Leviathan
Leviathan (2014) is a Russian film directed by
AndreyZvyagintsev, co-written by Zvyagintsev and Oleg Negi, that it was chosen
the Best Screenplay at the 2014 Cannes Film Festival, the best film of the year
at the 45th International Film Festival of India and was awarded as Best
Foreign Language Film at the 72nd Golden Globe Awards.
The main character seems to follow the dreadful fate
of Job, a biblical figure confronting a biblical
monster that is mentioned in the Old Testament: mythic Leviathan. "Leviathan" is often considered synonymous with any monster
or large aquatic creature, meaning "whale" in Modern Hebrew. The Christian interpretation of
Leviathan often associates it to a demon or natural monster representing Satan
or the devil. For St. Thomas Aquinas, Leviathan is the demon of envy and the
first devil meant to punish corresponding sinners. In the Old Testament it designates
an evil power of Chaos, hence representing the pre-existing chaos forces. The Leviathan can also be interpreted as the
sea itself. According to such latter meaning the film starts and ends with views
of the hard landscapes designed by the Arctic Sea lashes
on the rocky shores, seeming to shape stone in the surrounding mountains, along tundra, immobile lakes as glass,
wrecked boats and deck skeletons at the bays, together with impressive thorax
bones of whales lying on the beaches. There is settled the house of the
protagonist, midway at the bend of the road climbing the hill crossing the
waters through a long bridge, endowing the site with a panoramic sight that
outlines the place with the appropriate scenery for a church, therefore ambitioned
by local authorities. The house has been constructed “with his own hands” by Kolya (Alexei Serebriakov) and officially
expropriated by the city mayor Vadim (Roman Madyanov), paying a grossly
undervalued estimate. Kolya
feels proud of earning the place where his grandfather and father have lived: “Here is all my life”. He lives there with his couple Lilia (Elena Lyadova) and
a son Roma (Sergey Pokhodaev), from his first marriage. Kolya is a car
mechanist that repairs the ones of neighbors and policemen, and is assessed in
his legal conflict with the mayor, by an old army friend Dmitri (Vladimir Vdovichenkov),
a lawyer from Moscow, that attempts to blackmail mayor Vadim when, winning the
trial for expropriation, menaces Kolya by bullying him with his official crew.
In response to his self-defense the protagonist is jailed while the lawyer is
caught, beaten and threatened to death. Moreover, unlawful with his friend,
involves in sexual intercourse with his wife, exposing both of them to the
Kolya’s social group awareness meanwhile the group and son are departing
together an outing at the coast invited by the police officer to play rifle
shots on pictures of the previous Soviet leaders, ranging from Lenin to Brezhnev and
Gorbachov. This situation emerges
after receiving the tribunal law confirmation of the house appropriation moving
the lawyer to speak to the authority, at the same time that Lilia visits a
dismantled apartment in the search of new lodging. The extramarital affair
seems therefore a defense to escape from facing the definitive loss of the
house along her husband despair of losing the lodge and vulnerability to defend
it, stimulated by strong vodka dependence. Whereas Kolya pardons her after
menacing the unfaithful couple with death at the moment when both are found
copulating at the social meeting, Lilya, debates herself in leaving Kolya by
running away to Moscow together with the lawyer and further submit to the grim
future accompanying her mate and his son that rejects and scolds her; until
finally throws herself into the void at the sea from a cliff. When after short
time disappearance her corpse is found in the beach, suspicion of murder by her
husband is posed by friends who had listened his irascible threat of death at
the time she was found together with the lawyer friend. Thereafter Kolya is
brought again to judgment and condemned to prison for 15 years,
leaving orphan his child. On his side mayor Vadim obtains spiritual comfort
from the local Orthodox Church bishop, who encourages his expropriation position
by supporting the need to own territory, a fact that would lay beside God’s
will: “Perhaps both of us work for the same cause. But you have your territory,
I have mine. All the power comes from God: where is power, there is strength.
If you have power, own your territory; resolve your problems by yourself, with
your strength. Don’t ask for help or your enemy will think you are weak”. Finally Kolya's house is expropriated and
fully collapsed along its furniture and belongings, spectacularly shown by a
whole screen image of the crane demolishing the house sincetearing away the
window as extracting a tree from the roots, seeming to depict the modern profile
of some prehistoric monster still resting at the shores, mythic Leviathan.
