing of a treaty banning nuclear tests on earth, in space and under water.

The summit is a very subtle and delicate thing. When Kennedy and Khrushchev went to this meeting in Vienna, they, of course, wanted to improve relations. It didn't work out. Then the Cold War was going on, and Nikita Sergeevich allowed himself statements like: you should be careful with us, because we are now producing missiles on an assembly line like sausages. I think that he underestimated Kennedy then, and Kennedy did not show the same determination and persistence in the negotiations as Gorbachev and Reagan later showed. It was very difficult for them - spy scandals continued, American ships entered our territorial waters; There was a case when an American intelligence officer entered the territory of some military warehouse in the GDR, and a sentry shot him. And in that situation, Gorbachev and Reagan showed persistence, did not stop negotiations, did not break the communication channel. And Kennedy and Khrushchev, unfortunately, both collapsed after the failure of the summit.

So you expect this meeting to be unsuccessful too?

No, I’m just expecting... I think the normalization of relations will not happen yet, but the normalization of dialogue may happen. There is a very strong internal political struggle going on in America right now, but it seems to me that Trump’s opponents will not actively oppose the resumption of high-level dialogue between Russia and the United States. It's not profitable for them. Therefore, it seems to me that things will not come to discord.

Today our guest is an unusual person who had the opportunity to work with the top officials of the Soviet state, simultaneous interpreter Pavel Palazhchenko. He was born in the Moscow region in 1949, graduated from the Moscow State University pedagogical institute foreign languages ​​named after M. Thorez, speaks English, French, Spanish, Italian and German languages. After completing UN translator courses, Palazhchenko worked at the UN Secretariat in New York (1974-1979), and then at the USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He took part in negotiations between the USSR and the USA on security and disarmament issues, and since 1985 he was Gorbachev's constant interpreter at all Soviet-American ministerial summits. He remembered not only the Soviet leaders, but also Bush, Baker, Reagan Thatcher, Rajiv Gandhi. Palazhchenko considers the negotiations in Reykjavik in 1986 to be one of the most difficult moments in his practice, and the signing of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in Washington as his greatest success. In negotiations with the West and within the country, according to Palazhenko, the main thing for Gorbachev was to show himself as a strong leader: “He was under pressure from all sides, but at critical moments he knew how to pull himself together.” During the negotiations, Gorbachev conducted a dialogue, and did not read from a piece of paper, and he never made a mistake - not a single fact or figure. The permanent translator became both a friend and assistant for Mikhail Sergeevich. They have a very trusting relationship. He stayed with him afterwards: “I myself had a very hard time when all of our intelligentsia, Gorbachev, fled in the 1990s and 1991. And I considered it my duty to stay close to him.” Until now, Palazhchenko works as the head of the department of international relations and press contacts at the Gorbachev Foundation. It is very easy for Palazhchenko to work with Gorbachev because he respects him. His respect was further added to by the way Gorbachev overcame all the trials prepared by fate: “The two biggest losses in his life were the collapse of the country and the death of Raisa Maksimovna. He experienced both very hard, but still, neither one nor the other broke him. In an article dedicated to the 25th anniversary of the August putsch, Palazhenko writes: “The consequences of the 1991 coup were catastrophic for the country. They turned the development of events according to one of the worst options, although maybe not according to the worst... Preservation of the reformed Union, at least for a transition period, would, in his opinion, be the best for Russia, and other republics, and for the whole world, would allow us to avoid global destabilization and prevent chaotic processes in many parts of the world. Relations between our country and the West would be more equal, and despite all the inevitable difficulties, it would probably be possible to avoid the current aggravation of relations, which is not beneficial to anyone, especially Russia.” Over the years of close work, Gorbachev and Palazhchenko fundamentally diverged when in 1996 Gorbachev ran for president, and Palazhchenko believed that this should not be done. Having learned that about a million people voted for Gorbachev, Palazhenko had a desire to shake hands with each of them. According to him, Gorbachev believes that in the end, rationally and emotionally, he will not only be acquitted, but appreciated by the Russians. Palazhchenko loves his translation profession very much: “Absorbing the air of someone else’s (and your own) language, rummaging through heaps of words and, having found the right one, you need to feel its texture, its volume, and then grope for the threads of interlingual correspondences - this remains my favorite pastime.” He is one of the best interpreters in Russia, one of the greatest experts intricacies and complexities of the English language, he has written several books on translation problems. Pavel Palazhchenko kindly agreed to answer the correspondent’s questions and talk about his unusual and complex work.

— Pavel, who did you dream of becoming? early childhood, even before school?

