Pavel Palazhchenko is not just Gorbachev’s translator. This man has been with the President of the USSR for 20 years - as long as perestroika this year. By his own admission, he pulled out a lucky ticket, becoming an eyewitness to many historical events, communicating by the will of fate with the great leaders of the planet. Pavel Palazhchenko told our correspondents about the peculiarities of the work of a simultaneous interpreter at the highest level, about Gorbachev “up close,” and about some of the mores of the world establishment.
One of the deputy prime ministers of the early 90s told us that a group of oligarchs almost fired him from the government, complaining to Yeltsin: “We know for sure from simultaneous interpreters that he did not protect the interests of Russian banks during the negotiations.” In fact, does it happen that translators admitted “to the spheres” accidentally or intentionally share confidential information?
- This situation seems very strange to me. The translator should not tell any oligarchs or strangers, even high-ranking ones. And even more so, any assessments on his part are unacceptable.
— Is the recording done on a dictaphone or is it done by a stenographer?
- No voice recorders. There are very serious reasons for this. I don't want to go into them. There are no stenographers either. It is written either by a translator, or by a so-called note taker. As a rule, this is the assistant to the minister of foreign affairs, in other cases - the assistant to the president.
— Gorbachev’s ill-wishers claimed that at some negotiations, out of caution, he resorted to the services of “foreign” translators. The very fact that such conversations occur indicates how trusted a translator should be. After all, together with the head of state, he becomes the keeper of secrets.
— First, about “foreign” translators. This never happened. On the contrary, several times (in particular, under Bush Sr.) I found myself the only translator. Moreover, I heard from my predecessor, the legendary Viktor Mikhailovich Sukhodrev, that at one time Henry Kissinger asked that in order to avoid leaks, an American translator would not be present at any negotiations.
- Did he not trust his own people?
- Don't know. You need to ask Kissinger. And about Gorbachev - a lie. What did they hang on him... Now about the secrets. You correctly said that the translator must be a trusted person. It is a priori assumed that information will not get out from him.
— In your book “My Years with Gorbachev and Shevardnadze” you recall how, once finding yourself alone with Mikhail Sergeevich in a car, you asked: “What will happen to Afghanistan after all?” You write: “I don’t know how I decided to ask him - the Secretary General at that time was a very tall, almost “exorbitant” figure.” What, Mikhail Sergeevich 17 years ago was undemocratic in his communication?
- I would not say. Even then he was not characterized by aplomb. By the way, no matter how you treat the former members of the Politburo, they, unlike the next generation of power, never spoke with their subordinates to the point of rudeness, did not allow themselves snobbery, elements of the nobility. Yes, Gorbachev almost immediately switched to “you”. This offended some people. But I understood that he was so used to it, this is a special, party “you”, a sign of trust.
Returning to Afghanistan. Gorbachev did not stop me, but answered briefly: “We will decide.” Now I know that the idea of leaving Afghanistan came to him literally immediately after his election as Secretary General. He just didn't want it to look like a drape...
— How did you become Gorbachev’s translator?
— If I’m not mistaken, in April 1985, Assistant Secretary General Andrei Mikhailovich Alexandrov called the Foreign Ministry. He said that Gorbachev would be giving an interview to an Indian correspondent and asked to send a translator. The choice fell on me. I came straight to the meeting. Mikhail Sergeevich didn’t even ask my name. He said hello, shook hands, and we started working. And we managed to exchange a few words with Alexandrov. He warned: “The recording is yours.” When they said goodbye, he remarked: “I’m sure we’ll meet again.” Apparently he appreciated the translation. Then Rajiv Gandhi visited and I was invited again. And so it went. At the end of one of the meetings with Senator Edward Kennedy, he turned to Gorbachev: “You have an excellent translator. Thank you". I hesitated: it’s awkward to translate this to myself.
- Translated?
- Where can I go... So, in his own way, Kennedy is my godfather. Well, the first Soviet-American summit in Geneva in the fall of 1985 was a milestone - two and a half days of intense work. Since then, I have translated all the negotiations of the Secretary General with heads of state and secretaries of state of the United States. In 1990, in America, on the way to Stanford, Mikhail Sergeevich said: “Pavel, come to me from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I instructed to form a presidential apparatus.”
— What kind of relationship usually develops between the “first person” and his translator?
— There are no stencils here. It all depends... Gorbachev is a friendly person by nature, he does not assert himself at the expense of others. He does not humiliate anyone, does not show tyranny. In this regard, I feel comfortable with him. There is no nervousness or tightness. But, I admit, the point is that, as a professional, I am confident in myself. I didn’t push my way through with my elbows. I didn’t ask anyone for a job.
— How can you explain that after the putsch and Gorbachev’s abdication, you stayed with him, although you received a personal offer from the then Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Alexander Avdeev to return to the Foreign Ministry?
— On the 20th of December 1991, Avdeev called former Foreign Ministry officials working in the presidential office. He said: “I consider it my duty to invite you to return to the ministry. Hurry up. In a week or two we won’t be in these offices.” I am very grateful to Avdeev, but I didn’t hesitate for a minute. He considered it unacceptable for himself to leave Gorbachev and start working with Yeltsin.
Still, I exaggerated somewhat when I said that the important step was easy. Whatever one may say, I had a family, children. Nobody relieved me of financial responsibilities. There has been no talk of creating a fund yet. When I told my mother that I was leaving the civil service, she, who in principle approved of my action, could not contain her bitterness: “Where will your work book be?” For a person of her generation, this question seemed to be the main one. I did not admit that the book was already in my hands with the entry: “Dismissed due to the abolition (liquidation) of the apparatus of the President of the USSR.”
— Gorbachev survived a large-scale betrayal by those around him. You were nearby. What struck you the most? Who?
