#Natasha Vlaschenko

[summeroffice]

Власть vs Влащенко

43:45 For many of us, for those who are now sitting and those who are filming us, both for you and for me the war gave new people and those people whom we considered to be quite close [he nods] under these force majeure conditions turned out to be completely different [he adjusts himself and looks down]. And probably the brightest example, well, a vivid example against which everything is easy to consider--  

At your place, Oleksiy Arestovych worked in the office for quite a long time [he closes his eyes, tilts his head and breathes] and well, as I understand it, there were not only professional relations with him. Well, such semi-friendly ones [his face is still expressionless]; it is natural when a person is with you for a long time at the beginning of the war in force majeure conditions for example in a bunker. You drink coffee with him, talk about something and so on.  

How much was it for you, well, how do you now feel about his current statements, that he cannot return to Ukraine because he could be killed here [he blinks], that-- Well, I don't want to retell it, it's not important. Not important. Anyway, you have some kind of both professional, so to speak, understanding of why this is happening and human feelings.  

As a missing factor. Not in any way do I feel about him.  

Let's talk about 2 things and then it will be clear. There are 2 components in the modern life that determine your behavioural reaction, how you will behave, how you will act. The first is your ego [smirks]. Will it be realised and how-- 

I call it self-esteem [she smiles; she has a beautiful smile]. 

[Fast] This is not self-esteem; this is overvalued self. It is self. It is what am I, who am I. Am I valued and so on. That is, this is the desire to receive feedback from a person. And depending on his internal ability to control his self, the stronger the person is, the better he controls his self, the more will he has. And he can rebuild and work for an external product and not for his self. The weaker you are, the more your self will dominate. It will control your life, it will make you a hostage of ambitions, hostage of narcissism.  

In this case we have a classic picture. Again, that is, his self started-- Well, and his overvalued self has started to overcome reality. And many people cannot cope with brass pipes [popularity, flattery, the most difficult moral test; not everyone who has previously successfully passed the physical tests of "fire" and "water" can withstand it], you know this well. This is the first component. 

And the second component in the modern life, this is social networks. Excessive informatisation, when you, without being anyone, can become everyone through hate, hype, through the formation of some kind of trend, insult, and most importantly, you know, right, what always sells better, not your-- 

Of course. Hate always sells better.  

Of course. Not some of kind of positive of yours that you want to prove, show, some better picture that you propose to implement. But when you insult someone. I call it the Herostratus syndrome. It is very easy. Before, you had to burn the library of Alexandria [he smiles], well, it's a slightly different story, but nevertheless, and in this way become famous, recorded in history.  

Now it's enough to gain 10,000 subscribers and simply insult a person without knowing him, without communicating with him and so on. A significant part of the information and political contexts are built on this. Can we condemn this? No, because this is the age of growing up. The age of-- Like a child was given a toy.  

The man was closed, he was hidden, in a shell. Apart from his friends, no one knew how brilliantly talented he was, how he understands everything, how he knows how to manage everything and so on. And then he gets this tool. And he goes out and realises himself. He understands a small part of what he is saying. But he is actually carried away now. And this is a childhood illness. It will pass. It will pass when responsible social behaviour is formed in the society.  

47:55 For any young country that is looking for its identity as you say, who will it be, how will it look like next, what the internal social contract will look like, many people like to talk about the social contract. Right, you can sign a paper, the government guarantees this and we guarantee to the government that [fleeting smile], as if, you know, these people who say that, they think that they transfer their brains immediately to a million of other brains.  

For me, this is also a mystery. Why everyone, well, you cited Pastukhov, why do they think that their reflection is similar to the reflections of a million other consciousnesses? We are subjective. We see life as we see it. We interpret the same events differently. You and I, we're different, and we will differently-- 

This is the beauty of life.  

Yes. Yes. But it's impossible to transfer and unify something. But many today, I simply emphasise once again, they infantilely try to realise this opportunity to become public, to become popular. I would be calm about it.  

You know, Mykhailo, it seems, it seems to me that you underestimate, just like atomic weapons were underestimated in their time. Because it changed the world [he nods]. The presence of atomic weapons changed the world.

And in the same way, the presence of social networks in one form or another, it seems to me that it is atomic information weapon. We see how wars are lost because there was no information weapon. In Israel there was no foreign information policy and they lost. Well, because Al Jazeera had it while Israel had nothing.  

But how-- But I-- 

It's exactly the same with social networks. It seems to me that they change our lives very significantly.  

No, they're just, as if, those diseases that have always been characteristic of the social infrastructure of humanity are being scaled up. Just once again, before, they were realised in small social groups, on those that you had influence on. And now, due to scaling, due to the social network, you can influence a larger social group. But this has not changed the structure of human relationships.  

