Yakov Krotov

[...] For several years Minkin has been fighting for morality. He, I remember, was indignant at the lack of pomp in the funeral of Chekist Sudoplatov, who killed those whom Stalin considered his personal enemies. Minkin first left his wife and took a mistress, and then he kicked out his mistress, stole from her - without any trial, of course - a child - and now he is raising a child with his former wife. [...]

Doc Quixote vs. Dulcinea

Yakov Krotov

The man and the woman fell in love with each other. A son was born. They fell out of love with each other, the man left and forcibly took his one-year-old son. The woman sued the man (let him give up his son), the man sued the woman (let her be recognized as crazy and leave her son to him).

The most common life drama. It is pointless to write about her in the newspaper because what is happening between the topic, who recently loved each other, and now hated, defies rational explanations.

A trial in such a lawsuit may be of interest, the lawsuit itself is too vulgar, like any grief, whose scale exceeds human understanding. However, the outcome of the trial is too easy to predict: the child will be given to the woman, unless (we are still in Russia) the thieves' possibilities of the man do not outweigh the thieves' possibilities of the woman.

The attitude of society towards such a lawsuit may be interesting. It is always ambiguous. A patriarchal society, of course, will condemn a man and unequivocally give the child to a woman, but at the same time call her a fool and self-guilty. Why did you love him? why did she listen to him and obey him like a dog, and then poisoned herself with love? The patriarchy will treat a man with respectful bewilderment: others are trying with all their might to get rid of children, and this noble one. If anyone is condemned, it is the wife of a man who accepts a child from her mistress into the family, but they will also condemn with an admixture of admiration. A society of the American type, more balanced in terms of sex due to the feminist excess, will certainly justify a woman as a victim of violence, but the child may be awarded to a man, and without any cronyism. And a wife who accepts a child stolen from her mistress into the family will be categorically condemned: she does not respect her own dignity, and that of a common woman.

The conflict may be interesting for another reason, which in this case is obvious. The child, the subject of contention, is named Alexander Minkin, and his father is also named.

Of course, the writing and singing brethren have a lot of problems with women and children, and these problems are usually of little interest to anyone. Bohemia is, as it were, placed outside the ten commandments. Her divorces and passions are just material for creativity and entertainment of fans. But Minkin is a Don Quixote among bohemians, he fights for us, robbed and deceived ordinary people. They say (and write) a lot of nasty things about him, accusing him, first of all, of venality - apparently, because he denounces, first of all, venality.

Accusations of corruption miss the mark, for a wandering knight may well accept a golden ring, a summer house, and a high salary. If the president takes money for a book he has written, it is suspicious (because how does a person with an irregular working day get time for literary works) and smacks of a bribe, even if it is framed as a fee. If a journalist takes money for writing an article, this is a fee, even if it is given as a bribe.

Accusations of mistreatment of a woman or use of blasphemy, however, are a different matter and, alas, not only personal. Why? Because the golden rule of ethics, the rule of symmetry, is not fulfilled. The journalist accused others of putting pressure on the court - and now, apparently, he puts pressure on himself. How else can one explain that the police are delaying the initiation of a criminal case in connection with the kidnapping of a child, that the prosecutor's office is using delaying tactics. The journalist called others criminals before the trial, and when it came to him, he insists that there will be a trial, then we'll see. The journalist blames others for refusing to contact the press, while he himself refuses to be asked to give any explanations.

Of course, fornication and stealing children is a private matter. But in America, among Protestants or government officials, the percentage of people who read pornographic magazines is the same as in society as a whole, and no one cares - normal bifurcation. However, when Protestant televangelist Jimmy Swaggert was caught with a pornographic magazine, he was disgraced throughout the country. Ideally, a modern accuser should not even be a Don Quixote, but John the Baptist, not only without a mistress, but also without a wife, eating wild honey and dressing in the skin of an unkilled bear. These are the conditions of the game, and journalists should be aware of them, and not try to get away with talking about a "private matter."

For some, Minkin will end as a confidant (and a journalist is always a confidant of the reader) after this story. For some, he ended as a journalist not now, but when he began to earn a lot. For someone even earlier, when he wrote a heartfelt obituary to General Sudoplatov. Yes, to the very henchman of Beria, whom our Soviet court defended from accusations of the murder of Mikhoels, because the last of Dzerzhinsky refused to provide the court with the relevant materials. Maybe Minkin already had a premonition that someday he too would need the most humane court in the world. Of course, our court would never take a child from a mistress in order to give it to a husband and wife, but retroactively recognizing the theft of a child from a mistress as caring for a child is, with a certain turn of events, still possible. Just as if the child would not be hurt at this turn.