— I prefer to use the word “betrayal” with caution. The State Emergency Committee is clearly both a betrayal and a crime. Companions who had the opportunity to argue with Gorbachev politically chose to stab him in the back... Now let’s talk about how to evaluate the people who, as soon as Gorbachev’s position began to deteriorate, ran over to Yeltsin. In some cases, this was dictated by political differences. I know that Gorbachev is very tolerant of this. But I cannot accept that the intelligentsia, such pillars as Yuri Afanasyev, Gavriil Popov, Nikolai Shmelev, spread to Yeltsin without thinking about the consequences of the radical option. A separate conversation about those who have been in public service all their lives and smoothly flowed from the apparatus of the President of the USSR to the apparatus of the President of Russia. Where should officials go? You can say angry words, but life is more complicated than simple formulations. I learned from Gorbachev a certain latitude, and I try not to judge some former friends who stopped calling me in 1991, obviously considering that Gorbachev was “stale goods” and it was time to hand it over to a junk dealer. Now that there has been some positive shift in attitude towards the President of the USSR, the calls have returned, as if from oblivion.
— You are a brilliant expert on the English language, the author of the best-selling book “My Unsystematic Dictionary.” How did your “love affair with English,” as you put it, begin?
- It wasn't love at first sight. My mother is an English teacher at a regular school in Monino, near Moscow. She started studying with me in the second grade, but it really bothered me. And at the age of 12-13 something suddenly happened. Maybe The Beatles are to blame (for many, music addiction plays a special role in awakening interest in language), maybe it’s the fact that I started listening to the BBC and Voice of America in English... One way or another, a romance began that lasts to this day. The English language is amazing, there is something fascinating about it. And of course, I am very grateful to my mother. She is still an authority in the language for me. Not many simultaneous translators have such a library in English at home: the complete works of Dickens, Dreiser, Galsworthy... When I go abroad, I always bring books to my mother. We have common favorites, but she rejects some as complete rubbish.
—Korney Ivanovich Chukovsky in his early youth learned English words from a textbook with torn out pages and later told with humor that when he first arrived in London, he could not utter a word, since he had no idea about the existence of transcriptions. What is the best way to learn a language? Do you have an ideal plan for this?
— I heard something similar to the story with Chukovsky about Lenin. It was as if he spoke some incredible English. However, my foreign language teacher Yakov Iosifovich Retzker argued that Lenin’s translation of Sidney and Beatrice Webb’s work on British trade unionism was wonderful. But Retzker didn’t just hand out high marks.
Is there an optimal algorithm for learning a foreign language? I think yes: a traditional classical school with memorization of words, deep study of grammar. But at the same time, it is highly desirable to live in the country of the language for a year or two. I first came to an English-speaking country quite late - at the age of 25. I had a fairly strong British accent - that’s how phonetics was taught in foreign language. In the five years that he worked as a simultaneous interpreter at the UN, he completely faded away. Changed to American. True, America is a country where everyone speaks with different accents. Except for Midwesterners. NBC correspondent Tom Brokaw is considered the standard of American pronunciation and manner of speaking. He is from South Dakota. By the way, Brokaw was the first American journalist to conduct a television interview with Gorbachev. They met later. I am convinced that if you set a goal for yourself, it is quite possible to learn to speak in such a way that people do not ask you: Where are you from?
— How do you feel about different accelerated methods?
- I don't believe in them. I am leaving out situations where language is needed for very limited communication. In extreme cases, professionals can reach an agreement on their fingers. I will never forget how, during my first internship in Egypt, I was asked to attend an autopsy in the morgue. Our compatriot died, and at some point in the autopsy room I felt sick. I ran out into the air, and when I returned, it turned out that the doctors - Russian and Egyptian - understood each other without an interpreter.
— What languages besides English do you speak?
- French. It was my second language in foreign language. I was very interested. Now French is my working language almost entirely. Already in New York I learned Spanish. In recent years I have taken up Italian and German. Each subsequent language undoubtedly becomes easier. I think I can master Italian quite well. It is amazingly beautiful - it’s not for nothing that the world’s best operas were written on it. With German it is more difficult. I read fluently, but speak not very well. Some argue that German is more logical and simpler than English. But so many people, so many opinions.
— Do you watch video films in the Goblin translations that are fashionable today? What is your opinion about this phenomenon?
- Watched. But there is no great desire to continue acquaintance. This is a separate genre of translation performance. This is a translation happening that has nothing to do with the language itself. Variations on a theme. I am not interested. And many people are crazy. For God's sake.
— Among them, by the way, is the famous Leonid Volodarsky.
- I don’t impose my opinion. I have great respect for Volodarsky. We studied together. His works are already directly in the genre of translation. And high class.
—Who is Putin’s main translator today?
“According to my observations, no one stands out now. Move away from this practice. Why? I can't say. The question is technologically interesting for me, but I don’t think it’s appropriate to be curious.
— Are you invited to translate in the Kremlin?
— Specifically in the Kremlin, no. I translated several of Putin's last press conferences, which were broadcast on Channel One and Channel Two. But the proposal came not from the Kremlin, but from CNN. For me, I repeat, working for government agencies is a passed stage. And it’s right that the administration does not invite people from outside. A new generation has arrived. I’m not just calm, I’m positive about this.
— Who teaches the president English? You’re from this “crowd,” and you probably know: is Vladimir Vladimirovich really an advanced student?
— I can’t say anything... This, by the way, is a completely different environment. Teachers and translators are two different communities, “parties”. And Putin’s “advancement” depends on how much time he is willing to devote to English. I said that a person who speaks one language well moves more organically to a second.
— From time to time, TV news shows how Putin and Bush are walking and talking animatedly about something. Without a translator.