In the last scene the Orthodox
bishop preaches a sermon addressing the congregation in the new church building at
the same place where Kolya’s house was built before: “God doesn’t lay in
strength but in truth. And not by strength but by love, nor with cunning, but with wisdom, with rage or hatred but with courage
we have overcome the many enemies of our faith and our country. Always speak
truth that is God’s legacy, reflects the world without distortion. Only that
one who knows the truth of God can find the truth. Freedom is to find the truth
of God”. Time before an orthodox priest had given spiritual support to Kolya’s
plight asking where God is at such dreadful times, when he is losing his
property and is selling everything “for nothing”, by quoting Leviathan’s inescapable doom message
as depicted in the Book of Job, calling him to
accept his grim fate, from which God’s redemption in possible. “Can you fish Leviathan with bait or else tie
its tongue with a rope? Would it speak with amiable words or ask for pity? Job
resigned to his bad luck and lived until140 years old, following four
generations of his family”.
Endorsing hypocrisy the official
church message justifies dispossession and transfer of property to the state
backed by other authority complying with the political system, abusing from
civilian rights. Such authoritarian social system is characterized by highly
concentrated and centralized power maintained by political repression and the exclusion of potential
challengers. It uses political parties and mass organizations to mobilize people around the goals of the
regime.Authoritarianism also tends to embrace the informal and unregulated
exercise of political power, a leadership that is
"self-appointed and even if elected cannot be displaced by citizens' free
choice among competitors," the arbitrary deprivation of civil liberties, and little tolerance for meaningful opposition. A range of social controls also attempt to stifle civil society,
while political stability is maintained by control over and support of the armed forces,
a bureaucracy staffed by the regime, and creation of allegiance
through various means of socialization
and indoctrination, including religion. Authoritarian
political systems may be weakened through "inadequate performance to
demands of the people. Authoritarianism is marked by
"indefinite political tenure" of the ruler or ruling party
supporters. The Soviet Eastern bloc states in the mid-1980s converted
into Post-totalitarian authoritarian regimes ruled by totalitarian
institutions (such as the party, secret police
and state-controlled mass media) where "ideological orthodoxy has declined
in favor of routinization”, holding authoritarian repression and arbitrary
legal measures under masked proceedings . Such regimes had been further
subcategorized as: 1. Personalistic authoritarian regimes, that are
characterized by arbitrary rule and authority
exercised "mainly through patronage networks and coercion rather than
through institutions and formal rules"; 2. Populist authoritarian regimes
"that are mobilizational regimes in which a strong, charismatic, manipulative
leader rules through a coalition involving key lower-class groups." One
example is Argentina under the diverse Peronist
party leaders since the government of Peron and his followers.
Leviathan’s social structure in many terms
resembles Argentina, collecting corrupted Peronist party leaders in close
relation with the Catholic Church, the pope Francis admitting to be himself a
Peronist sympathizer, while receiving in the Vatican constant visits of such
politicians. Hard mafia in the government party have been constantly denounced
for their alleged crimes in the business affairs and diverse criminal acts,
lately involving journalists and attorney Alberto Nisman, suspected to be
assassinated the day before declaring in the congress about the President
Cristina Fernández Kirchner compliance with an Iranian agreement that would had
concealed in turn the prosecution of responsibility of Iran in the bombing of
Israel embassy and AMIA Jew association.
At the same time the President
CFK develops constant legal measures to submit the Judicial Power to her will,
including the blockage of the Supreme Court authority and creating other legal
instruments for secure avoidance from Justice that could impute her followers
showing different degree of offenses and unjustified enrichment. Otherwise the
budget for retirees is permanently derived to political and propaganda uses.
Football and constant use of the national broadcast serve to divulgate her
political publicity. Cultural programs create forums for National Thought
designs as well monumental buildings and constant references to her dead
couple, Nestor Kirchner, that are further destined
to collect followers in spite of almost three fold increases in estimated
budgets. Her declarations insist to blame others and discharge from any fault,
as i.e. accusing as suicide Alberto Nisman’s death the day immediate after his
corpse was found in a very strange situation. In such case, police guard had
been accused of controversial declarations concerning his custody at the time range when
the attorney was found dead in his apartment.