Journalist Alexander Minkin stole his son from his ex-lover and is now trying to evade the answer in court

Yakov Krotov

This story has already been divulged in many feuilletons, how Minkin divulged the sins of Chubais, but Minkin acts smarter than Chubais: he silently remains silent.

Of course, the entire writing fraternity has a lot of problems with women and children, but Bohemia is, as it were, placed outside the ten commandments - after all, it does not pretend to teach others morality. Her divorces and passions are just material for creativity and entertainment of fans.

But Minkin is a Don Quixote among bohemians, he preaches morality, fights for us, robbed and deceived ordinary people. And he falls under the iron categorical imperative, the golden rule of ethics, the rule of symmetry.

The journalist accused others of putting pressure on the court - and now, apparently, he puts pressure on himself. How else can one explain that the police are delaying the initiation of a criminal case in connection with the kidnapping of a child, that the prosecutor's office is using delaying tactics. The journalist called others criminals before the trial, and when it came to him, he insists that there will be a trial, then we'll see. The journalist blames others for refusing to contact the press, while he himself refuses to be asked to give any explanations.

The catch is that they stood up for Minkin's mistress not for the sake of the child, but to remind once again how corrupt Minkin is. This devalues ​​intercession, because Minkin is not subject to trial, including moral, for venality, because he never claimed that a journalist should be a silversmith. The cycle of hypocrisy continues, because Minkin's accusers are not at all unmercenary, and they denounce immorality not always, but only when it is beneficial to them for political or other reasons. [...]

He considered that his patron was insulted, and forced the editor-in-chief of MK, who printed this text, to leave the post of head of the chairman of the Public Chamber of the Moscow Region. Strictly speaking, before this scandal, few people knew about the existence of such an association, and it is unlikely that this activity of Governor Vorobyov will affect the reputation of the editor Pavel Gusev. But whether the real attack on the newspaper itself has begun, Lika Kremer and Dmitry Kaznin learned from Alexander Minkin, the author of the article “Dear Sovereign”.

Kremer: Is this an attack on your Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper?

Minkin: This is an attack on the newspaper, of course, but it did not start yesterday or the day before yesterday. It started much earlier. We saw how the Duma attacked us for an article about political prostitution, although there was nothing offensive there, since it was about politics. The same is true here. But it seems to me that you did not understand my note very accurately. It is not about the oligarchs and not even about Khodorkovsky. I wrote that the pardon touched Khodorkovsky, the amnesty touched Pussy Riot, but no mercy touched those children who were forbidden to be adopted abroad, including sick orphans who are not adopted here and cannot be treated. Their pardon did not affect. What kind of mercy is this, which, under pressure, after 10 years releases an adult strong-willed man and leaves children who are not to blame for anything in unimaginable suffering. They experience hellish torments every day, year after year, throughout their short lives. Those of them who manage to leave sometimes even become champions of the Paralympic Games, they are given artificial arms and legs, and their faces are corrected. That's what the text is about.

Kaznin: But it also talks about the fact that all oligarchs should be ...

Minkin: No, this is a passing moment.

Kaznin: This is an opinion that is expressed ...

Minkin: This is not an opinion, this is a fact. Khodorkovsky and his Yukos colleagues did nothing so incredible. This was done by everyone who privatized then.

Kaznin: Strictly speaking, this has not yet been proven by the court.

Minkin: Do you need a court order? Since when do we need a court order to find out that two plus two makes four? That's what hurt them - my New Year's wish, because in the New Year's wish it is written: "Since we do not feel any Christian feelings for cannibals and child tormentors, we sincerely wish them to choke on champagne on New Year's Eve." Regardless of whether they are natural or adopted parents, white or black, Russian or American, this is written about the tormentors of children. If someone was offended by this, did he admit himself?

Kaznin: It is curious that Andrei Vorobyov was not seen in some outrageous loud ...

Minkin: When I found out that Vorobyov made this statement, that the article is wildly boorish and insults the president ... Firstly, formally he is wrong, because insult is the Criminal Code. But the first thing that began to bother me was he himself was indignant or he was asked. Do you know how it happens? Come on, show us the people's anger.

