Pavel Palazhchenko: the work of a translator is constantly overcoming difficulties. Did he not trust his

suits the situation

Those. if this is some kind of cultural event, then the clothes should correspond to the occasion.

Rule #1: Be professional

1. Perform your duties honestly, conscientiously, and with professional competence.

2. Provide translation services only in those professional fields in which you have sufficient knowledge, skills and translation techniques.

3. Comply with business etiquette when providing translation services.

4. Constantly improve your professional knowledge and skills.

The art of translator behavior

Ability to adapt to conditions and get out of any situation

Don't show emotions

Don't interrupt the speaker

Dress neatly, appropriate for the occasion (presentable, business appearance)

Alcohol excluded

Ready to talk at any time

Don't distract attention

The most successful provisions of the translator:

during general discussions and official disputes - behind and to the left of the client;

in a private conversation - between speakers (but in such a way as not to interfere with their ability to see each other freely);

at the time of the congress or report - next to the speaker, or nearby behind the microphone.

The translator should arrive at the meeting place a little earlier, “get his bearings,” find out some linguistic details of the upcoming negotiations (main topics, proper names, surnames) and get in the right frame of mind.

If a specialist interprets negotiations, he should look consistent with the business style of the contracting parties.

You cannot wear jeans to such negotiations.

and a sweater!!!

You can’t go to the other extreme: come to

negotiations in a short skirt and stiletto heels!!!

In this case, a dark business suit (for both men and women), a light blouse, and natural makeup look ideal.

Color and comfort

On translators performing Simultaneous translation, there is a big load, so clothes for them should first of all be comfortable.

They almost always do their work in cubicles, which allows more free style of clothing. But so that nothing distracts attention from work, clothes should be dark, discreet colors and not have bright details.

If you work as a guide-translator in an area with low temperatures, you need to wear warm clothes, take appropriate equipment with you and have the necessary sports training.

When working in water areas, be sure to wear life jackets and, of course, dress for the weather in the area.

The work of a translator who works as a guide for groups of animal photographers is very dangerous. Clothing should be comfortable, breathable, and you should definitely take a hat with you.

Translators are sometimes needed in various rescue operations. In this case, it is necessary to take into account all the factors of the work - from the type of operation being carried out to the weather on the ground. Therefore, clothing must be appropriate for the conditions in which the operation is carried out: be it rescue operations on the open sea or in the mountains, extinguishing a forest fire or extracting people from rubble.

In military operations, reporters and translators are sometimes needed. Their work is very dangerous and requires appropriate equipment, including a protective helmet, body armor and weapons (with a supply of shells).

Interpreters who work in emergency situations should first of all think about their safety and, accordingly, about safe clothing, depending on the situation. This could be protective overalls, helmets, rubber gloves, comfortable shoes.

Clothes for all occasions

But if an interpreter works on a drilling rig, he will be dressed strictly according to safety standards, that is, he will wear a helmet and heavy boots

It is also appropriate to mention the differences between an interpreter and a translator - the one who translates texts at home is not obliged to follow someone else's clothing requirements.

Dress code for guides and interpreters

More free dress code have guides and translators.

When conducting a walking tour, jeans and comfortable shoes are appropriate.

In this case, you can wear a bright jacket or T-shirt, which can serve as a guide for tourists who are lagging behind.

And when going with a group to a museum or theater, of course, you should change your outfit.

Appearance, makeup

AND although one dress code there is no translator clothing should always be discreet, but at the same time elegant and of high quality.

Neat appearance translators must attract people to them.

Particular attention should be paid to lip makeup, since it is to them that attention is primarily drawn.

Familiarize yourself with the basic symbols and abbreviations of the dress code. Business people can bring an invitation to an afternoon or morning event marked Bb or Btr.

Bt (Business traditional)- traditional business style or casual attire - a well-tailored classic suit made of wool in dark blue or gray. This standard is most common in a business environment, for a business meeting.

Bb (Business best)-formal business style or “the strictest and most expensive business suit” for events such as a responsible business meeting, especially with foreign partners, a business reception.