- (Laughs). I know from my own experience: some protocol officers sometimes ask the interpreter to step aside to make the shot more effective. So I don’t exclude the possibility that a translator is modestly hiding in the bushes. But something else is also real: for a short time, presidents get by on their own. Carrying on a conversation is not the hardest thing about language.
- Tell me, all these expressions: “friend Helmut”, “friend Bill”, “friend Ryu”, “friend Vladimir”, “friend Boris” - this is, as they say, a figure of speech or during contacts at the highest level you can really make friends ?
- Undoubtedly, a “figure of speech”. It is a mistake to underestimate the location, sympathy, and affection between the leaders of states, but the responsibility of leaders to their countries comes first and foremost. And it dictates rationalism and pragmatic keeping of distance.
I have heard Bush Jr. call Putin a friend more than once. I do not in any way question his sincerity. But we must take into account that in English the word “friend” is used in a broader sense than in Russian. One of the linguists noted: friend is a horizontal concept, while the Russian “friend” is strictly vertical, implying the depth of relationships. This happened not so much in the language as in our culture. And in this vertical sense, there can be no friendship between statesmen.
— That is, when using the word “friend,” Bush means: a person to whom he is friendly...
- Exactly. You have found the exact definition.
— At one time, they wrote a lot about the mutual position of Gorbachev and Thatcher. What are your personal observations about the “iron lady”?
“I worked less with Margaret Thatcher than with American presidents, and I would be in a stupid position if I started grading her.” One thing I can say: this lady, to put it mildly, has a difficult character. She did not tolerate preliminary formalities, empty preludes, or the exchange of non-binding pleasantries. In July 1991, Gorbachev was invited for the first time to a G7 meeting in London. At the meeting, the West not only pushed away the President of the USSR, but large-scale agreements were not reached either. Shortly before this, Thatcher resigned as prime minister. And so she spontaneously arrives at the Soviet embassy, where Mikhail Sergeevich was staying. Right off the bat he bursts out: “What kind of people are they?!” Could the G7 really not provide the support that perestroika deserves? What have they done! You see, there is no obvious movement towards a market economy. Isn’t it clear where their indifference can lead, in what direction events are developing? Right now Russia especially needs support.” I was shocked by the temperament of the “iron lady”, her almost comradely sympathy, because I knew about the eternal ideological differences with Gorbachev. But as a practical politician, Thatcher was invariably consistent.
— Mikhail Sergeevich likes to flaunt how, almost at the first negotiations with the President of the United States, he cut off Ronald Reagan, who was trying to behave arrogantly: “You are not my teacher, and I am not your student.” Tell us about the gradual transformation of the relationship between the two leaders.
— I remember well the episode you are talking about. It was about dissidents and human rights issues. The Americans, preparing the negotiations, decided to put this topic first. Gorbachev, as you know, who himself attached great importance to the issue, reacted violently. However, his words did not sound offensive. And Reagan took them adequately. The relationship stabilized quite quickly and became productive.
A number of American intellectuals do not consider Reagan to be a giant of thought. But I see him as a bright, sunny person and, despite his acting profession, sincere. There was a goodwill and not at all reprehensible desire to please in Reagan. Yes, I liked him. Overall, America loved him and called him a great president because he restored self-confidence to the country. “Watergate” with the humiliating resignation of Nixon... The most difficult years of Carter’s presidency, when the United States needed its own restructuring, since much of what functioned smoothly in the 50-60s had exhausted its resource... The unfavorable end of the Vietnam War... All this influenced the American psyche. A special person was needed - very strong, even rigid, convictions and at the same time an optimist. The Reagan years became a turning point for the United States. Who was underestimated and misunderstood at first by our Americanists was Nancy Reagan.
— Is it true that her relationship with Raisa Maksimovna Gorbacheva was difficult? How was this expressed? Did you translate for the first ladies? Maybe they tried to smooth out and mix the ladies’ barbs?
— As a rule, I was so overloaded during negotiations that I did not always participate in protocol events. But I know that Raisa Maksimovna approached them thoroughly, thought through the topics of small talk, possible questions. And Nancy, it turns out, was terribly irritated by this: she supposedly has an open soul, but they were practically giving her an exam. Some kind of inconsistency between different people, different cultures... Well, it happens. Another thing is that such roughness could have been avoided if there had not been people on both sides who deliberately aggravated the situation. I’ll use Gorbachev’s word: “planting” distorted information. There was another awkward moment when, due to some inconsistency, Raisa Maksimovna flew to Reykjavik with Gorbachev, but Nancy did not. And I was very offended. As for me, I have never had the opportunity to translate the mutual barbs of the first ladies...
Gradually the misunderstandings between them disappeared. It’s a pity that we didn’t immediately learn that it was Nancy who played an important role in Reagan’s turn towards the USSR. It is alleged that in 1984, Andrei Andreevich Gromyko jokingly told the wife of the US President: “You always whisper the word “peace” in your husband’s ear. Looks like Nancy took the advice. How many times has it happened that Soviet-American relations could have gone downhill, and the fact that both presidents did not allow this is the merit of their wives.
In 1992, the Gorbachevs spent a magnificent day at the Reagan ranch in California. I translated and can certify: the relationship between Nancy and Raisa Maksimovna was not just smooth, but very warm. Later, when Ronald Reagan developed Alzheimer's disease, the Gorbachevs corresponded with Nancy. About a dozen letters passed through me in both directions.
— You were also Shevardnadze’s translator, and when he left Gorbachev, he talked to you about it for a long time. What drove close associates in different directions?