— Before school, this probably wasn’t the case; at school I followed the usual path: at first I was attracted to some romantic professions, for example, geologist, and starting from the 7th-8th grade, I already began to see myself as a translator.

— I read that you started studying English seriously at the age of 8 at the insistence of your mother, an English teacher, but at first you were not very interested. When did you become interested in studying foreign language?

- It arose gradually, at first I really did not study very willingly, but, nevertheless, quite successfully: firstly, my mother was a wonderful teacher, and, secondly, I also had certain abilities. By the 5th-6th grade I became interested in this, and already in the 7th-8th grade I became interested not only in the language itself, but also in the country - Great Britain, then I was more interested in it than in America. I think that at that time we did not live entirely behind the “Iron Curtain”, we knew something, and “that” way of life was attractive. This, I think, played a certain role. And also culture, especially music - the Beatles and other groups. At that time, it seemed, everyone was fascinated, and especially those who were interested in the English language. I think this was not the decisive factor, but one of them. The times of my childhood and youth were still not a time of intense “cold war”, but rather a period of “thaw”. But since 1968 the situation has changed...

— When you entered the institute, was there a big competition?

- Compared to, say, medical institute The competition was relatively small: 4-5 people per place. It’s just that many people didn’t go there, because the teaching of foreign languages ​​in the Soviet Union was not at the highest level, this subject was considered secondary, and if people went to other universities at their own peril and risk, even with not very high grades, then enroll in foreign language many did not dare. On the other hand, it was 1966, when two classes were graduating at once - tenth and eleventh, so the competition was higher than in previous and subsequent years. It was not very easy to get in, but I scored 19 points out of 20 and got in, without any cronyism.

— Did you want to be a translator, and not a teacher?

— The institute was called pedagogical, but I entered the translation department; I didn’t really see myself as a teacher. Then it was believed that since the work involved traveling abroad, and most of the graduates went into law enforcement agencies, then this work and this faculty were only for men. In real life it was not quite like that, we had girls appear, some of them were transferred from the Faculty of Pedagogy and from the Department of Applied Linguistics, and another number of girls appeared in the third or fourth year. And, of course, nearby, in the same building, there was a pedagogical faculty, so we didn’t have any “hunger” in this regard.

— After Khrushchev’s “thaw,” small “freezes” began when the government changed in 1964—I mean the arrival of L. Brezhnev. Didn’t you feel any discomfort, because you were already accustomed to a certain freedom, but then you gradually began to “tighten the screws”?

— “Tightening the screws” began in 1968 in connection with the Czechoslovak events ( Soviet invasion of Prague. Note author), and before that it was still more free, although, of course, teachers of ideological disciplines - “Party History”, etc. — they emphasized that we are studying at an ideological university and should not limit ourselves to language. We perceived it more as a formality. In the early 70s, the USSR signed treaties with the United States on missile defense and strategic arms limitation, but at the same time the screws were being tightened within the country, so we were in the whirlpool of these contradictory trends. If we talk about ideology, then it was then that it took on completely inert and frozen forms. We felt this, but, like most people in the Soviet Union, we accepted this reality, although many of us did not like it.

— At one time, you graduated from the UN Translator Course. How did you get there, was there a strict selection process?

“These courses existed to fill vacancies in the UN translation services in New York, Geneva and Vienna. The duration of the course is one year, they studied written and oral, i.e. simultaneous interpreters. Every year, due to mandatory rotation (a Soviet employee could not work in the UN Secretariat for more than 5 years), it was necessary to replenish these services and replace employees. About 20 translators and 5 interpreters were produced. I ended up in a simultaneous translation group, where there were mainly graduates of the Faculty of Translation of Foreign Languages. As for the selection, they were first selected on the recommendation of the department, and then there was an interview with the UN Commission.

— Were the teachers local or foreign?

— The teachers were ours. The synchronization was taught by former UN translators: Geliy Vasilyevich Chernov, Lev Eliseevich Lyapin. There were other teachers, both former UN employees and others, all very good translators. Simultaneous interpreters, of course, also mastered written translation. In addition, we studied the structure and activities of the UN, and translated real UN texts, including quite complex ones. It was a year of very intensive study, which made me a professional translator.

— I think it’s worth clarifying something for our readers: simultaneous translation involves different variations...

— At the UN, the main option is simultaneous translation into native language from two foreign languages, so it was necessary to master translation from French. In Russia, and previously in the USSR, we have a different translation system: the same booth translates from a foreign language into Russian and from Russian into a foreign language. This option is now accepted in international organizations for Chinese and Arabic.

— It happens when the translator translates simultaneously, but there is an option when the text has already been translated in advance, so the translator simply reads the finished text. Has this ever happened to you?