Kaznin: Why was he asked? There are State Duma deputies, to whom, by the way, you are addressing.

Minkin: This is not a question for me. Vorobyov, on the other hand, is a very serious person, the governor of the Moscow region, politically very experienced. This statement of his gave this publication a weight it did not intend. It's like with Pussy Riot. If they had not been imprisoned, would they have been at the head of the entire planet?

Kremer: In addition to Andrey Vorobyov, did someone react as sharply to this material? Maybe someone called you, wrote? Or is it the only defender of the president?

Minkin: If any person is outraged and offended by something, he immediately speaks about it. And the more time passes, the more it cools down, and everything passes. The note was published the day before yesterday, on Wednesday, and appeared on the site on Tuesday evening, and there was a time when the outrage suddenly arose on Thursday. It's a little late for sincere indignation. Someone made a decision...

Kremer: Maybe it's conspiracy theories? Maybe he just saw the paper later. Has anyone besides Andrey Vorobyov tried to stand up for the president?

Minkin: There is such a formula "informed sources". As early as Wednesday, well-informed sources reported that there was a terrible outrage in the administration. I brought here the Constitution of Russia on purpose. Article 29 “Freedom of speech and thought is guaranteed to everyone”, and here it is written that it is impossible, paragraph 2: “Propaganda or agitation that incites social, racial, national or religious hatred or enmity is not allowed.”

In this note, where it is written, it doesn’t matter whether it’s relatives or adoptive, white or black, Russian or American - I did not even expect that I observe the Constitution so precisely. In this note there is no arousal any difference. But what they are doing now is a direct attack on constitutional rights. Is this the first attack? Every time they find something to explain. When NTV was destroyed, it was the debts of Gazprom. When something else is destroyed, then again some business entities collide. And sometimes people just buy mass media, some well-known reputable newspaper with a century of experience, and after a few weeks it turns into nothing, keeping the title.

Kremer: Do you foresee that this will happen in the near future with Moskovsky Komsomolets?

Minkin: I hope not. But we are at our throats, because we are the only newspaper in Russia that belongs to no one: neither the state, nor the governors, nor the oligarchs.

Kaznin: Did you talk to Pavel Gusev about this topic today?

Minkin: He's on vacation, he flew away before the scandal. It happened. Maybe they specifically knew that he was flying away, waited until he flew away, and started a scandal. This happens too.

Kaznin A: It probably won't end there. If they demand an apology from you, are you ready for this?

Minkin: Here, in this article, Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment", Kipling's "The Ballad of the Tsar's Grace" is quoted, and so far, with all the scandal, no one has said exactly which place outraged. Maybe Kipling and not me? Maybe Dostoevsky, who offers Raskolnikov a false confession? He says, repent, and I will fake everything for you so that it will be like a real confession. We are now preparing a book of poems by Aronov, who worked at MK for a thousand years and remained almost unknown. Poem "Wolf":

And there is no freedom.
And the wolf in the steppe -
Just on the biggest chain.

And when, having gone to his steppe
He sits down to howl at the moon
What is he complaining about?
On the chain
Or its length?

Private bussiness

Alexander Viktorovich Minkin (70 years old) was born in Moscow, in a Jewish family. On their own recognition, "somehow finished school."

From 1968 to 1978 he worked as an apparatchik at VNIIsintezbelka, the All-Union Institute for the Biosynthesis of Protein Substances. The Institute was engaged in obtaining a food protein product from non-food raw materials - oil. He also tried the positions of a courier and a concrete worker (he built the Ostankino TV tower).

In 1978-1979 he wrote articles for the Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper. He said: “I was 33 years old when I wrote the first note. From absolute despair and lack of money, and not knowing how to farce, I went from the street to "Moskovsky Komsomolets"<…>and said: Let me write something for you. They asked where I work, I said: "That's where it is." They: "Oh, how interesting, write to us about it." Wrote. They invited me to the state.

Less than a year later, Minkin left the publication: “I realized that what I want to write, they don’t want to print. And what they want to print is not interesting for me to write. And I went to free bread. And he became that parasite." In order not to be arrested under the law on parasitism, he joined the literary union at the publishing house "Soviet Writer", presenting recommendations from Bulat Okudzhava, Boris Vasilyev and Mikhail Roshchin to the commission. In the early 1990s, when he was admitted to the Writers' Union of Russia, he already presented new recommendations from Vasiliev and Okudzhava.