“A few days after Shevardnadze resigned in December 1990, I asked him for a meeting. Eduard Amvrosievich received me. We talked for about an hour. That evening I recorded the conversation almost verbatim. When the time comes, I will definitely publish it. But it's early now. You still have to have a conscience: all the “figures” are alive - Gorbachev, Shevardnadze, me, finally... The conversation turned out to be very personal. Shevardnadze was outwardly calm, but I felt that he was terribly worried. I got the impression that he foresaw something like the State Emergency Committee. A notepad with a note on the table. Let me give you a short quote: “We have taken so long with several important decisions that the situation has become unmanageable... There may be bloodshed. And in the event of reprisals, I have no right to remain Minister of Foreign Affairs. And we will not be able to maintain the achieved level of relations with civilized countries.” Eduard Amvrosievich's arguments did not seem entirely convincing to me.
- What about Gorbachev? Was he not offended, in fact, by the flight of a like-minded person?
“If he had clearly accepted this, then in November 1991 he would not have called Shevardnadze to return. But Mikhail Sergeevich decided, instead of the then Minister of Foreign Affairs Boris Pankin, who bravely condemned the State Emergency Committee, to call on “an old horse who will not spoil the furrow.” This is how things stood. Gorbachev calls: “Pavel, urgently contact the British embassy. I need to talk to Major." The British Prime Minister, as luck would have it, was not at his residence on Downing Street, but half an hour later he was on the phone. “John,” Gorbachev addressed him, “we are merging two ministries - foreign affairs and foreign trade. I offered the post of minister to Shevardnadze. In this regard, they intend to send Pankin as ambassador to the UK. But we cannot announce the appointment without your agrement.” The major instantly replied: “I give my consent. I promise to complete all formalities as quickly as possible.” The next day the official agrement was received.
And Gorbachev’s paths still diverged from Shevardnadze in December 1991. I met with Eduard Amvrosievich several more times, including in Tbilisi during his presidency.
— Are there any advantages in your current job compared to your previous one? Greater freedom, such as the pleasure of leisurely travel around the world? Special, friendly relations with Gorbachev?
“I have never regretted my decision to stay with Mikhail Sergeevich. Without a doubt, when he was Secretary General and President of the USSR, my work was characterized by strong motivation, adrenaline was released in huge quantities, since what was being done brought historical benefits to the country. Am I missing this feeling now? Probably to some extent.
And working at the Gorbachev Foundation does have its advantages. Mikhail Sergeevich left me the opportunity to cooperate with the UN and other organizations, he lets me go, if necessary, for a couple of weeks, for a month. The fund has a small staff, and I, as the head of the international relations department, communicate with Gorbachev regularly. Not like in the old days, when the apparatus was huge. Traveling abroad especially brings us together. Gorbachev meets with politicians, gives lectures, I help him prepare speeches, and translate. But now we have time to watch a Broadway musical, and have dinner at a restaurant (Gorbachev gives preference to Italian cuisine, and I agree with him on this), and see what are called the sights. In New York, Mikhail Sergeevich loves to walk in Central Park: he and Raisa Maksimovna had a habit of walking on foot from a young age.
Up close, Gorbachev turned out to be exactly the kind of person I saw “from a distance.” I saw something more accurately, and the dignity with which he overcame all the trials fate had in store for him certainly added to my respect. Over the years of close work, we have diverged fundamentally only once. In 1996, he decided to run for president; he wanted to openly and clearly explain himself to people. But I believed that in the existing information conditions this was impossible. Raisa Maksimovna was of the same opinion, but after Gorbachev stubbornly made a decision, she went with him to the end. He relieved me of my election duties. And subsequently I did not hear a word of reproach. But I was terribly worried about him. And when I found out that about a million people voted for Gorbachev, I had a desire to shake hands with each of them.
Marina Zavada, Yuri Kulikov, based on materials from http://versiasovsek.ru
Recently I was lucky enough to talk with an outstanding translator and master of his craft, Pavel Ruslanovich Palazhchenko, who kindly agreed to give a short interview.
For those who don’t know (if there are any), Pavel is a Soviet and Russian translator who worked for a long time with M. S. Gorbachev and E. A. Shevardnadze; political analyst, author of several books and a large number of publications in Russian and foreign media. Speaks English, French, Spanish, Italian and German.
So, let's move on to the interview:
Alina: Hello, Pavel. Please tell us a little about yourself.
Pavel: I am, perhaps, a typical product of the Soviet system. Probably not the worst. Born in 1949, my mother had not yet graduated from college, and immediately our lives changed dramatically due to the arrest of our grandmother and the departure of our father from the family. Then my mother worked as an English teacher, and this, of course, played a role in my “self-determination,” although I was a stubborn boy and did not immediately succumb to her persuasion to teach me the language. But as a teenager I became interested in the Beatles, and in general the attractiveness of the West, especially England and America, was great at that time. I entered the Faculty of Foreign Language Translation on my first attempt, in a difficult year of double graduation (grades 11 and 10 were graduated simultaneously due to another education reform). I studied with pleasure and, like many, I consider the years of study at the institute to be perhaps the best of my life.
Alina: How did your career as a simultaneous interpreter begin? Did you know that this is the type of craft you want to pursue?
Pavel: Simultaneous translation was then quite new and, in the eyes of many, even an outlandish thing. They taught it at the UN foreign language translator courses. The selection was strict, especially for the simultaneous interpretation group, but by this time I had already worked in the booth thanks to the help of my teacher, an outstanding translator and scientist Geliy Vasilyevich Chernov. Of course, I consider the start of a truly professional career as a synchronized swimmer to be the start of work at the UN Secretariat in 1974.
Alina: Do you remember your first translation?
Pavel: I remember, of course. There was some excitement, but it quickly passed when I felt what was working. To be fair, it must be said that interpreting at conferences of peace supporters (and I started at them) was not difficult for a person who followed current information at least minimally, since everything that was said there was quite predictable.
Alina: During your career, which translations have you done more: oral or written? Which type of translation do you prefer?
Pavel: Perhaps there is more synchronization, but I also love written translation.
Alina: Do you think that anyone can become a simultaneous interpreter?