Artists had often denounced the submission of
police, Justice and cultural organizations to post-totalitarian authorities in
movies and novels. In Leviathan the chief policeman invites Kolya to play rifle shots on Soviet party leaders
up to Brezhnev. In the French film by Radu
Mihăileanu Le
Concert (2009), nominated for several cinema awards, a former world-famous
conductor of the Bolshoi Theatre orchestra, that had had his career publicly
broken by Leonid Brezhnev for defending Jewish musicians that were deported to Siberia to spent the rest of their lives. In
the film directed by Vojtěch Jasný “The Cassandra Cat” (also released under the
title The Cat Who Wore Sunglasses) that won two major awards at the Cannes Film Festival in 1963 is denounced emotional repression in
the
Czechoslovakian Soviet times education. It
tells the story of a mysterious traveling circus that arrives in a village accompanied by a sunglass-wearing cat that if
removed, reflects people in their true feelings, envy and cowardice revealing
themselves in the educational authorities.
Soviet underground literature (Madrid: Guadarrama, 1969)
accounts stories, poems and fables from rebellious writers condemned to prison
in Siberia if not jailed in mental
hospitals, as poets from the SMOG Group, Y. Vishnevskaya, L. Gubanov and V.
Bukovskij. Many writers were imprisoned: A. Sinjavskij, J. Daniel, Y.
Galanskov, Aleksander Solshenitsen.
We're used to seeing
wandering
along the streets in free time
faces, mutilated for life,
same as yours.
And suddenly,
like the rumble of thunder
and like the appearance of Christ in the world,
he rebelled
trampled and crucified
human beauty.
I am me
inviting you to the truth and revolt,
he does not want to serve more,
and I break your black locks
woven of lies.
It's me,
bound by law,
manifesto man who screams!
And the raven sculpt with its beak
in marble body
the cross!
same as yours.
And suddenly,
like the rumble of thunder
and like the appearance of Christ in the world,
he rebelled
trampled and crucified
human beauty.
I am me
inviting you to the truth and revolt,
he does not want to serve more,
and I break your black locks
woven of lies.
It's me,
bound by law,
manifesto man who screams!
And the raven sculpt with its beak
in marble body
the cross!
Human
manifesto Y. Galanskov
The Gulag Archipelago is a book by Aleksandr
Solzhenitsyn
featuring the Soviet forced labor camp system. GULag or Gulág is
an acronym for
the Russian term "Chief Administration of Corrective Labour Camps",
the bureaucratic name of the governing board of the Soviet labour camp system,
and by metonymy,
the camp system itself. Although since the dissolution of the
Soviet Union and
the formation of the Russian Federation, The Gulag Archipelago has
been officially published, and it has been included in the high school program
in Russia as mandatory reading since 2009, Solzhenitsyn was aware, however,
that the outlines of the system had survived and could be revived and expanded
by future leaders. Solzhenitsyn and many among the opposition tended to view it
as a systemic fault of Soviet political culture — an inevitable outcome of the Bolshevik totalitarian
political project. Along the way, Solzhenitsyn's examination details the
trivial and commonplace events of an average prisoner's life, as well as
specific and noteworthy events during the history of the Gulag system,
including revolts and uprisings. Solzhenitsyn also waxes philosophical:
"Macbeth's
self-justifications were feeble – and his conscience devoured him. Yes, even
Iago was a little lamb, too. The imagination and spiritual strength of
Shakespeare's evildoers stopped short at a dozen corpses. Because they had no ideology.
Ideology – that is what gives evildoing its long-sought justification and gives
the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination. That is the social
theory which helps to make his acts seem good instead of bad in his own and
others' eyes.... That was how the agents of the Inquisition fortified their
wills: by invoking Christianity; the conquerors of foreign lands, by extolling
the grandeur of their Motherland; the colonizers, by civilization; the Nazis,
by race; and the Jacobins (early and late), by equality, brotherhood, and the
happiness of future generations.... Without evildoers there would have been no
Archipelago."
—Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Chapter 4, p. 173
Aside from using his experiences as an inmate
at a scientific prison, Solzhenitsyn draws from the testimony of 227 fellow
prisoners, the firsthand accounts which base the work basis of the novel The First Circle (1968). There had been works about the Soviet prison/camp system
before, and its existence had been known to the Western public since the 1930s.
However, never before had the general reading public been brought face to face
with the horrors of the Gulag in this way. According to Solzhenitsyn's
testimony, Stalin merely amplified a concentration camp system that was already in place.
