<\/p>\n
The Rossiya 1 television channel put aside Olympic daily coverage Monday evening to show an 85-minutes film called \u201cThe Biochemistry of Treason,\u201d featuring the United States in a co-starring role. The film and its prospects caused a detailed review in the Washington Post, according to which the film argued that America has waged and still wages a tricky, strategically well-thought psychological war against Russia. The Voice of Russia political observer Dmitry Babich expressed his opinion.<\/p>\n
Tell us just briefly about Ukraine. We were just told about those amendments the protestors are supporting. What are these amendments about? What do these people want and what will this bring to Ukraine if they are accepted?<\/span><\/p>\n Obviously, the final aim is to remove president Yanukovich from power. So, I think the protestors are interested in these amendments primarily with this aim in their mind because just a few years ago when the nationalist president Yushchenko came to power in 2005, they were against these very amendments because they wanted Yushchenko to have the full power. These amendments would return Ukraine to the situation of 2004-2005, when the president had his powers limited by the parliament, the Rada. So, I think it is rather dangerous game because we have seen during the last half year, during the last 6 months that Rada was most of the time just blocked, its work was blocked by sometimes nationalist opposition, just blocking the podium and not allowing the speakers from the ruling party to speak or sometimes the party of regions did the same. So, the Rada is not quite capable of working and I don\u2019t know what will happen if the old constitution of 2005 is returned.<\/p>\n Why the US perceives the movie so close to heart? Is not the film really about the notion of a traitor as it is?<\/span><\/p>\n I would say that there are parts of this film that I can agree with, there are parts of it which sort of inspire distrust in me, there are parts which I am ready to argue against. But in general I think there is this review in the Washington Post primarily because it fits the pattern of Russia reporting by the Washington Post, and the mainstream of the western media. Usually the western media has very few arguments on Russia. Their only argument is that Russian people are shielded from the American information, from the information from the west-European countries, from their views, their views differ on everything. They think that Russians are brainwashed by government propaganda. So, the fact that this film was shown on a government-owned channel, the fact that parts of it present the events after World War II as unending propaganda war of the US against Russia, this fact sort of fits the pattern. So, I think the Washington Post paid so much attention to it. There are lots of other sorts of information in Russia and the film actually tells us about them, for at least 25 years, a lot of deeply held Soviet beliefs about World War II were reviewed in Russia, and even now every day we have more articles, books, sometimes radio and TV programs destroying more and more myths. Unfortunately, most of the cold war myths and most of the myths about World War II that were prevalent in the west, they didn\u2019t change.<\/p>\n If the US is so much bothered by the issue and takes it totally into their account, does it mean America might really have something behind the scenes?<\/span><\/p>\n I think it is quite obvious to everyone reading the American press and the press of the EU countries that the coverage of Russia has been very negative. There was just a brief period between 1989 and 1992 when there were positive stories and that was the time, late Gorbachev time, early Yeltsin time, but that was a terrible time for Russia. The Soviet Union was falling apart, it was a tragic movement for a lot of people, maybe the Balts don\u2019t see it as a tragic moment, although they also had a lot of trouble than and afterwards. The majority of people in Russia were in big danger and in very dire states in the moment. That was the only moment when coverage was positive. Afterwards it was undeservedly negative.<\/p>\n Why have the US been so much dissatisfied with any recent activity performed by Russia? Is it the US-Russia relation crisis aftermath, or another turn in the lack of mutual understanding?<\/span><\/p>\n I think it is just very unwise policy, the policy of the US and of the EU towards Russia, and Ukraine, and Belarus, and other countries of the former Soviet Union. I think it is just plain wrong because take for example Yanukovich. He never did anything bad to the west. Ok, he didn\u2019t sign that agreement in Lithuania for objective reasons. He didn\u2019t say that he didn\u2019t want to sign it. He just postponed the signing, because it was going to cost a lot of money. The country couldn\u2019t afford it.<\/p>\n