Pavel: Probably not just anyone. Even people who are fluent in two languages do not always have the qualities of quick reaction, endurance, psychological stability and fluency that are required for a simultaneous interpreter.
Alina: What skills and qualities do you consider most necessary to perform simultaneous translation?
Pavel: Everything mentioned above plus erudition and resourcefulness.
Alina: How to develop these qualities?
Pavel: The translator must, first of all, be aware of current events, know “a little about everything,” and as much as possible about a little (which forms the main content of the conference at which he works). I think that if you take care of this, then everything else, as they say, will follow, because the rest depends mainly on self-confidence, and it is higher among intelligent, well-educated, informed people.
Alina: What exercises do you consider the most effective for training simultaneous interpreters?
Pavel: I'm not a big proponent of exercise. I recommend to my students to learn to listen carefully, to force themselves to listen to large sections of speech without distraction.
Alina: Do you think that the university is capable of preparing high-quality specialists in this field?
Pavel: It depends primarily on the abilities and level of language proficiency of the student and on the skill of the teacher. Typically, the level of language proficiency of most students in our countries is still insufficient to prepare a good synchronized interpreter. But, of course, you can try your hand at university.
Alina: What methods of self-improvement after university training do you consider the most necessary and effective?
Pavel: If a person has the motivation and desire to achieve success in this difficult craft, then he will find the optimal path for himself. You can study on your own, fortunately there are now a lot of recordings of speeches, interviews, etc. on the Internet, on which you can practice, you can learn from courses or from colleagues. The main thing is to understand that achieving results requires long and constant work.
Pavel: Use all the opportunities of an open society, the Internet, international communication, which our generation did not have.
Alina: What final instructions would you like to give to blog readers?
Pavel: I wish you persistence and curiosity. And don’t forget about health, because it really is the most valuable thing. A healthy lifestyle is extremely important for a translator, and most of my colleagues adhere to this principle. And exceptions only confirm the existence of the rule.
Alina: Thank you very much, Pavel Ruslanovich, for your answers! I think this interview will appeal to both experienced and novice colleagues.
That's all. If you liked this article, you can subscribe to and join
Monino, Moscow region) - Soviet and Russian translator who worked for a long time with M. S. Gorbachev and E. A. Shevardnadze; political analyst, author of several books and a large number of publications in Russian and foreign media. Speaks English, French, Spanish, Italian and German. Currently he is the head of the department of international relations and press contacts at the Gorbachev Foundation. Married, has a daughter. The son from his first marriage is Nikolai Palazhchenko.Spelling and pronunciation of the surname
Letter combination zhch in the surname Palazhchenko pronounced as [sch]. The stress is on the second syllable, although English speakers often stress the third syllable. In the English-language press it is written as Palazhchenko, so Palazchenko .
Biography
P. Palazhchenko began learning English at the age of approximately eight years old on the initiative of his mother, an English teacher at a secondary school. At first, his studies weighed heavily on him, but the situation changed at the age of 12-13, when P. Palazhchenko became interested in the work of The Beatles and began listening to the Voice of America and the BBC. Since then, he said, he “started a love affair with the English language that continues to this day.”
Currently, he is the head of the international relations and press contacts service.
He works as a simultaneous interpreter at the UN, the Council of Europe, and at international conferences in Russia and abroad.
Publications
He is the author of a large number of publications on political topics in such publications as “Novaya Gazeta”, “Grani.Ru”, “Favorites”, etc. He regularly publishes on the website of the Gorbachev Foundation, as well as on the website of the Association of Lexicographers Lingvo, where he has personal forum.
Since February 2007 it has its own website.
Books
“The World of Translation-1, or the Eternal Path to Mutual Understanding” (together with A.P. Chuzhakin); Publishing house "Valens".
In 1999, the Valens publishing house published a book by P. R. Palazhchenko in the “World of Translation” series “Everything is known by comparison, or a non-systematic dictionary of the difficulties, subtleties and wisdom of the English language in comparison with Russian.” The book went through several editions. In 2002, the R. Valent publishing house published a significantly expanded and updated version of this book - “My Non-Systematic Dictionary”. In 2005, the same publishing house published “Non-systematic Dictionary-2005” - a book similar in structure to “My Non-Systematic Dictionary”, but completely new in content. It is based on materials from the personal forum of P. R. Palazhchenko on the website of the Association of Lexicographers Lingvo.
In 1997, in the United States, Penn State Press published P. R. Palazhchenko’s book My Years with Gorbachev and Shevardnadze. Reviews of this book have been published in the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, New York Review of Books, Foreign Policy magazine, and many other publications.
Write a review of the article "Palazhchenko, Pavel Ruslanovich"
Links
Notes
An excerpt characterizing Palazhchenko, Pavel Ruslanovich
“And he awarded!.. he awarded!” the old man said in a quiet voice and, as it seemed to Prince Andrei, with embarrassment, but then suddenly he jumped up and shouted: “Get out, get out!” May your spirit not be here!..Prince Andrey wanted to leave immediately, but Princess Marya begged him to stay another day. On this day, Prince Andrei did not see his father, who did not go out and did not allow anyone to see him except M lle Bourienne and Tikhon, and asked several times whether his son had left. The next day, before leaving, Prince Andrei went to see his son's half. A healthy, curly-haired boy sat on his lap. Prince Andrei began to tell him the tale of Bluebeard, but, without finishing it, he became lost in thought. He was not thinking about this pretty boy son while he was holding him on his lap, but was thinking about himself. He searched in horror and found in himself neither remorse for having irritated his father, nor regret that he (in a quarrel for the first time in his life) was leaving him. The most important thing for him was that he was looking for and did not find that former tenderness for his son, which he hoped to arouse in himself by caressing the boy and sitting him on his lap.