On his side Russian nuclear physicist, Soviet dissident and human rights activist Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov
(May 21, 1921 – December 14, 1989- who became an advocate of civil liberties and civil reforms in the Soviet Union, faced state persecution His
efforts earned him the Nobel Peace Prize in 1975. The Sakharov Prize,
which is awarded annually by the European Parliament for people and organizations
dedicated to human rights and freedoms, is named in his honour. In 1973 and
1974, the Soviet media campaign targeted both Sakharov and Aleksandr
Solzhenitsyn. While
Sakharov disagreed with Solzhenitsyn's vision of Russian revival, he deeply
respected him for his courage. Only a few individuals in the Soviet Union dared
to defend 'traitors' like Sakharov and Solzhenitsyn, and those who had dared
were inevitably punished..Sakharov later described that it took
"years" for him to "understand how much substitution, deceit,
and lack of correspondence with reality there was" in the Soviet ideals.
"At first I thought, despite everything that I saw with my own eyes, that
the Soviet State was a breakthrough into the future, a kind of prototype for
all countries". Afterwards he came, in his words, to "the theory of
symmetry: all governments and regimes to a first approximation are bad, all
peoples are oppressed, and all are threatened by common dangers." After
that he realized that there is not much "symmetry between a cancer cell
and a normal one. Yet our state is similar to a cancer cell – with its
messianism and expansionism, its totalitarian suppression of dissent, the
authoritarian structure of power, with a total absence of public control in the
most important decisions in domestic and foreign policy, a closed society that
does not inform its citizens of anything substantial, closed to the outside
world, without freedom of travel or the exchange of information."
Sakharov's ideas on social development led him to put forward the principle of
human rights as a new basis of all politics. Although he was awarded the Nobel
Peace Prize in 1975, he was not allowed to leave the Soviet Union to collect
it. His wife read his speech at the ceremony in Oslo, Norway. The Norwegian Nobel
Committee called
him "a spokesman for the conscience of mankind". In the words of the
Nobel Committee's citation: "In a convincing manner Sakharov has emphasized
that Man's inviolable rights provide the only safe foundation for genuine and
enduring international cooperation."]In no way did Sakharov
consider himself a prophet or the like: "I am no volunteer priest of the
idea, but simply a man with an unusual fate. I am against all kinds of
self-immolation (for myself and for others, including the people closest to
me)." In a letter written from exile, he cheered up a fellow physicist and
human rights activist with the words: "Fortunately, the future is
unpredictable and also – because of quantum effects – uncertain." For Sakharov the indeterminacy of the future
supported his belief that he could, and should, take personal responsibility
for it.
Environment is harsh and cruel in Russia, in
some way similar to the hard conditions that Russia governments –whether royal
or soviet- had exposed their citizens to, which it’s not the case of Argentina
because of its mild environmental conditions that preserve good conditions for
living except the fast growing poverty multiplying in the big city outskirts, as
favored by the Peronist movement holding secure voters addicted to complacency
with occupation of land and different kinds of business flourishing in poverty
as drug and sex commerce, creating odd standards for feeling proud of a shanty
town identity “Identidad villera” and marginal political activism (“batallón
militante”: militant battalion). The
democratic function abnormalities due to manipulation by political minorities
groups linked to political-military and economic power lead to the pathology of
Argentina’s modern national identity, stimulates aggressive or warlike
nationalism, or as it has been happening in other countries of Latin America,
fosters pseudo-democratic functioning exposed to widespread corruption in the
economic and the legal frauds. According to Tugendhat [Quoted by Comuzzi, 2010]
in order to accomplish the personal or national identity it is needed to
amalgamate social integration through the development of ethical powers as it is
the moral responsibility for homelessness, which is contrary to indifference as
much as the ideological and advertising easily distorted charity that grows with
the demagogic practice and cult of personalism.
Russia
and Argentina have signed an agreement on developing a comprehensive strategic
partnership between Moscow and Buenos Aires after talks between Vladimir Putin
and Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner in Moscow (May 2015). The
document was signed by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and his Argentine
counterpart Hector Timerman. The defense ministers of Russia and Argentine
Sergey Shoigu and Agustin Rossi signed an agreement on military cooperation.
Russian presidential aide Yury Ushakov said earlier that the document outlines
parameters and main directions of bilateral military cooperation. A program for
cooperation in culture and art for 2016-2018 was also signed between the two
countries. President CFK has praised Russia invasion of Crimea in Ukraine as a
similar quest of that one of military genocide government assault to the Malvinas/
Falkland islands in April 1982, employing untrained soldiers after hard
repressive dictatorship executing/ disappearing several thousands of citizens.