I'll ask you a question. How did atomic weapons change the world? Not in any way. In fact, conflicts--  

War with a state that has atomic weapons; we don't-- 

[Coldly] We are at war with a nuclear state.  

Well, yes.  

And then? 

This significantly complicates it, for example, well, it complicates, let's say, our relations with our partners, they say they have atomic weapons.  

No. Let's go back to the year 1939. Were there nuclear weapons then? No [smiles]. But what was the position of Daladier [Prime Minister of France] and Neville [Prime Minister of United Kingdom] of the main countries that predetermined subsequent events?

Look. Human behaviour as well as the classic 6 plots in literature [he smiles] is always invariable. Your modern conventional weapon is much more deadly than in the middle of the last century. But the middle of the last century led to 50 million minimum victims. Minimum.  

[She wants to interrupt] 

A moment.  

But for Russia, the gradation can go so far that they no longer fit into the world plot of the human race. 

We're in "Divine Comedy". They fit. They are going through their next circle of hell. Look, once again, the invariability of behaviour, the invariability of ego, the invariability of the desire to prove that you are better through the deaths of others. The invariability of hatred towards others on any principle. It accompanies humanity all the time on different scales.  

Gigantic wars led to incredible if we take not absolute but relative values for incredible victims. And they corresponded to the type of deadly weapons, but the essence of behaviour is unchanged. Humanity always goes through destruction, through the implementation of its overvalued ideas, through the complex of hatred, through hate, it's always the same.  

The weapon that you're talking about, social networks, it's only scale and speed. Acceleration. The only thing all those types of technological improvements lead to is acceleration of the problem. That is, the war will be shorter, the time of the onset of the war will be shorter, but at the heart of everything are human emotions. They are unchanged. Hatred, predestined.  

Because there is always less positive, love, in humanity. It tries to balance it, but nevertheless, the subject Putin always appears. Look at him, look at his rhetoric, facial expressions, how he behaves, look at the way he reasons. /.../

This is the driving force of modern humanity and it has always been like this. Your social networks only allow you to go faster. If only our psychiatry worked normally, or law enforcement agencies or regulatory standards.  

53:26 It's the same with social networks when a large group of people for political reasons or for human reasons, because they have read few books and cannot accept that all people are different-- 

People read little in general.  

53:56 If this is how it will go on, then, well, some irreversible changes may begin in the society.  

It will go on like this. You won't stop any genies. This is the essence of a genie. Any demon, any devil. Seduction. How do you stop now, for example, artificial intelligence which will lead to very tragic consequences? 

This is something else completely.  

No. It's all the same, just scaled up. Right now, you'll need to look for people who will do this work, hate someone, and here you will have artificial intelligence, millions of accounts at the same time and the attack will be such that the person will simply commit suicide. It's all the same thing. You can't stop what is the natural development of the inner world of man. Once again, several essences coexist in a person.  

So, do you see any way out of this? 

Yes. The way out is exactly the same as always. There is a need for people who will take responsibility. There is a need for people who will not moralise but will say the right things. Even if it hurts them. The way out is always in people who will positively evaluate what is happening and who will tell the truth. It will be very difficult for them.  

Is it compatible? 

No, but it will be difficult for them.  

To speak the truth and evaluate positively.  

55:29 Aah. This is compatible largely because truth is not always-- We confuse different things. Technologically, the government very often thinks that if in the short-term strategy they give imitation of some things somewhere, it will lead to a positive trend. Sometimes, yes. Sometimes, yes. You don't always need to go straight in because in the short-term strategy not always the correct answer here will be like this there tomorrow because you will have an accumulated final result.  

But the truth is not negative. The truth is positive. Often. We are now focusing on the main thing. What is the truth [smiles]? Again, this is a subjective interpretation. A subjective interpretation. Now a person must understand for himself how truthful he will be, how much he is ready to move away from the technology of his judgements, how much he is ready to move away from trying to adjust the result, well, or his words, to suit his own expectations.  

That's why I don't see, I don't see a catastrophe. Humanity is walking along the road it always takes. Along the road of mandatory self-destruction with the number of people who are trying to stop this self-destruction.  

57:15 That is, thinking about the future, I mean now not only the future of Ukraine but in general, so to speak, the future life, you exclude such an ending as the apocalypse? 

Of course. No, it's very interesting to read in literature. 

57:37 Control mechanisms, there will always be a sufficient number of people who will stop destructive or self-destructive tendencies in humanity. Even today they exist. And today even among Western politicians, I have great sympathy for many of them, they are trying to stop these negative trends. 

1:00:53 Let's go back to the subject you mentioned, Arestovych. Ego [smiles]. Above is me. Value, fear us. That's it. And it was realised, unfortunately, there were specific signals.  

Because of what qualities did you invite him to the office for the second time? 