“Well, tell me,” said the son. Prince Andrei, without answering him, took him down from the pillars and left the room.
As soon as Prince Andrei left his daily activities, especially as soon as he entered into the previous conditions of life in which he had been even when he was happy, the melancholy of life gripped him with the same force, and he hurried to quickly get away from these memories and find something to do quickly.
– Are you going decisively, Andre? - his sister told him.
“Thank God I can go,” said Prince Andrei, “I’m very sorry that you can’t.”
- Why are you saying this! - said Princess Marya. - Why are you saying this now, when you are going to this terrible war and he is so old! M lle Bourienne said that he asked about you... - As soon as she began to talk about this, her lips trembled and tears began to fall. Prince Andrei turned away from her and began to walk around the room.
- Oh my god! My God! - he said. – And just think about what and who – what insignificance can be the cause of people’s misfortune! - he said with anger, which frightened Princess Marya.
She realized that, speaking about the people whom he called nonentities, he meant not only m lle Bourienne, who made him misfortune, but also the person who ruined his happiness.
“Andre, I ask one thing, I beg you,” she said, touching his elbow and looking at him with shining eyes through tears. – I understand you (Princess Marya lowered her eyes). Don't think that it was people who caused the grief. People are his instrument. “She looked a little higher than Prince Andrei’s head with that confident, familiar look with which they look at a familiar place in a portrait. - The grief was sent to them, not people. People are his tools, they are not to blame. If it seems to you that someone is to blame for you, forget it and forgive. We have no right to punish. And you will understand the happiness of forgiving.
– If I were a woman, I would do this, Marie. This is the virtue of a woman. But a man should not and cannot forget and forgive,” he said, and, although he had not thought about Kuragin until that moment, all the unresolved anger suddenly rose in his heart. “If Princess Marya is already trying to persuade me to forgive me, then it means I should have been punished a long time ago,” he thought. And, no longer answering Princess Marya, he now began to think about that joyful, angry moment when he would meet Kuragin, who (he knew) was in the army.
Princess Marya begged her brother to wait another day, saying that she knew how unhappy her father would be if Andrei left without making peace with him; but Prince Andrei replied that he would probably soon come back from the army again, that he would certainly write to his father, and that now the longer he stayed, the more this discord would be fueled.
– Adieu, Andre! Rappelez vous que les malheurs viennent de Dieu, et que les hommes ne sont jamais coupables, [Farewell, Andrey! Remember that misfortunes come from God and that people are never to blame.] - were the last words he heard from his sister when he said goodbye to her.
“This is how it should be! - thought Prince Andrei, driving out of the alley of the Lysogorsk house. “She, a pitiful innocent creature, is left to be devoured by a crazy old man.” The old man feels that he is to blame, but cannot change himself. My boy is growing up and enjoying a life in which he will be the same as everyone else, deceived or deceiving. I'm going to the army, why? - I don’t know myself, and I want to meet that person whom I despise, in order to give him a chance to kill me and laugh at me! And before there were all the same living conditions, but before they were all connected with each other, but now everything has fallen apart. Some senseless phenomena, without any connection, one after another presented themselves to Prince Andrei.
Prince Andrei arrived at the army headquarters at the end of June. The troops of the first army, the one with which the sovereign was located, were located in a fortified camp near Drissa; the troops of the second army retreated, trying to connect with the first army, from which - as they said - they were cut off by large forces of the French. Everyone was dissatisfied with the general course of military affairs in the Russian army; but no one thought about the danger of an invasion of the Russian provinces, no one imagined that the war could be transferred further than the western Polish provinces.
Prince Andrei found Barclay de Tolly, to whom he was assigned, on the banks of the Drissa. Since there was not a single large village or town in the vicinity of the camp, the entire huge number of generals and courtiers who were with the army were located in a circle of ten miles in the best houses of the villages, on this and on the other side of the river. Barclay de Tolly stood four miles from the sovereign. He received Bolkonsky dryly and coldly and said in his German accent that he would report him to the sovereign to determine his appointment, and in the meantime he asked him to be at his headquarters. Anatoly Kuragin, whom Prince Andrei hoped to find in the army, was not here: he was in St. Petersburg, and this news was pleasant for Bolkonsky. Prince Andrei was interested in the center of the huge war taking place, and he was glad to be free for a while from the irritation that the thought of Kuragin produced in him. During the first four days, during which he was not required anywhere, Prince Andrey traveled around the entire fortified camp and, with the help of his knowledge and conversations with knowledgeable people, tried to form a definite concept about him. But the question of whether this camp was profitable or unprofitable remained unresolved for Prince Andrei. He had already managed to derive from his military experience the conviction that in military affairs the most thoughtfully thought-out plans mean nothing (as he saw it in the Austerlitz campaign), that everything depends on how one responds to unexpected and unforeseen actions of the enemy, that everything depends on how and by whom the whole business is conducted. In order to clarify this last question, Prince Andrei, taking advantage of his position and acquaintances, tried to understand the nature of the administration of the army, the persons and parties participating in it, and derived for himself the following concept of the state of affairs.