In 1984 he graduated from GITIS with a degree in theater criticism. He wrote theatrical reviews, for some time he "fell into dissidents" - he composed "political" notes and sent them illegally to the West. “I understood that they would figure me out, although I published there under a pseudonym,” Minkin said.

In 1987-1992, he was a staff columnist for the Moscow News weekly, in which Minkin had the Afisha page: theater, cinema, painting, music. The journalist, in his own words, enjoyed complete autonomy in his work, the only condition was not to touch politics.

From 1990 to 1991, he was a columnist for Ogonyok, the most widely circulated magazine in the USSR. He became famous for the article “Cotton Worker”, about how in Uzbekistan children were forced to collect the remains of cotton that was not harvested by a combine, and the plants were pre-treated with chemicals.

From 1992 to 1996, he was a political columnist for Moskovsky Komsomolets. He was taken to the newspaper after an interview with MK journalist Alexander Aronov, in which Minkin called Boris Yeltsin a "Ural gauleiter", meaning that a native of the Central Committee of the CPSU cannot be a conductor of democracy.

In MK, and then in Novaya Gazeta, he became famous for publishing wiretaps of Russian officials and businessmen - Berezovsky, Chubais, Korzhakov and many others. Writer Tatyana Tolstaya ("Kys") spoke about this: "Kind people with big ears and clean hands from time to time give Minkin wiretaps, and he ignites and prints them with angry comments."

Minkin himself said about the records leaked by the special services: “If these politicians, for example, the same Chubais, discussed issues of love affairs or the dignity of whiskey, this is of course ... But when they discuss completely criminal transactions on the phone, like, for example, Koch, when they discuss the political affairs of the state, as, for example, Nemtsov said on the phone that he delayed the presidential decree for three days because he was detained 100 thousand dollars.

The author of accusatory articles about corruption in Russia and "Letters to the President" Alexander Minkin is in Kazan these days. Local officials may not grab hold of validol yet: the interest of the famous publicist and theater critic is focused on the Opera Festival. F. Chaliapin. The correspondent of "VK" did not miss the chance to ask the journalist a few questions, meeting with him on the sidelines of the theater.

- Alexander Viktorovich, what are your impressions of Shalyapinsky?

Impressions are huge, I watched "Nabucco" twice (with different compositions). Captured everything: powerful drama, theme, scenography. This is a one-piece, amazing canvas. The choir sounds great! Currently, I think he will "beat" anyone. We should compare how many choristers there are in the Kazan Opera and in the choir of the Bolshoi Theatre. Apparently, Kazan take not quantity, but quality!

I'm looking forward to "Porgy and Bess", which I listened to earlier here, in Kazan. And it was so amazing that now, having seen the performance in the festival program, I realized - I have to go! I regret that I started to go to the festival in Kazan late, although the first invitations began to arrive 10 years ago. He excused himself with a lack of time, and there was skepticism, I confess. Another festival? .. And I'm not an opera specialist, but a drama one. Three years ago, the artist Viktor Gerasimenko persuaded me to break loose in Kazan, who in Moscow elegantly designed a number of performances. Arrived - and was amazed at the level of the theater. I do not want to offend anyone, but I think that today this is the best opera house in Russia.

- What, besides the theater, can attract your attention in Kazan? Once the writer Pyotr Vail shared with me that he was getting acquainted with the new city according to the “theater - bookstore - market” scheme.

To the market - perhaps in Tashkent, Tbilisi or Yerevan, but there I am only interested in spices. But the museum - yes! Only not ethnography - rusty arrowheads, shards of jugs ... It is much more interesting to get acquainted with the gallery, the paintings of the masters. I'm going to the Kazan Museum of Fine Arts, but not to judge, but just to admire. Journalism, literature and drama theater - in these areas I feel entitled to speak.

- Surely you are most often asked how the main addressee reacts to your "Letters to the President"?

Putin himself has never answered me in writing: he cannot do this for a number of reasons. If he starts answering me, the rest will yell with terrible force - why is it for Minkin, but not for us? The second reason, more important: for the most part he has nothing to answer. Because these letters contain direct accusations. I wrote: “What were you thinking when Serdyukov was appointed Minister of Defense? You had a dossier in front of you - you knew everything about this person in advance, but kept him in office for five years. Was it only towards the end of the fifth year that he “got naughty”? Well, what is his answer to that?