— It’s not very often that a translator is given a text in advance, especially a translated one (and the translation is not always good). As a rule, the text is brought to the interpreter's booth 5-10 minutes before the start of the speech, and sometimes immediately after it begins. If you are talking about this, then there are three options:

1) Simultaneous translation of text without preparation and without text

2) Simultaneous translation of text with preparation (from 3-5 minutes - up to 30)

3) There is a text, but it is brought at the beginning of the performance

For some translators, the text in such cases is even more of a hindrance than a help: it scatters attention. Most of the work of a simultaneous interpreter is translation without written text.

- And the so-called “whispering in the ear” - from this series?

— At the UN, translation is always with technical means. But when there is no technology, then different options for “semi-simultaneous” translation arise, when the translator sits or stands next to the person who needs to translate, or listens to the speaker without headphones and speaks into a microphone connected to headphones, or some kind of “mixture” “semi-simultaneous and consecutive interpretation, I don’t even know what to call it. Physically it's harder.

— You were a personal translator not only for M.S. Gorbachev, but also E.A. Shevardnadze...

— Yes, I started working with Gorbachev and Shevardnadze in 1985, and I collaborate with Mikhail Sergeevich and still help him. I worked with Shevardnadze as long as he was the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR. There is no such thing as a “personal translator,” but I was the main translator, participated in all the summits, in all the negotiations between Shevardnadze and the Americans and British. This is a pretty big and stressful part of my life.

— Now you work at the Mikhail Gorbachev Foundation and oversee relations with foreign media. What are your responsibilities?

— The Gorbachev Foundation is a foundation for socio-economic and political science research. And in accordance with this name, the main task of the Foundation is to conduct such research - both in the international aspect and to study the processes taking place in our country, study and systematize the history of perestroika, and publish books based on documents from the perestroika era. In addition, since Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev is a figure in whom there is constant interest - among our journalists and in the international press, we have a small department that deals with media relations. I am involved in this, as well as other international affairs, helping Mikhail Sergeevich on his trips abroad, although now he travels less. There is a lot of work, and, unfortunately, now because of this I have less time to work on my own books and articles. In addition, I am an active translator, I work with various organizations and combine this work with work at the Foundation. I have been next to Gorbachev for 30 years now. This is a rather rare situation, as far as I know - somewhat unique.

Interviewed by Evgeniy Kudryats

"German-Russian Courier", October-November 20 16

Recently I was lucky enough to talk with an outstanding translator and master of his craft, Pavel Ruslanovich Palazhchenko, who kindly agreed to give a short interview.

For those who don’t know (if there are any), Pavel is a Soviet and Russian translator who worked for a long time with M. S. Gorbachev and E. A. Shevardnadze; political analyst, author of several books and a large number of publications in Russian and foreign media. Speaks English, French, Spanish, Italian and German.

So, let's move on to the interview:

Alina: Hello, Pavel. Please tell us a little about yourself.

Pavel: I am, perhaps, a typical product of the Soviet system. Probably not the worst. Born in 1949, my mother had not yet graduated from college, and immediately our lives changed dramatically due to the arrest of our grandmother and the departure of our father from the family. Then my mother worked as an English teacher, and this, of course, played a role in my “self-determination,” although I was a stubborn boy and did not immediately succumb to her persuasion to teach me the language. But as a teenager I became interested in the Beatles, and in general the attractiveness of the West, especially England and America, was great at that time. I entered the Faculty of Foreign Language Translation on the first try, in a difficult year of double graduation (grades 11 and 10 were graduated simultaneously due to another education reform). I studied with pleasure and, like many, I consider the years of studying at the institute to be perhaps the best of my life.

Alina: How did your career as a simultaneous interpreter begin? Did you know that this is the type of craft you want to pursue?

Pavel: Simultaneous translation was then quite new and, in the eyes of many, even an outlandish thing. They taught it at the UN foreign language translator courses. The selection was strict, especially for the simultaneous interpretation group, but by this time I had already worked in the booth thanks to the help of my teacher, an outstanding translator and scientist Geliy Vasilyevich Chernov. Of course, I consider the start of a truly professional career as a synchronized swimmer to be the start of work at the UN Secretariat in 1974.

Alina: Do you remember your first translation?

Pavel: I remember, of course. There was some excitement, but it quickly passed when I felt what was working. To be fair, it must be said that interpreting at conferences of peace supporters (and I started at them) was not difficult for a person who followed current information at least minimally, since everything that was said there was quite predictable.

Alina: During your career, which translations have you done more: oral or written? Which type of translation do you prefer?

Pavel: Perhaps there is more synchronization, but I also love written translation.