When the sovereign was still in Vilna, the army was divided into three: the 1st army was under the command of Barclay de Tolly, the 2nd army was under the command of Bagration, the 3rd army was under the command of Tormasov. The sovereign was with the first army, but not as commander-in-chief. The order did not say that the sovereign would command, it only said that the sovereign would be with the army. In addition, the sovereign did not personally have the headquarters of the commander-in-chief, but the headquarters of the imperial headquarters. With him was the chief of the imperial staff, Quartermaster General Prince Volkonsky, generals, adjutants, diplomatic officials and a large number of foreigners, but there was no army headquarters. In addition, without a position under the sovereign were: Arakcheev - a former minister of war, Count Bennigsen - the senior general of the generals, Grand Duke Tsarevich Konstantin Pavlovich, Count Rumyantsev - chancellor, Stein - a former Prussian minister, Armfeld - a Swedish general, Pfuhl - the main compiler campaign plan, Adjutant General Paulucci - a Sardinian native, Wolzogen and many others. Although these persons were without military positions in the army, they had influence due to their position, and often the corps commander and even the commander-in-chief did not know why Bennigsen, or the Grand Duke, or Arakcheev, or Prince Volkonsky was asking or advising this or that. and did not know whether such an order was coming from him or from the sovereign in the form of advice and whether it was necessary or not necessary to carry it out. But this was an external situation, but the essential meaning of the presence of the sovereign and all these persons, from a court point of view (and in the presence of the sovereign, everyone becomes a courtier), was clear to everyone. It was as follows: the sovereign did not assume the title of commander-in-chief, but was in charge of all the armies; the people surrounding him were his assistants. Arakcheev was a faithful executor, guardian of order and bodyguard of the sovereign; Bennigsen was a landowner of the Vilna province, who seemed to be doing les honneurs [was busy with the business of receiving the sovereign] of the region, but in essence was a good general, useful for advice and in order to always have him ready to replace Barclay. The Grand Duke was here because it pleased him. The former minister Stein was here because he was useful to the council, and because Emperor Alexander highly valued his personal qualities. Armfeld was an angry hater of Napoleon and a general, self-confident, which always had an influence on Alexander. Paulucci was here because he was bold and decisive in his speeches, the General adjutants were here because they were everywhere where the sovereign was, and, finally, and most importantly, Pfuel was here because he, having drawn up a plan for the war against Napoleon and forced Alexander believed in the feasibility of this plan and led the entire war effort. Under Pfuel there was Wolzogen, who conveyed Pfuel’s thoughts in a more accessible form than Pfuel himself, a harsh, self-confident to the point of contempt for everything, an armchair theorist.
Today our guest is an unusual person who had the opportunity to work with the top officials of the Soviet state, simultaneous interpreter Pavel Palazhchenko. He was born in the Moscow region in 1949, graduated from the Moscow State Pedagogical Institute of Foreign Languages named after M. Thorez, speaks English, French, Spanish, Italian and German. After completing UN translator courses, Palazhchenko worked at the UN Secretariat in New York (1974-1979), and then at the USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He took part in negotiations between the USSR and the USA on security and disarmament issues, and since 1985 he was Gorbachev's constant interpreter at all Soviet-American ministerial summits. He remembered not only the Soviet leaders, but also Bush, Baker, Reagan Thatcher, Rajiv Gandhi. Palazhchenko considers the negotiations in Reykjavik in 1986 to be one of the most difficult moments in his practice, and the signing of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in Washington as his greatest success. In negotiations with the West and within the country, according to Palazhenko, the main thing for Gorbachev was to show himself as a strong leader: “He was under pressure from all sides, but at critical moments he knew how to pull himself together.” During the negotiations, Gorbachev conducted a dialogue, and did not read from a piece of paper, and he never made a mistake - not a single fact or figure. The permanent translator became both a friend and assistant for Mikhail Sergeevich. They have a very trusting relationship. He stayed with him afterwards: “I myself had a very hard time when our entire intelligentsia, Gorbachev, fled in the 1990s and 1991. And I considered it my duty to stay close to him.” Until now, Palazhchenko works as the head of the department of international relations and press contacts at the Gorbachev Foundation. It is very easy for Palazhchenko to work with Gorbachev because he respects him. His respect was further added to by the way Gorbachev overcame all the trials prepared by fate: “The two biggest losses in his life were the collapse of the country and the death of Raisa Maksimovna. He experienced both very hard, but still, neither one nor the other broke him. In an article dedicated to the 25th anniversary of the August putsch, Palazhenko writes: “The consequences of the 1991 coup were catastrophic for the country. They turned the development of events according to one of the worst options, although maybe not according to the worst... Preservation of the reformed Union, at least for a transition period, would, in his opinion, be the best for Russia, and other republics, and for the whole world, would allow us to avoid global destabilization and prevent chaotic processes in many parts of the world. Relations between our country and the West would be more equal, and despite all the inevitable difficulties, it would probably be possible to avoid the current aggravation of relations, which is not beneficial to anyone, especially Russia.” Over the years of close work, Gorbachev and Palazhchenko fundamentally diverged when in 1996 Gorbachev ran for president, and Palazhchenko believed that this should not be done. Having learned that about a million people voted for Gorbachev, Palazhenko had a desire to shake hands with each of them. According to him, Gorbachev believes that in the end, rationally and emotionally, he will not only be acquitted, but appreciated by the Russians. Palazhchenko loves his translation profession very much: “Absorbing the air of someone else’s (and your own) language, rummaging through heaps of words and, having found the right one, you need to feel its texture, its volume, and then grope for the threads of interlingual correspondences - this remains my favorite pastime.” He is one of the best interpreters in Russia, one of the greatest experts subtleties and complexities of the English language, he has written several books on translation problems. Pavel Palazhchenko kindly agreed to answer the correspondent’s questions and talk about his unusual and complex work.
— Pavel, what did you dream of becoming in early childhood, even before school?
— Before school, this probably wasn’t the case; at school I followed the usual path: at first I was attracted to some romantic professions, for example, geologist, and starting from the 7th-8th grade, I already began to see myself as a translator.
— I read that you started studying English seriously at the age of 8 at the insistence of your mother, an English teacher, but at first you were not very interested. When did you become interested in learning a foreign language?