Another question asked more than once in the letters is: why do you keep this particular person as prime minister? Is he really the best in all of Russia? And if not, then your duty, especially in times of crisis, is to give us the best ...

The fact that the president reads my "letters" was told by various people, including himself - we talked to him twice. And Churov, who headed the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation, said that when he was at Putin's house in Novo-Ogaryovo, he saw “Letters to the President” on a shelf in his office.

Sometimes the reaction of the Kremlin is harsh and the newspaper gets very hurt. You can ask the editor of Moskovsky Komsomolets Pavel Gusev - in the presidential administration they stamped their feet and swore at him, demanded to fire "this scoundrel", that is, me. So, they are reading.

- Have you ever had a positive reaction to criticism?

There were cases when, after a “letter”, a positive decision was made in the Kremlin. It’s just that they will never refer, they say, “the newspaper told us, thank you very much.” For them, this is a humiliation.

For example, in 2008 I demanded that the wording in the certificate of a pensioner be brought into line with the Constitution of Russia, which says “Russian citizens have the right to a pension by age ...”, while in the certificates they wrote “by old age”. I turned to the president: “Mister, you don’t want to get an old man’s certificate at 60, and your wife at 55 years old an old woman’s certificate?” They had not yet been divorced. The budget would not cost a penny, but how important it is from the point of view of the attitude towards the person. He appealed to the Constitutional Court, from which came a completely idiotic, vile reply. It seems that the certificates have been canceled, now they do not write anything - neither about age, nor about old age. Actually, they bored me to death. And these "letters" - too ...

- But you take your soul away in the new project "Mute Onegin"! Judging by the number of views, he has a high rating. Who is the audience for this study?

An interesting question for me: who reads the chapters of The Silent Onegin and what does he think? I accidentally heard from one young lady: “Oh, we are discussing “The Silent Onegin” at GITIS with terrible force!” - and was very happy. If the paper version of "MK" is read mainly by people 45 and older, then the site is visited by relatively young people. Suppose each chapter is read by more than 100 thousand in MK and another fifty thousand on the Ekho Moskvy website. I don't think they are old people. But if I had written The Silent Onegin 20 years ago, there would have been much more readers. For 20 years, 40 million people have died in Russia! Roughly speaking, two million a year. Yes, the population is approximately stable - someone died, someone was born. The problem is that readers die, and button pokers are born.

- Why is your Onegin dumb?

Why, Onegin doesn't say anything in Pushkin either! This is a shock: the protagonist utters several phrases for the whole action of the novel - “Learn to rule yourself. Not everyone will understand you, like me ... ”In the final chapter, where he parted with Tatyana, he did not say a single word! Tatyana has a full house of relatives: sister, mother, dad's grave with an inscription, an aunt in Moscow, all with names, habits. And Onegin has no mom, no dad (half a line about him), no brother, no sister. And why? Published 10 parts, where these questions are comprehended and posed. Find out the answers in the sequel.

- A real detective!

The topic is multilayered, I have been writing the text for seven years. I was afraid that the first chapters of some readers would be repulsed because they contained frivolities. But after all, Pushkin's novel is also constructed in this way: in its first part - solid adultery, seduction. Pushkin writes about Onegin that he did not let anyone in - neither young virgins, nor married ladies, and even remained on friendly terms with their husbands. Everything is frank, and my texts are a quarter of quotes. But in the minds of many people "Eugene Onegin" is something sacred. And I, therefore, encroach. Some perceive my publications as an insult to the feelings of those who believe in Pushkin. In one of the chapters, I cite a grave description that Engelhardt, the director of the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum, wrote about him in his diary: a worthy acquisition of a primary upbringing.”

Note that this is not a denunciation, but according to the meaning it turns out that there is some kind of monstrous beast in front of Engelhardt ...

And there is cognitive dissonance.

Pushkin answered some critic after the release of the first chapter of "Eugene Onegin": "... you are free to judge the whole work, having read only the beginning." I can say the same to my readers: you are free to say that this is nonsense and superficiality when you have read only the first chapter. Let us console moralists: do not stop reading, even if the beginning seemed indecent. To be continued, amazing things will be revealed further.