Attack to the press and to the Judicial system has become a permanent strategy
in order to abolish opposition to the authoritarian style measures rendering
the presidential rule a unique story version further expanded by continuous
discourses emission by the national broadcast chain and circumvention of any
legal or parliamentary investigation over corruption in the wealth increase and
concerted business. An Iranian – Argentine agreement born under such rare
atmosphere context, similar as those with similar misbehavior pattern ruling
business and money circulation with Venezuela, has overlooked the alleged role
of Iran in two bombing attacks to Jewish delegations, as was denounced by
attorney Alberto Nisman, who appeared dead in his apartment the day before he
was to present his declaration at the congress (see before).
Cast
SergeyPokhodaev as Roma
References
COMUZZI, I., Identidad y democracia: punto de encuentro para la integración de los latinoamericanos en Canadá. CD con las Ponencias de la Jornada Internacional “Nación, Diversidad. Pluralismo. Entre el crisol de Razas y el Multiculturalismo. Miradas cruzadas Argentina-Canadá”, llevado a cabo en la Facultad de Ciencias Económicas de la UBA el 15-16 XI, 2010.
“Soviet underground
literature”, Madrid: Guadarrama, 1969.
Today’s Washington
Post includes a long piece
by journalist Juan Forero on what he calls Latin America’s “new
authoritarians”:
More than two decades after Latin America’s last
right-wing dictatorships dissolved, a new kind of authoritarian leader is
rising in several countries: democratically elected presidents who are ruling
in increasingly undemocratic ways.
Unlike the iron-fisted juntas of a generation ago,
these leaders do not assassinate opposition figures or declare martial law. But
in a handful of countries, charismatic populists are posing the most serious
challenge to democratic institutions in Latin America since the 1980s, when
rebel wars and dictators were the norm. In Venezuela, Ecuador, Nicaragua and
other countries, leaders have amassed vast powers that they use to control
courts while marginalizing their opponents and the media, human rights groups
and analysts say.
I’m glad to see the Post
devote a bunch of column-inches to a comparative analysis of democratization in
a region to which the U.S. really ought to be paying more attention. Most of
what we in the U.S. hear about Latin America deals with immigration or drugs,
so any thoughtful attempt to grapple with the domestic politics of our nearest
neighbors is welcome. I also think the article accurately identifies
important patterns in governance in several of the countries it describes. That
said, I have two major beefs with this piece.
First of all, this is not a “new kind of authoritarian
leader.” The cases the story emphasizes fit into a broader category of regimes
that has become more prevalent in many parts of the world in the past two
decades, not just recently and not just in Latin America.
Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way call this phenomenon “competitive authoritarianism,”
and Andreas Schedler calls it “electoral
authoritarianism,” but whatever label we use, the
basic form is the same. In these regimes, multiparty elections occur regularly,
and ballots are counted correctly, but ruling officials harass political
rivals, constrain civil liberties, and bend state resources to ensure that they
win anyway. Other important examples can be found in most of the former Soviet
Union (e.g., Russia, Armenia, and Georgia), in Asia (e.g.,
Cambodia, Malaysia, and Singapore), and in Africa (e.g., Cameroon, Gabon, the
Gambia, and Republic of Congo).
This pattern is not even new to Latin America, and in
that region, there’s a lot of variation across cases and over time in the
extent to which these self-aggrandizing strategies have been employed. Among
the cases the article discusses, Venezuela arguably slid from democracy into
electoral authoritarianism as far back as 2000, and almost certainly not later
than 2005. Ecuador probably fell below the line in 2007, when president Rafael
Correa steamrolled the legislature and supreme court to produce a constitution
more to his liking, but general elections held in 2009 were substantially
fairer. In Bolivia, Evo Morales has tried to push in a similar direction, but
those attempts have been partially rebuffed, and the regime has
remained basically democratic. Probably the newest cases of electoral
authoritarianism in Latin America can be found in Nicaragua and Honduras, the
latter since its 2009 coup and the former since Daniel Ortega resolved the constitutional crisis of 2009 in favor of his
own ruling party.