Alina: Do you think that anyone can become a simultaneous interpreter?

Pavel: Probably not just anyone. Even people who are fluent in two languages ​​do not always have the qualities of quick reaction, endurance, psychological stability and fluency that are required for a simultaneous interpreter.

Alina: What skills and qualities do you consider most necessary for performing simultaneous translation?

Pavel: Everything mentioned above plus erudition and resourcefulness.

Alina: How to develop these qualities?

Pavel: The translator must, first of all, be aware of current events, know “a little about everything,” and as much as possible about a little (which forms the main content of the conference at which he works). I think that if you take care of this, then everything else, as they say, will follow, because the rest depends mainly on self-confidence, and it is higher among intelligent, well-educated, informed people.

Alina: What exercises do you consider the most effective for training simultaneous interpreters?

Pavel: I'm not a big proponent of exercise. I recommend to my students to learn to listen carefully, to force themselves to listen to large sections of speech without distraction.

Alina: Do you think that the university is capable of preparing high-quality specialists in this field?

Pavel: It depends primarily on the abilities and level of language proficiency of the student and on the skill of the teacher. Typically, the level of language proficiency of most students in our countries is still insufficient to prepare a good synchronized interpreter. But, of course, you can try your hand at university.

Alina: What methods of self-improvement after university training do you consider the most necessary and effective?

Pavel: If a person has the motivation and desire to achieve success in this difficult craft, then he will find the optimal path for himself. You can study on your own, fortunately there are now a lot of recordings of speeches, interviews, etc. on the Internet, on which you can practice, you can learn from courses or from colleagues. The main thing is to understand that achieving results requires long and constant work.

Pavel: Use all the opportunities of an open society, the Internet, international communication, which our generation did not have.

Alina: What final instructions would you like to give to blog readers?

Pavel: I wish you persistence and curiosity. And don’t forget about health, because it really is the most valuable thing. Healthy image life is extremely important for a translator, and most of my colleagues adhere to this principle. And exceptions only confirm the existence of the rule.

Alina: Thank you very much, Pavel Ruslanovich, for your answers! I think this interview will appeal to both experienced and novice colleagues.

That's all. If you liked this article, you can subscribe to and join

Pavel Palazhchenko is not just Gorbachev’s translator. This man has been with the President of the USSR for 20 years—as long as perestroika this year. By his own admission, he pulled out a lucky ticket, having witnessed many historical events, communicating by the will of fate with the great leaders of the planet. Pavel Palazhchenko told our correspondents about the peculiarities of the work of a simultaneous interpreter at the highest level, about Gorbachev “up close,” and about some of the mores of the world establishment.

One of the deputy prime ministers of the early 90s told us that a group of oligarchs almost fired him from the government, complaining to Yeltsin: “We know for sure from simultaneous interpreters that he did not protect the interests of Russian banks during the negotiations.” In fact, does it happen that translators admitted “to the spheres” accidentally or intentionally share confidential information?

- This situation seems very strange to me. The translator should not tell any oligarchs or strangers, even high-ranking ones. And even more so, any assessments on his part are unacceptable.

— Is the recording done on a dictaphone or is it done by a stenographer?

- No voice recorders. There are very serious reasons for this. I don't want to go into them. There are no stenographers either. It is written either by a translator, or by a so-called note taker. As a rule, this is the assistant to the minister of foreign affairs, in other cases - the assistant to the president.

— Gorbachev’s ill-wishers claimed that at some negotiations, out of caution, he resorted to the services of “foreign” translators. The very fact that such conversations occur indicates how trusted a translator should be. After all, together with the head of state, he becomes the keeper of secrets.

— First, about “foreign” translators. This never happened. On the contrary, several times (in particular, under Bush Sr.) I found myself the only translator. Moreover, from my predecessor, the legendary Viktor Mikhailovich Sukhodrev, I heard that at one time Henry Kissinger asked that in order to avoid leaks, an American translator would not be present at any negotiations.

- Did he not trust his own people?

- Don't know. You need to ask Kissinger. And about Gorbachev - a lie. What did they hang on him... Now about the secrets. You correctly said that the translator must be a trusted person. It is a priori assumed that information will not get out from him.

— In your book “My Years with Gorbachev and Shevardnadze” you recall how, once finding yourself alone with Mikhail Sergeevich in a car, you asked: “What will happen to Afghanistan after all?” You write: “I don’t know how I decided to ask him - the Secretary General at that time was a very tall, almost “exorbitant” figure.” What, Mikhail Sergeevich 17 years ago was undemocratic in his communication?

