Alexey Kaftan: "The main thing is to adopt NATO standards"

How does Ukrainian diplomacy look today? Is our "innovation" noticeable at the global level, and if not, why? How and what do you need to fill the southern vector of Kyiv? Who and why in NATO is able to "hold us to the chest"? About this and another - in an interview with Alexei Kaftan, "star" international representative of major Ukrainian mass media.

Alexey, how would you - in general - describe the style of post-revolutionary Ukrainian diplomacy?

Absence of any style. Fragments of Sovietness at every step are interspersed with traces of the mess of the nineties. As a result, we have something perfectly described on the frontispiece of Slawomir Mrozek's collection "I want to be a horse": a giant with a very small pen cannot make the slightest effort.

Ukraine is a warring state. Does our foreign policy meet the challenges of such a state, or does it prefer bureaucratic "sybarism" to the ultimate bureaucratic resources?

Categorically does not correspond. Diplomacy is the same war, only by different means. And this war (and the war is by no means just a chain of battles) goes on forever. It is not only and not so much about sybarism - without quotes - but about blatant incompetence and gigantic efforts that are wasted on hardware intrigues and competitions "whose tongue is smooth". Meanwhile, for effective work, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs must stop being a servant of the Bank. He should have at least a consultative vote and at least a limited right of veto on nonsense from the AP, similar to how it works between the State Department and the White House or between the Foreign Office and Downing Street. But for this, powerful analytical groups, effective communication with the intelligence community and not afraid of responsibility and quarrels with the "first" ministers are necessary. That is, this is a systemic problem of the state apparatus as a whole. Loyalty is greater than knowledge and experience. However, even in these conditions, it is possible to achieve the best results if you master only 36 classic stratagems.

If there is something wrong with our media broadcasting on "far-off foreign countries", what exactly is wrong?

And what, do we have mass media broadcasting in "faraway foreign countries"? Even the satellite channels are too small. In the "standard" news block of BBC, CNN and even Russia Today, there are always messages that are easily perceived and assimilated - often uncritically, which is very important - by an audience that is very far from British, American and Russian everyday life. If you want to be interested in Ukraine, forget to talk about the eternal struggle, harem pants and Cossacks. It is not the story that is sold, but its result. The fundamental principle of banking works here: it is most difficult to get loans for those who have no money. And therefore look for the global context in everything. What is this? This is the threat of Ebola in Cote d'Ivoire, affecting sweet tooths and confectioners, including the most august European monarchs. This is the war in Sudan, which Pepsico Inc. is worried about. together with Coca-Cola Co. Who is shaken by the annexation of Crimea?

In your opinion, is Ukraine building a dialogue with Turkey correctly? Taking into account all this flirting between Erdogan and Putin? And if it's wrong, why?

Already in the voprose itself there is an answer: wrong. If the dialogue had been structured correctly, Putin would not have even thought of flirting. Ukraine is not interesting to Turkey, Turkey is not interesting to Ukraine. Alas, this is precisely the case when this interest must be created artificially. And there were opportunities.

But in all the years of independence, we and Turkey, despite the many small and not very good businessmen, never became neighbors. Turks know "Natash", we know "Ahmetov", but for some reason joint ventures arise mainly between them. This is a complex problem, but here is, for example, a question: where is Chernomorskaya Synergy? We spawned entities and instantly lost interest in them.

Loyalty to Turkey has always cost everyone dearly. We preferred to save and lose much more.

For example, instead of establishing clear rules of the joint game in Crimea, we (the SBU, first of all) cleaned it from the influence of Turkish radicals like Gülen (by the way, the owner of the Ülker confectionery company known to us in the 90s and Erdoğan's teacher), providing service to the FSB.

Saying that we want to join NATO is wrong, right? What we don't want is even worse. And what is the right thing to do?

He correctly says that we want security. And not only talking, but also taking appropriate steps. I will not dwell on the "Finnish", "Swiss" or "Israeli" model - it is obvious that we need some elements of each of them. But, in general, it is obvious that a direct transfer of the positioning model is impossible. We have written, if I am not mistaken, already the fifth military doctrine - this is extremely much. Why did it become possible at all? It is clear that a strawberry country with a ruined economy cannot be neutral: self-sufficiency for it is a way of slow suicide.

But if one alliance (more precisely, one country from its composition) is trying to eat us, and the second alliance is not ready to officially accept it, what is left to do?

Act like Sweden - fully adopt NATO standards, organizational, political, communication, weapons, bring all relevant structures to the highest possible level of compatibility. And stop at the threshold of formalizing relations. In parallel, they are developing regional security structures, especially since Sweden's neighbors, as well as Ukraine's neighbors, are mostly members of the Alliance.

Stockholm. Sweden

PolUkrLit - this is good, but not enough. A Ukrainian-Moldavian-Romanian analogue would also be very useful. And the development of military and military-technical partnership along the entire Baltic-Black Sea arc up to the Balkans - too. Joint exercises with the Vyšehrad Group or Turkey - of course, yes! By the way, this is an additional chance that they will vote "for" when applying.

Do you think, in general, do modern Ukrainian mass media need international analysts?

Modern Ukrainian mass media, in general, do not need analysts. This does not mean that the audience is stupid or does not need their production. This only means that in its current form, the Ukrainian mass media are not able to successfully sell analytics.

Sex, violence and sensations are easier to sell.

The media market of Ukraine is probably undergoing serious changes today - in your opinion, what are they?

In the midst of attempts to make (old) NTV and RT in Ukrainian. Meanwhile, we need Al Jazeera.

During the past year, many graduates of "Mohylyanka" joined the parliament and executive power structures. What would you wish for them?

I have never known so many deputies in my life. I would like to wish them synergy and loyalty to the oath.

Interviewed Maxim Mykhaylenko