For a man: the best business suit, usually dark blue, possibly striped, single or double breasted, a dazzling white shirt (preferably with double cuffs and cufflinks), a plain or dotted tie, perhaps in red, a pocket square pocket. Shoes are exclusively black oxfords.

For a woman: gray, blue or beige suit, white blouse-shirt, tie possible, transparent flesh-colored stockings, black or suit-colored shoes, low heels (3-5 cm)

Bf (Business formal)-formal business style - an elegant classic suit or tuxedo for special occasions and evening receptions.

BC (Business casual)- “business casual”, informal business style - a looser, more relaxed appearance - a jacket, blazer, non-business suit combined with less formal shirts, sweaters, etc. As a rule, without a tie or with a traditional tie (knitted, woolen, linen). Summer linen, silk, and cotton suits usually fall into this standard.

CF (Casual Friday)- casual on Fridays or the so-called “Friday standard” - an unofficial style of clothing adopted in some companies on Fridays. The Friday standard allows you to feel freer at the end of the week and encourages communication with colleagues, which is welcomed by many companies

Btr (Business travel)- business travel style - a suit for business trips and moving. A “travel” suit must retain its shape and not wrinkle in any situation, so synthetic additives are allowed in the suit fabric, giving it elasticity and resilience to deformation, or crepe weave of the fabric, making it practically wrinkle-resistant. The main rule here is to dress not for the journey, but for the place where you are going

A5(After Five) - “after five” and means “Cocktail” - any evening event starting after 17.00. Men's clothing: a suit is expected, not necessarily a business one. Any colors, tie optional. Woman's clothing: cocktail dress or elegant separates, for example, an open embroidered top and skirt, a smart suit with a skirt or trousers.

A5c - After 5 casual- casual evening style (after 17.00). The word casual should not mislead you. We're not talking about worn-in jeans, but about fashionable clothes from designers or famous brands, regardless of whether you're wearing a smart jacket or a silk turtleneck.

A5 After 5- “Cocktail” - evening, but not too formal events, usually with drinks and a buffet table. A suit is expected, not necessarily a business one. Any colors, tie optional.

A5 Black Tie-Black Tie - “black tie” - an official evening reception after five in the evening. Possible events: a formal evening reception, such as a Christmas party, or a wedding, a theater premiere, etc. Men's clothing: a tuxedo, and for very formal events black tailcoat, black patent leather shoes, a special vest, shirt and bow tie must be white.

Important advice: do not wear a black vest and bow tie, because this is what head waiters and waiters usually wear at social events. Woman's clothing: cocktail dress or long evening dress. Jewelry and no fur are acceptable.

UPS (universal translation cursive)

Interpreters"note-taking(INT)- universal translation cursive (UPS), designed to optimize the interpreting process and increase its adequacy to 95-98%.

UPS is individual, but has a number of common patterns and characteristics.

I. Step-diagonal arrangement: a) subject group;

b) predicate group;

c) direct/indirect addition;

d) ) homogeneous members of the sentence.

2.OOPS - this is a memory support based on a system of signs/symbols that are convenient for recording and can be instantly deciphered in a given context, both linguistic and broad (the setting and place of negotiations/conversations).

3.OOPS reflects not individual words, but thoughts and judgments, and is conducted in both English (60%) and Russian.

4.OOPS It is advisable to use it primarily for recording precisionNoah vocabulary(numbers, dates, proper names, titles) in any type of interpretation.

5. OOPS is based on abbreviations (abbreviations) like generally accepted:UK,UN,IMFRF, etc., and individual, which user OOPS develops in the process of learning and application based on the proposed principles.

I 6. Logical connections reflected using symbols: : - say, declare, note, etc.; OK - approve, support, support; negation is indicated by crossing out the negated: (F - reject, not accept, be against; future (rise, improvement) - T; past(recession, deterioration) - 1; doubt - ?; gain -!;

plural- square sign (No); "most"- cube sign (No); repetition -R;more - > ; less -< ; departure->; arrival -<- etc.