- I wouldn't say. Even then he was not characterized by aplomb. By the way, no matter how you treat the former members of the Politburo, they, unlike the next generation of power, never talked to their subordinates to the point of rudeness, did not allow themselves snobbery, elements of the nobility. Yes, Gorbachev almost immediately switched to “you.” This offended some people. But I understood that he was so used to it, this is a special, party “you”, a sign of trust.

Returning to Afghanistan. Gorbachev did not stop me, but answered briefly: “We will decide.” Now I know that the idea of ​​leaving Afghanistan came to him literally immediately after his election as Secretary General. He just didn't want it to look like a drape...

— How did you become Gorbachev’s translator?

— If I’m not mistaken, in April 1985, Assistant Secretary General Andrei Mikhailovich Alexandrov called the Foreign Ministry. He said that Gorbachev would be giving an interview to an Indian correspondent and asked to send a translator. The choice fell on me. I came straight to the meeting. Mikhail Sergeevich didn’t even ask my name. He said hello, shook hands, and we started working. And we managed to exchange a few words with Alexandrov. He warned: “The recording is yours.” When they said goodbye, he remarked: “I’m sure we’ll meet again.” Apparently he appreciated the translation. Then Rajiv Gandhi visited and I was invited again. And so it went. At the end of one of the meetings with Senator Edward Kennedy, he turned to Gorbachev: “You have an excellent translator. Thank you". I hesitated: it’s awkward to translate this to myself.

- Translated?

- Where can I go... So, in his own way, Kennedy is my godfather. Well, the first Soviet-American summit in Geneva in the fall of 1985 was a milestone - two and a half days of intense work. Since then, I have translated all the negotiations of the Secretary General with heads of state and secretaries of state of the United States. In 1990, in America, on the way to Stanford, Mikhail Sergeevich said: “Pavel, come to me from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I instructed to form a presidential apparatus.”

— What kind of relationship usually develops between the “first person” and his translator?

— There are no stencils here. It all depends... Gorbachev is a friendly person by nature, he does not assert himself at the expense of others. He does not humiliate anyone, does not show tyranny. In this regard, I feel comfortable with him. There is no nervousness or tightness. But, I admit, the point is that, as a professional, I am confident in myself. I didn’t push my way through with my elbows. I didn’t ask anyone for a job.

— How can you explain that after the putsch and Gorbachev’s abdication, you stayed with him, although you received a personal offer from the then Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Alexander Avdeev to return to the Foreign Ministry?

— On the 20th of December 1991, Avdeev called former Foreign Ministry officials working in the presidential office. He said: “I consider it my duty to invite you to return to the ministry. Hurry up. In a week or two we won’t be in these offices.” I am very grateful to Avdeev, but I didn’t hesitate for a minute. He considered it unacceptable for himself to leave Gorbachev and start working with Yeltsin.

Still, I exaggerated somewhat when I said that the important step was easy. Whatever one may say, I had a family, children. Nobody relieved me of financial responsibilities. There has been no talk of creating a fund yet. When I told my mother that I was leaving the civil service, she, who in principle approved of my action, could not contain her bitterness: “Where will your work book be?” For a person of her generation, this question seemed to be the main one. I did not admit that the book was already in my hands with the entry: “Dismissed due to the abolition (liquidation) of the apparatus of the President of the USSR.”

— Gorbachev survived a large-scale betrayal by those around him. You were nearby. What struck you the most? Who?

— I prefer to use the word “betrayal” with caution. The State Emergency Committee is clearly both a betrayal and a crime. Companions who had the opportunity to argue with Gorbachev politically preferred to stab him in the back... Now let’s talk about how to evaluate the people who, as soon as Gorbachev’s position began to deteriorate, ran over to Yeltsin. In some cases, this was dictated by political differences. I know that Gorbachev is very tolerant of this. But I cannot accept that the intelligentsia, such pillars as Yuri Afanasyev, Gavriil Popov, Nikolai Shmelev, spread to Yeltsin without thinking about the consequences of the radical option. A separate conversation about those who have been on the public service and smoothly flowed from the apparatus of the President of the USSR to the apparatus of the President of Russia. Where should officials go? You can say angry words, but life is more complicated than simple formulations. I learned from Gorbachev a certain latitude, and I try not to judge some former friends who stopped calling me in 1991, obviously considering that Gorbachev was “stale goods” and it was time to hand it over to a junk dealer. Now that there has been some positive shift in attitude towards the President of the USSR, the calls have returned, as if from oblivion.

— You are a brilliant expert on the English language, the author of the best-selling book “My Unsystematic Dictionary.” How did your “love affair with English,” as you put it, begin?