Second, charisma and populism do not explain how or
why these regimes arise. Neither of these qualities is necessary or sufficient
for the emergence of electoral authoritarianism. In Honduras, for example,
the post-coup president is not particularly charismatic, and the regime’s
policies are more oligarchical or laissez faire than populist. In Nicaragua,
Daniel Ortega is beloved by his supporters but reviled by many of his
detractors, and those detractors are numerous.
Personally, I think we get a lot farther if we think
of these regimes as the end state toward which most attempts at democracy will
slide because incumbent officials usually have strong incentives to consolidate
their hold on power. As I have discussed again
and again on this blog and elsewhere, most attempts at democracy end
in a return to authoritarian rule, sometimes by military coup but now more
often when elected officials rig the system in their own favor. Those officials
don’t need to be particularly charismatic to pull this off, and in many cases,
they don’t pursue populist agendas after they do. Above all else, what
facilitates this process is the incumbent’s institutional advantage. It’s easy
to pull the levers of power when you already have your hands on them, and it’s
often quite hard to mobilize resistance against these moves when you’re stuck
outside the halls of government. Instead of trying to explain this phenomenon
with reference to the personalities and tactics in the many cases where
backslides happen, we would probably do better to focus on the idiosyncrasies
of the rarer cases where democracy manages to persist.
In fact, I think the over-reliance on charisma and
populism as explanations for the emergence of these regimes speaks to a common
error in the way many U.S. observers think about the nature of the problem. I
get the sense that many U.S. analysts and officials still view Latin America
through a Cold War lens that conflates leftist and anti-American policies with
authoritarianism. This bias causes them to err on the side of including leftist
governments on this list of “bad guys” while excluding more conservative ones. Thus,
Bolivia and Ecuador keep landing on the roster of “new authoritarians” in spite
of their ambiguities while cases like Honduras are more often overlooked or
explained away. In 2003, when Brazil elected a staunchly leftist president for
the first time since democracy was restored in the mid-1980s, there was a lot
of grumbling in Washington about the threat of an authoritarian turn without a
shred of real evidence to support it.
Until we do a better job distinguishing between these
various dimensions of politics, we’re going to have a hard time understanding
what’s happening—not just in Latin America, but also in the Arab world, Africa,
Asia, and even in Europe nowadays. More generally, while
I’m always happy to see journalists engaging in this kind of comparative
analysis, I would be even happier if they would talk to fewer politicians and activists
and more analysts when they do.
Argentina to get access to
state-of-the-art Russian nuclear technology — Putin
April 23,
16:40 UTC+3
Russia and Argentina have signed more than 20 documents during the two-day visit of Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner to Moscow
Russia and Argentina have signed more than 20 documents during the two-day visit of Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner to Moscow
OSCOW, April 23.
/TASS/. The participation of Russian state nuclear corporation Rosatom in the
construction of a nuclear power plant unit in Argentina will make it possible for
that country to get access to state-of-the-art Russian technologies in the
nuclear power sphere, Russian President Vladimir Putin said after talks with
his Argentinian counterpart Cristina Fernбndez de Kirchner.
In the presence of the
two countries’ leaders, Rosatom and Argentina’s Federal Planning, Public
Investment and Services Ministry signed a memorandum of understanding on
cooperation in the construction of a nuclear power plant in Argentina.
"Rosatom joined
the project of building the sixth power unit of the Atucha Nuclear Power Plant.
Implementation of agreements reached today in the sphere will ensure for
Argentina access to state-of-the-art Russian technology matching the toughest
nuclear security requirements," Putin said.
Russia, Argentina sign
agreement on strategic partnership
Russia and Argentina
have signed an agreement on developing a comprehensive strategic partnership
between Moscow and Buenos Aires after talks between Vladimir Putin and Cristina
Fernandez de Kirchner on Thursday in Moscow.
The document was
signed by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and his Argentine counterpart
Hector Timerman. The defense ministers of Russia and Argentine Sergey Shoigu
and Agustin Rossi signed an agreement on military cooperation. Russian presidential
aide YuryUshakov said earlier that the document outlines parameters and main
directions of bilateral military cooperation.
A program for
cooperation in culture and art for 2016-2018 was also signed between the two
countries. The document was signed by the culture ministers of Russia and
Argentina Vladimir Medinsky and Teresa Sellares.
Russia and Argentina
have signed more than 20 documents during the two-day visit of Argentine
President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner to Moscow.