7. Modality:

d- obligation;

m - opportunity;

n (need) - necessity;

“would” is the subjunctive mood.

8. Numerals:

t(thousands); m(million); b(billion); tr(trill.) (e.g. 18bU= 18 billion US dollars; U = USD).

9. “Talking” symbols:

0- meeting, congress, congress (round table);

^ - aggression, tension;

x - clash, conflict, war (crossed swords).

10. Removing vowels to speed up recording titles and personal names veins (saving up to 25-40% of time).

Gorbachev's translators

Viktor Mikhailovich Sukhodrev, Pavel Ruslanovich Palazhchenko

Sukhodrev

“From 6 to 12 years old I lived in England. There I found, not studied, but acquired the English language. I never taught him formally.”

Viktor Mikhailovich Sukhodrev (born December 12, 1932) - personal translator of Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev. He also worked with Mikhail Gorbachev, Alexei Kosygin, Andrei Gromyko, Anastas Mikoyan and other leaders of the Soviet Union. Author of the book “My tongue is my friend.”

In his book, V.M. Sukhodrev formulates the task of an interpreter: “To become, as it were, invisible, but present, if you like, a necessary evil, because the ideal would be a situation when all people could communicate directly, looking into each other’s eyes, speaking in one single language."

The translator's task: to make himself present

invisible, then the two interlocutors will feel most comfortable and it will seem that they are talking to each other directly.

The ability to control oneself and concentrate on the task at hand is extremely important for a translator. After many hours of negotiations, one feels very tired and exhausted.

V.M. Sukhodrev emphasizes in the book: if a viewer or someone present at a negotiation sees how a translator works during negotiations, a conversation, or a public speech, then the invisible part of his work begins. It is the translator who records the content of the meeting. V.M. Sukhodrev preferred to work with stenographers. The presence of a living person, even automatically writing down word by word, helps to recreate the entire atmosphere of past negotiations and conversations.

The famous translator recorded information in a notebook in cursive. I recorded only key words - squiggles, mathematical symbols, and symbols. His recordings of conversations could be given to a spy, which he would not decipher, because they contain the personal logic of the translator. And any cipher has a certain logic that can be decrypted using mathematical techniques, etc.

Sometimes translators provoke the anger of those to whom they translate. Thus, in Washington, Oleg Troyanovsky translated at Khrushchev’s meeting with journalists. Khrushchev was asked the question: “Do you have plans to send a man to the moon?” And in the translation the word “abandon” sounded.

Kosygin was visiting Sweden shortly after 1968, when we invaded Czechoslovakia. At a press conference he was asked what his impressions of life in Sweden were. He replied that the standard of living in Czechoslovakia is very high. Realizing that this was a reservation, Sukhodrev translated “in Sweden.” Again Kosygin named Czechoslovakia instead of Sweden, then one of the journalists who knew Russian shouted from the audience: “He said “Czechoslovakia.”

Here our head of the press department leaned towards Kosygin: “Alexey Nikolaevich, you made a mistake, but Sukhodrev translated everything correctly, everything is fine.” Kosygin grinned: “Yes, indeed, I misspoke. Although, to tell the truth, Czechoslovakia also has a high standard of living.” So he got out of the situation.

“Even now I keep staring at the TV screen when summit meetings take place... I see a lot of positive things, but, unfortunately, I see that many of the mistakes that I witnessed and to which many pages of my book are devoted are being repeated.”

Putin's translators

Andrey Vitalievich Tsybenko, Pyotr Patrushev

Andrey Tsybenko- Advisor to the Department of Linguistic Support of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He worked at the Russian Embassy in Washington, translated conversations of R. Gorbacheva, V. Chernomyrdin, S. Kiriyenko, A. Chubais, and the Yeltsin spouses. The first experiences of working with V. Putin were translations during his visits to New Zealand and Brunei. I once translated for Lyudmila Putina when her regular translator Tatyana Klyukina was ill. Tsybenko considers the most difficult task in his professional practice to be translating Vladimir Putin’s interview with Larry King on CNN.