- It wasn't love at first sight. My mother is an English teacher at a regular school in Monino, near Moscow. She started studying with me in the second grade, but it really bothered me. And at the age of 12-13 something suddenly happened. Maybe The Beatles are to blame (for many, music addiction plays a special role in awakening interest in language), maybe it’s the fact that I started listening to the BBC and Voice of America in English... One way or another, a romance began that lasts to this day. The English language is amazing, there is something fascinating about it. And of course, I am very grateful to my mother. She is still an authority in the language for me. Not many simultaneous translators have such a library in English at home: the complete works of Dickens, Dreiser, Galsworthy... When I go abroad, I always bring books to my mother. We have common favorites, but she rejects some as complete rubbish.

—Korney Ivanovich Chukovsky taught in his early youth english words from a textbook with torn out pages and later told with humor that when he first arrived in London, he could not utter a word, since he had no idea about the existence of transcriptions. What is the best way to learn a language? Do you have an ideal plan for this?

— I heard something similar to the story with Chukovsky about Lenin. It was as if he spoke some incredible English. However, my foreign language teacher Yakov Iosifovich Retzker argued that Lenin’s translation of Sidney and Beatrice Webb’s work on British trade unionism was wonderful. But Retzker didn’t just hand out high marks.

Is there an optimal algorithm for learning a foreign language? I think yes: a traditional classical school with memorization of words, deep study of grammar. But at the same time, it is highly desirable to live in the country of the language for a year or two. I first came to an English-speaking country quite late - at the age of 25. I had a fairly strong British accent - that’s how phonetics was taught in foreign language. In the five years that he worked as a simultaneous interpreter at the UN, he completely faded away. Changed to American. True, America is a country where everyone speaks with different accents. Except for Midwesterners. NBC correspondent Tom Brokaw is considered the standard of American pronunciation and manner of speaking. He is from South Dakota. By the way, Brokaw was the first American journalist to conduct a television interview with Gorbachev. They met later. I am convinced that if you set a goal for yourself, it is quite possible to learn to speak in such a way that people do not ask you: Where are you from?

— How do you feel about different accelerated methods?

- I don't believe in them. I am leaving out situations where language is needed for very limited communication. In extreme cases, professionals can reach an agreement on their fingers. I will never forget how, during my first internship in Egypt, I was asked to attend an autopsy in the morgue. Our compatriot died, and at some point in the autopsy room I felt sick. I ran out into the air, and when I returned, it turned out that the doctors - Russian and Egyptian - understood each other without an interpreter.

— What languages ​​besides English do you speak?

- French. It was my second language in foreign language. I was very interested. Now French is my working language almost entirely. Already in New York I learned Spanish. IN recent years took up Italian and German. Each subsequent language undoubtedly becomes easier. I think I can master Italian quite well. It is amazingly beautiful - it’s not for nothing that the world’s best operas were written on it. With German it is more difficult. I read fluently, but speak not very well. Some argue that German is more logical and simpler than English. But so many people, so many opinions.

— Do you watch video films in the Goblin translations that are fashionable today? What is your opinion about this phenomenon?

- Watched. But great desire no further acquaintance. This is a separate genre of translation performance. This is a translation happening that has nothing to do with the language itself. Variations on a theme. I'm not interested. And many people are crazy. For God's sake.

— Among them, by the way, is the famous Leonid Volodarsky.

- I don’t impose my opinion. I have great respect for Volodarsky. We studied together. His works are already directly in the genre of translation. And high class.

—Who is Putin’s main translator today?

“According to my observations, no one stands out now. Move away from this practice. Why? I can't say. The question is technologically interesting for me, but I don’t think it’s appropriate to be curious.

— Are you invited to translate in the Kremlin?

— Specifically in the Kremlin, no. I translated several of Putin's last press conferences, which were broadcast on Channel One and Channel Two. But the proposal came not from the Kremlin, but from CNN. For me, I repeat, working for government agencies is a passed stage. And it’s right that the administration does not invite people from outside. A new generation has arrived. I’m not just calm, I’m positive about this.

— Who teaches the president English? You are from this “get-together” and you probably know: is Vladimir Vladimirovich really an advanced student?

— I can’t say anything... This, by the way, is a completely different environment. Teachers and translators are two different communities, “parties”. And Putin’s “advancement” depends on how much time he is willing to devote to English. I said that a person who speaks one language well moves more organically to a second.

— From time to time, TV news shows how Putin and Bush are walking and talking animatedly about something. No translator.

- (Laughs). I know from my own experience: some protocol officers sometimes ask the interpreter to step aside to make the shot more effective. So I don’t exclude the possibility that a translator is modestly hiding in the bushes. But something else is also real: for a short time, presidents get by on their own. Carrying on a conversation is not the hardest thing about language.