It wasn't me who invited him, so I'm not ready to say what qualities. In my opinion, at the start of the war, I'll remind you, there weren't very many people who wanted to take public responsibility at that moment. Well, I mean to talk about what's happening, bear responsibility for the words that you publicly say and so on. But Arestovych at that moment was able to do this work. This work. What was going on inside him, probably it's better [to ask?] a psychoanalyst or a psychotherapist or I don't know.  

1:01:48 You know that I love short questions and short answers with you.  

Was there at least one time during this war when you cried? 

[Breathes in] Well, it's difficult for me to come to such an emotion. Upset, yes, many times. Many times, when I realised that decisions slowly lead to concrete death. And there are specific stories of life and death of people for whom I have great sympathy. And what their family went through later. I talked with many families of the victims and saw despair in their eyes. Well, it's hard. Very hard.  

From your point of view, where there any mistakes made in communications with Ukrainian society? 

[Breathes in audibly again] This is a difficult question. There are always mistakes. There are always mistakes, I wouldn't even say mistakes, you just live in conditions when you need to make a decision without having, I am not talking about us specifically, but in general situations are new and require some approaches and you expect for example one behavioural reaction from people, you build communication accordingly expecting logistics definitely but in the end, there is no such logistics. It concerns not only the partners-- 

But in the end are there some things that you, well, even if not in this stream but for yourself would call mistakes? 

Yes, for me there are mistakes that I have made, including-- This is normal for people who make difficult decisions. You know what the paradox is? When they say after the fact that something could have been done differently. I like it. Because after the fact everyone is smart out of the blue.  

Well, this is called l'esprit de l'escalier. Yes, there is such an effect. But analysis of system errors is always correct.  

Yes, analysis of system errors needs to be carried out. I just always say that at the moment when you need to make the most difficult decision, there is often no one around. Out of those who will later judge you. 

Is the Ukrainian society ready for the truth? 

Not only is it ready for it, it constantly consumes it, it constantly discusses it. It seems to me that it discusses and debates even beyond the truth.  

Well, during the war it learns not all the information.  

All the information... We again return to the concept of what the truth is. For everyone, it will be subjective by the amount of knowledge that they acquire on a particular subject. The whole entirety of information is always missing for everyone and everyone draws a conclusion based on half or one third of the information and so on. But Ukrainian society, in my opinion, is most ready, I would say not for the truth but for a fair debate, for very tough internal debates.  

That is, you think that it is ready. 

Of course.  

It's ready, and the overwhelming majority of people have this understanding that other people may have a different opinion. 

No.  

So, it doesn't mean readiness for debates [smiles]. 

Readiness for the truth, readiness for debate, and at the same time not willingness to admit that you're wrong. These are different things. That is, you're ready to hear but you're not ready to admit. It means that you're ready to-- 

This is not being ready for a debate [smiles].  

Mm... This is a debate. It's just that it will be in this form. In the form when you don't accept someone else's point of view but insist on your own.  

You have another Adviser of the Office Serhiy Leshchenko. Do you like him as a DJ? In general, how do you feel about his musical career during the war? 

1:05:31 This is his right [shrugs], well, the war doesn't need to completely rebuild a person's life in its entirety and make him a prisoner of only one particular direction. I for example read a lot of books. And the war did not remove this habit from me. I love sometimes to watch high-quality Netflix series in order to switch to some extent. He has rave music, well, in which he is invested. This allows him to switch off psychologically.  

In general, I think that-- It is a very important question, by the way, however paradoxical it is. Prevention for what today is an epidemic for modern humanity that lives in too of an information age. That is, already at the age-- in the old age, right, various types of Alzheimer's disease, dementia, and so on appear. This is precisely the prevention of this, this is the simultaneous opportunity to conduct several types of multidirectional activities. That is, here you read, here you make music in different senses of the word, either DJ or just play. 

Any specialised doctor who deals with this will tell you that.  

This is nothing new.  

A close relative of mine fell ill with Alzheimer's disease and until the last day while he was still healthy, he was the head of a large department at the Institute of Physics and was a scientist and-- 

Once again, switch to different types of activities. Use different segments of your brain. I don't know who is talking about the fact that you need to concentrate on only one thing. You need to be versatile and-- Look, brain is a very specific substance and is used very weakly by a person. The more you live, the lazier you become and do not exercise your brain. But you need to exercise it. A lot. So, I recommend studying quantum physics for example [smiles]. It's hard.  

At least. 

At least, yes [smiles].  

1:07:22 How often do you have to tell a lie? Not only in your service but in life, I don't know, in family, somewhere else? 

This is a complex definition of a lie. You can minimise the amount of information, understanding that-- 

It is the third time you've told me that it's very important. "You know, this is difficult. What is justice? What is truth?" And when you told me, this is difficult, I suddenly thought, there are basic things. You and I are sitting on a chair [he sighs]. Of course, we can discuss whether it's a stool or a bench. But in fact-- 

Speaking of basic things, there is no point in not speaking the truth. But if you're talking about difficult life situations, when you should take a gentle approach to the world perception of another person, then if you tell such a blunt truth in your interpretation, this is called excessive moralising. You must be too much in white clothes to allow yourself to do it.  