The documents include
agreements between the two governments on mutual protection of classified
information in the sphere of military and technical cooperation, cooperation in
the sphere of environmental protection, a memorandum of understanding between
the foreign ministries and cooperation in the sphere of archives.
Russia’s Federal Space
Agency (Roscosmos) and the National Space Activities of Argentina have inked a
joint statement on cooperation in the sphere of research and using the outer
space for peaceful purposes.
Russia and Argentina
have also signed a program of joint actions on developing tourism in 2015 and
2016.
Russian presidential
aide Yuri Ushakov said on Wednesday the signing of these documents confirms a
new status of relations between Moscow and Buenos Aires.
Russia and Argentina sign number of agreements on
promoting economic cooperation
Russia and Argentina
signed a number of agreements on promoting economic cooperation between the two
countries.
VEB and Inter RAO
signed a protocol of intent to implement a multi-purpose project for
construction of a power plant Chihuido-1 in Argentina with Argentine ministries
and agencies. According to VEB Head Vladimir Dmitriev, the total project
investment will amount to roughly $2 bln. "VEB credit resources for this
project will amount to roughly $1.2 bln, including the delivery of Russian
equipment, and the payment of 35% of the contract to local organizations and
contractors," Dmitriev said.
Gazprom and the
Argentine energy company YPF signed a memorandum of understanding.
The Russian Federal
Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Surveillance and the Argentine
Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries signed a cooperation program
in the field of agriculture, fisheries and aquaculture for 2015-2016.
Russian Atomic Energy
Corporation Rosatom and the Ministry of Federal Planning, Public Investment and
Services of Argentina signed a Memorandum of Understanding on cooperation in
the construction of a nuclear power plant in Argentina.
Russian Economic
Development Ministry and Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Argentina signed the
strategic action plan for the Russian-Argentine trade, economic and investment
cooperation in the framework of the Intergovernmental Russian-Argentine
Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation for 2015 -
2016.
Russian Ministry of
Industry and the Ministry of Industry of Argentina signed a memorandum of
understanding.
(References quoted from Wikipedia)
«2014 OfficialSelection». Cannes. Consultado el 17 de abril de 2014.
«Awards2014 :Competition». Cannes. Consultado el 25 de mayo de 2014.
72ND ANNUAL GOLDEN GLOBE® AWARDS NOMINEES ANNOUNCED. «Russia backs social drama Leviathanfor Oscar after
Cannes win». GlobalPost.
Archipiélago Gulag: 1918-1956 Ensayo
de investigación literaria, "El Arca de Papel",
Plaza y Janés, S.A., Editores, Barcelona, 1974. ISBN
84-01-41050-9Archipiélago Gulag: 1918-1956 Ensayo
de investigación literaria I-II, Plaza y
Janés, S.A., Editores, Barcelona, 1975ISBN 84-01-33066
AleksandrIsaevichSolzhenitsyn,
Vladimir LamsdorffGalagane.
Archipiélago Gulag,
1918-1956: ensayo de investigación literaria Plaza &Janés,
1977. ISBN
84-01-41111-4
Archipiélago Gulag: 1918-1956:
ensayo de investigación literaria Círculo
de Lectores, 1998. ISBN
84-226-6879-3
Archipiélago Gulag I, II y III. Tusquets Editores, Barcelona 1998. ISBN
978-84-8310-408-8 (tomo I), ISBN
978-84-8310-409-5 (tomo II), ISBN
978-84-8383-021-5 (tomo III).
Guillermo A. Pérez Sánchez. En
torno al archipiélago de Gulag: Un apunte sobre la violación de los Derechos
Humanos en la Unión Soviética en La declaración universal de
los derechos humanos en su 50 aniversario / coord. por Manuel Balado
Ruiz-Gallegos, José Antonio García Regueiro, María José de la Fuente y de la
Calle, 1998, ISBN
84-7676-483-9, págs. 185-192
Ricardo M. Martín de la Guardia, Guillermo A. Pérez Sánchez. Solzhenitsyn
y el impacto del archipiélago Gulag en España. Veintiuno: revista de
pensamiento y cultura, ISSN 1131-7736, Nº. 30, 1996, pags. 47-64
Electoral
Authoritarianism in Latin America: Important, but Not “New”
Sidney David Drell, Sergeǐ Petrovich Kapitsa, Sakharov
Remembered: a tribute by friends and colleagues (1991), p. 4