- Tell me, all these expressions: “friend Helmut”, “friend Bill”, “friend Ryu”, “friend Vladimir”, “friend Boris” - this is, as they say, a figure of speech or during contacts at the highest level you can really make friends ?

- Undoubtedly, a “figure of speech”. It is a mistake to underestimate the location, sympathy, and affection between the leaders of states, but the responsibility of leaders to their countries comes first and foremost. And it dictates rationalism and pragmatic keeping of distance.

I have heard Bush Jr. call Putin a friend more than once. I do not in any way question his sincerity. But we must take into account that in English the word “friend” is used in a broader sense than in Russian. One of the linguists noted: friend is a horizontal concept, while the Russian “friend” is strictly vertical, implying the depth of relationships. This happened not so much in the language as in our culture. And in this - vertical - meaning between statesmen there can be no friendship.

— That is, when using the word “friend,” Bush means: a person to whom he is friendly...

- That's it. You have found the exact definition.

— At one time they wrote a lot about relative position Gorbachev and Thatcher. What are your personal observations about the “iron lady”?

“I worked less with Margaret Thatcher than with American presidents, and I would be in a stupid position if I started grading her.” One thing I can say: this lady, to put it mildly, has a difficult character. She did not tolerate preliminary formalities, empty preludes, or the exchange of non-binding pleasantries. In July 1991, Gorbachev was invited for the first time to a G7 meeting in London. At the meeting, the West not only pushed away the President of the USSR, but large-scale agreements were not reached either. Shortly before this, Thatcher resigned as prime minister. And so she spontaneously arrives at the Soviet embassy, ​​where Mikhail Sergeevich was staying. Right off the bat he bursts out: “What kind of people are they?!” Could the G7 really not provide the support that perestroika deserves? What have they done! You see, there is no obvious movement to the side market economy. Isn’t it clear where their indifference can lead, in what direction events are developing? Right now Russia especially needs support.” I was shocked by the temperament of the “iron lady”, her almost comradely sympathy, because I knew about the eternal ideological differences with Gorbachev. But as a practical politician, Thatcher was invariably consistent.

— Mikhail Sergeevich likes to flaunt how, almost at the first negotiations with the President of the United States, he cut off Ronald Reagan, who was trying to behave arrogantly: “You are not my teacher, and I am not your student.” Tell us about the gradual transformation of the relationship between the two leaders.

— I remember well the episode you are talking about. It was about dissidents and human rights issues. The Americans, preparing the negotiations, decided to put this topic first. Gorbachev, as you know, himself gave the question great value, reacted violently. However, his words did not sound offensive. And Reagan took them adequately. The relationship stabilized quite quickly and became productive.

A number of American intellectuals do not consider Reagan to be a giant of thought. But I see him as a bright, sunny person and, despite his acting profession, sincere. In Reagan there was a sense of benevolence and a not at all reprehensible desire to please. Yes, I liked him. Overall, America loved him and called him a great president because he restored self-confidence to the country. “Watergate” with the humiliating resignation of Nixon... The most difficult years of Carter’s presidency, when the United States needed its own restructuring, since much of what functioned smoothly in the 50-60s had exhausted its resource... The unfavorable end of the Vietnam War... All this influenced the American psyche. A special person was needed - very strong, even rigid, convictions and at the same time an optimist. The Reagan years became a turning point for the United States. Who was underestimated and misunderstood at first by our Americanists was Nancy Reagan.

— Is it true that her relationship with Raisa Maksimovna Gorbacheva was difficult? How was this expressed? Did you translate for the first ladies? Maybe they tried to smooth out and mix the ladies’ barbs?

— As a rule, I was so overloaded during negotiations that I did not always participate in protocol events. But I know that Raisa Maksimovna approached them thoroughly, thought through the topics of small talk, possible questions. And Nancy, it turns out, was terribly irritated by this: she supposedly has an open soul, but they were practically giving her an exam. Some kind of inconsistency between different people, different cultures... Well, it happens. Another thing is that such roughness could have been avoided if there had not been people on both sides who deliberately aggravated the situation. I’ll use Gorbachev’s word: “planting” distorted information. There was another awkward moment when, due to some inconsistency, Raisa Maksimovna flew to Reykjavik with Gorbachev, but Nancy did not. And I was very offended. As for me, I have never had the opportunity to translate the mutual barbs of the first ladies...