Tsybenko had to translate Vladimir Putin’s famous response about the Kursk submarine: “It sank.” It was in the studio of the CNN television company, where Tsybenko was put in a separate room without being provided with headphones on time. And this phrase was the first one he heard. I had to figure out the context myself.

The main thing is to study and try to understand everything - you never know what will come in handy: "At the Maurice Thorez Moscow State Linguistic University we studied the history of the Kremlin. And then, when we walked around the Kremlin with distinguished guests, some pauses inevitably arose that might seem awkward. But I filled them with stories about the history of the Kremlin, some biblical stories and thus gave guests an idea of where they were."

Yeltsin's translators

Berezhkov, Andrey Vitalievich Tsybenko

Berezhkov Valentin Mikhailovich

(July 2, 1916, St. Petersburg - November 24, 1998, California, USA), Russian publicist, diplomat; personal translator of J.V. Stalin during the Second World War.

Born into the family of an engineer and a pediatrician. Due to the devastation during the Civil War, the parents' family was forced to leave for Ukraine. In 1924-1930 Valentin Berezhkov studied at a German school. After graduating from school, he worked as an electrician at the Bolshevik plant and at the same time studied at evening courses in foreign languages. Within two years I completed a three-year course in German and English. After graduating from school, in 1934-1935 he also worked as a guide in the Kiev “Intourist” (he began to study English with American tourists). In 1938 he graduated from the Kyiv Polytechnic Institute.

Unexpected turn

In 1938, after graduating from the Kyiv Polytechnic Institute, Berezhkov began serving in the Pacific Navy. He worked as a translator in Western Ukraine, occupied by Red Army troops in August 1939. A few months later, as a mechanical engineer with knowledge of two languages, he was sent to Germany, to the Krupp plant, to receive and purchase weapons. There he meets the People's Commissar of Trade A. Mikoyan, he invites him to work for him.

The next year, after concluding a friendly pact with Germany, Molotov was going to Berlin for negotiations and was looking for a qualified translator. Mikoyan recommends Berezhkov.

Post-war years

From 1945 he worked for the magazine “War and the Working Class”, publishing under the pseudonym “Bogdanov”. After Stalin's death, Berezhkov was rehabilitated and returned to the Foreign Ministry. In the 1970s headed the editorial board of the magazine “USA - Economics, Politics, Ideology.” His book “Tehran-43”, published in 1971, in which he was the first to tell much unknown about the history of the Tehran Conference, immediately became a bestseller. In 1979-1983 he worked as first secretary of the Soviet embassy in Washington. At the same time, he lectured on the history of international relations. He worked as editor-in-chief of the magazine “New Time” and as a representative of the Institute of the USA and Canada at the Soviet Embassy in the USA. Since 1992 he has worked at the Monterey Institute of International Studies in California.

Berezhkov was awarded the Order of the Red Star, Friendship of Peoples and medals, and the V. Vorovsky Prize.

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 all. 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, only 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, on his own initiative.
“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. It `s 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 from our side, there was a meeting of the 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 perceived correctly, that they did not create difficulties for the withdrawing Soviet troops, 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 the Soviet Union would indeed not use troops to impede the changes that had 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 did not trust Gorbachev at all - simply as a Soviet person and general secretary.

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, the “star wars” program - 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. Did not 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.

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

— 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 be used, 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. It is mastered by citizens of different countries; a large number of texts are written in it not only in English-speaking countries. It is by far the most in-demand language. Next come the official languages of the 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 a constant overcoming of 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 entire process that led to the end of the Cold War and the nuclear arms race. If we highlight the most striking events, then these are, perhaps, the summit meetings 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.

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

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

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

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

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

— 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.

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 Pedagogical Institute of Foreign Languages named after M. Thorez, speaks English, French, Spanish, Italian and German. 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 our entire 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 what you need, 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 subtleties 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, what did you dream of becoming in 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 learning a 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, a 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 languages 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 power 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 the 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 starts. 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 done 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 be translated, 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