This is, by the way, disgusting. A disgusting tool that is used. 

That's correct. Therefore, you need to feel - yes. Therefore, you need to be able to feel the moment where-- Because the word "truth", once again, is a subjective interpretation of the flows you're in. And therefore, you must understand how a person will perceive it. Give something, say something. This is a very important component that determines your behaviour in life. That is, how pleasant you will be to people.  

1:08:45 You are a professional political strategist among other things and where, from your point of view these red lines lie? What can you do with your opponent, what not, because we have seen, for example we see now in the United States a very cool campaign [he sakes head].

I thought that nothing would help the Democrats, and suddenly they completely turned the game upside down and it turned out that they are again in a very competitive situation. That is, very often it can be done so that you turn the game around. Where is there a limit? 

Exactly in that place where it concerns a person's personal self. Insults. Family, personal self is unacceptable from the point of view of insults. Everything else, about what you are talking now about a specifical technical issue, yes, a strong candidate was nominated. The candidate speaks very clearly. I mean the Democrats, says specific things. To insult him? 

Well, it's pointless. You will then debate in the field that he will offer you. This is a specific solution in specific areas. It is not what the headquarters of the Republicans tried to do in relation to the previous candidate when they wanted to speculate only on the topic of personality, health and so on.  

We are not interfering now, they have the right, again, the headquarters, to do what they see fit, but again the candidate from the Democratic party turned the agenda into a discussion of specific issues, how will you react to unemployment, how will you react to war, how will you react to global leadership of the United States. This is a completely different discussion. That's cool, yes.  

Here's a discussion about the questions you need to answer. This is one, this is correct. The discussion that goes into the personal, insults, what is by the way characteristic of the Ukrainian political process, hate, insults, mythical incriminating evidence and so on and so forth. This is unacceptable. But unfortunately, we, once again, returning, we said a little earlier, we have not yet come out of the period of childhood, and our politics and our society.  

About being childish, for this childish behaviour you sometimes just want to slap them in the face, you know.  

Children, as you know, are sometimes the most cruel ones [smiles]. That is, they perceive everything very black and white.  

Are we not confusing childishness with meanness? 

[Sighs deeply] Ah, meanness. Well, look, man-- Meanness is one of the important components of competition for some people [she laughs; he smiles] and some people make a fortune due to meanness. Unfortunately. Unfortunately. But look, then what happens is that a vile person has made a fortune, made a career. Then he has a basic large amount of money and he hires other people who understand that he is vile, but money what? [smiles] Money doesn't smell.  

1:11:26 Do you consider selling hatred, because we really have 95% of the big bloggers doing exactly this, a signal that your opponents have no other arguments? 

[Breathes in] Of course, selling hatred is the last refuge of scoundrels [smiles] [he's referring to the aphorism of the English writer Samuel Johnson in 1775, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel]. This is undoubtedly. I am paraphrasing. But unfortunately, our understanding of this, or understanding of the society of this will not stop the sale of hatred. This is the easiest way. Once again, we talked about this. Selling hate, selling meanness, selling lies is the easiest way. Hate. 10, 100 times more-- 

Fast food. I call it fast carbohydrates, you know.  

This way you got fat; happy, but weak. We won't stop it all, unfortunately.  

1:12:25 And in the finale I'll ask you a possibly unexpected question. Many people consider you a pragmatic person and even well, cold enough, I've heard about this more than once. Remember, there was such a book by [Frédéric] Beigbeder "Love Lasts Three Years". My question is very simple. How long does love live?  

Forever and never. Both.  

What does it mean? 

If you are ready to give, it will live forever. If you are only ready to consume, it will never be with you. It's simple. Very simple.  

That is, forever you can count on only your own love. To expect someone to love you forever is impossible.  

Of course. Of course. But they will love you if you, if they feel that you are giving. But if they see that you are lying, are cynical, only consume, who will love you? 

What about the rational side of life? 

Rational, but that's facts. 

You know, if it was all so simple, they would love only the good ones who give. But they often also love bad ones.  

No. It is not a question of only loving the good ones. We are talking about love between people. We're not talking about how a person treats others, within the framework of a career and so on. He can be bad, he can be cynical, a scoundrel, but he can love sincerely. This is a little different. And therefore, not three years. And not ten, and not a day. 

Depending on your luck.  

Well, if the person you are with is yours. But this is very difficult. In general, there are many difficult things in life. And for this you need to do certain work and then you will be rewarded [smiles]. Well, then you will be given someone that is yours.  

Thank you, Mykhailo. 

Thank you.  

Thank you.