Gradually the misunderstandings between them disappeared. It’s a pity that we didn’t immediately learn that it was Nancy who played an important role in Reagan’s turn towards the USSR. It is alleged that in 1984, Andrei Andreevich Gromyko jokingly told the wife of the US President: “You always whisper the word “peace” in your husband’s ear. Looks like Nancy took the advice. How many times has it happened that Soviet-American relations could have gone downhill, and the fact that both presidents did not allow this is the merit of their wives.

In 1992, the Gorbachevs spent a magnificent day at the Reagan ranch in California. I translated and can certify: the relationship between Nancy and Raisa Maksimovna was not just smooth, but very warm. Later, when Ronald Reagan developed Alzheimer's disease, the Gorbachevs corresponded with Nancy. About a dozen letters passed through me in both directions.

— You were also Shevardnadze’s translator, and when he left Gorbachev, he talked to you about it for a long time. What drove close associates in different directions?

“A few days after Shevardnadze resigned in December 1990, I asked him for a meeting. Eduard Amvrosievich received me. We talked for about an hour. That evening I recorded the conversation almost verbatim. When the time comes, I will definitely publish it. But it's early now. You still have to have a conscience: all the “figures” are alive - Gorbachev, Shevardnadze, me, finally... The conversation turned out to be very personal. Shevardnadze was outwardly calm, but I felt that he was terribly worried. I got the impression that he foresaw something like the State Emergency Committee. A notepad with a note on the table. Let me give you a short quote: “We have taken so long with several important decisions that the situation has become unmanageable... There may be bloodshed. And in the event of reprisals, I have no right to remain Minister of Foreign Affairs. And we will not be able to maintain the achieved level of relations with civilized countries.” Eduard Amvrosievich's arguments did not seem entirely convincing to me.

- What about Gorbachev? Was he not offended, in fact, by the flight of a like-minded person?

“If he had clearly accepted this, then in November 1991 he would not have called Shevardnadze to return. But Mikhail Sergeevich decided, instead of the then Minister of Foreign Affairs Boris Pankin, who bravely condemned the State Emergency Committee, to call on “an old horse who will not spoil the furrow.” This is how things stood. Gorbachev calls: “Pavel, urgently contact the British embassy. I need to talk to Major." The British Prime Minister, as luck would have it, was not at his residence on Downing Street, but half an hour later he was on the phone. “John,” Gorbachev turned to him, “we are uniting two ministries - foreign affairs and foreign trade. I offered the post of minister to Shevardnadze. In this regard, they intend to send Pankin as ambassador to the UK. But we cannot announce the appointment without your agrement.” The major instantly replied: “I give my consent. I promise to complete all formalities as quickly as possible.” The next day the official agrement was received.

And Gorbachev’s paths still diverged from Shevardnadze in December 1991. I met with Eduard Amvrosievich several more times, including in Tbilisi during his presidency.

— Are there any advantages in your current job compared to your previous one? Greater freedom, such as the pleasure of leisurely travel around the world? Special, friendly relations with Gorbachev?

“I have never regretted my decision to stay with Mikhail Sergeevich. Without a doubt, when he was Secretary General and President of the USSR, my work was characterized by strong motivation, adrenaline was released in huge quantities, since what was being done brought historical benefits to the country. Am I missing this feeling now? Probably to some extent.

And working at the Gorbachev Foundation does have its advantages. Mikhail Sergeevich left me the opportunity to cooperate with the UN and other organizations, he lets me go, if necessary, for a couple of weeks, for a month. The fund has a small staff, and I, as the head of the international relations department, communicate with Gorbachev regularly. Not like in the old days, when the apparatus was huge. Traveling abroad especially brings us together. Gorbachev meets with politicians, gives lectures, I help him prepare speeches, and translate. But now we have time to watch a Broadway musical, and have dinner at a restaurant (Gorbachev gives preference to Italian cuisine, and I agree with him on this), and see what are called the sights. In New York, Mikhail Sergeevich loves to walk in Central Park: he and Raisa Maksimovna had a habit of walking on foot from a young age.

Up close, Gorbachev turned out to be exactly the kind of person I saw “from a distance.” I saw something more accurately, and the dignity with which he overcame all the trials fate had in store for him certainly added to my respect. Over the years of close work, we have diverged fundamentally only once. In 1996, he decided to run for president; he wanted to openly and clearly explain himself to people. But I believed that in the existing information conditions this was impossible. Raisa Maksimovna was of the same opinion, but after Gorbachev stubbornly made a decision, she went with him to the end. He relieved me of my election duties. And subsequently I did not hear a word of reproach. But I was terribly worried about him. And when I found out that about a million people voted for Gorbachev, I had a desire to shake hands with each of them.

Marina Zavada, Yuri Kulikov, based on materials from http://versiasovsek.ru