- It arose gradually, at first I really did not study very willingly, but, nevertheless, quite successfully: firstly, my mother was a wonderful teacher, and, secondly, I also had certain abilities. By the 5th-6th grade I became interested in this, and already in the 7th-8th grade I became interested not only in the language itself, but also in the country - Great Britain, then I was more interested in it than in America. I think that at that time we did not live entirely behind the “Iron Curtain”, we knew something, and “that” way of life was attractive. This, I think, played a certain role. And also culture, especially music - the Beatles and other groups. At that time, it seemed, everyone was fascinated, and especially those who were interested in the English language. I think this was not the decisive factor, but one of them. The times of my childhood and youth were still not a time of intense “cold war”, but rather a period of “thaw”. But since 1968 the situation has changed...
— When you entered the institute, was there a big competition?
— Compared to, say, a medical institute, the competition was relatively small: 4-5 people per place. It’s just that many people didn’t go there, because the teaching of foreign languages in the Soviet Union was not at the highest level, this subject was considered secondary, and if people went to other universities at their own peril and risk, even with not very high grades, then enroll in foreign languages many did not dare. On the other hand, it was 1966, when two classes were graduating at once - tenth and eleventh, so the competition was higher than in previous and subsequent years. It was not very easy to get in, but I scored 19 points out of 20 and got in, without any cronyism.
— Did you want to be a translator, and not a teacher?
— The institute was called pedagogical, but I entered the translation department; I didn’t really see myself as a teacher. Then it was believed that since the work involved traveling abroad, and most of the graduates went into law enforcement agencies, then this work and this faculty were only for men. In real life it was not quite like that, we had girls appear, some of them were transferred from the Faculty of Pedagogy and from the Department of Applied Linguistics, and another number of girls appeared in the third or fourth year. And, of course, nearby, in the same building, there was a pedagogical faculty, so we didn’t have any “hunger” in this regard.
— After Khrushchev’s “thaw,” small “freezes” began when power changed in 1964—I mean the arrival of L. Brezhnev. Didn’t you feel any discomfort, because you were already accustomed to a certain freedom, but then you gradually began to “tighten the screws”?
— “Tightening the screws” began in 1968 in connection with the Czechoslovak events ( Soviet invasion of Prague. Note author), and before that it was still more free, although, of course, teachers of ideological disciplines - “Party History”, etc. — they emphasized that we are studying at an ideological university and should not limit ourselves to language. We perceived it more as a formality. In the early 70s, the USSR signed treaties with the United States on missile defense and strategic arms limitation, but at the same time the screws were being tightened within the country, so we were in the whirlpool of these contradictory trends. If we talk about ideology, then it was then that it took on completely inert and frozen forms. We felt this, but, like most people in the Soviet Union, we accepted this reality, although many of us did not like it.
— At one time, you graduated from the UN Translator Course. How did you get there, was there a strict selection process?
“These courses existed to fill vacancies in the UN translation services in New York, Geneva and Vienna. The duration of the course is one year, they studied written and oral, i.e. simultaneous interpreters. Every year, due to mandatory rotation (a Soviet employee could not work in the UN Secretariat for more than 5 years), it was necessary to replenish these services and replace employees. About 20 translators and 5 interpreters were produced. I ended up in a simultaneous translation group, where there were mainly graduates of the Faculty of Translation of Foreign Languages. As for the selection, they were first selected on the recommendation of the department, and then there was an interview with the UN Commission.
— Were the teachers local or foreign?
— The teachers were ours. The synchronization was taught by former UN translators: Geliy Vasilyevich Chernov, Lev Eliseevich Lyapin. There were other teachers, both former UN employees and others, all very good translators. Simultaneous interpreters, of course, also mastered written translation. In addition, we studied the structure and activities of the UN, and translated real UN texts, including quite complex ones. It was a year of very intensive study, which made me a professional translator.
— I think it’s worth clarifying something for our readers: simultaneous translation involves different variations...
— At the UN, the main option is simultaneous translation into the native language from two foreign languages, so it was necessary to master translation from French. In Russia, and previously in the USSR, we have a different translation system: the same booth translates from a foreign language into Russian and from Russian into a foreign language. This option is now accepted in international organizations for Chinese and Arabic.
— It happens when the translator translates simultaneously, but there is an option when the text has already been translated in advance, so the translator simply reads the finished text. Has this ever happened to you?
— It’s not very often that a translator is given a text in advance, especially a translated one (and the translation is not always good). As a rule, the text is brought to the interpreter's booth 5-10 minutes before the start of the speech, and sometimes immediately after it starts. If you are talking about this, then there are three options:
1) Simultaneous translation of text without preparation and without text
2) Simultaneous translation of text with preparation (from 3-5 minutes - up to 30)
3) There is a text, but it is brought at the beginning of the performance
For some translators, the text in such cases is even more of a hindrance than a help: it scatters attention. Most of the work of a simultaneous interpreter is translation without written text.
- And the so-called “whispering in the ear” - from this series?
— At the UN, translation is always done with technical means. But when there is no technology, then different options for “semi-simultaneous” translation arise, when the translator sits or stands next to the person who needs to be translated, or listens to the speaker without headphones and speaks into a microphone connected to headphones, or some kind of “mixture” “semi-simultaneous and consecutive interpretation, I don’t even know what to call it. Physically it's harder.
— You were a personal translator not only for M.S. Gorbachev, but also E.A. Shevardnadze...
— Yes, I started working with Gorbachev and Shevardnadze in 1985, and I collaborate with Mikhail Sergeevich and still help him. I worked with Shevardnadze as long as he was the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR. There is no such thing as a “personal translator,” but I was the main translator, participated in all the summits, in all the negotiations between Shevardnadze and the Americans and British. This is a pretty big and stressful part of my life.
— Now you work at the Mikhail Gorbachev Foundation and oversee relations with foreign media. What are your responsibilities?
— The Gorbachev Foundation is a foundation for socio-economic and political science research. And in accordance with this name, the main task of the Foundation is to conduct such research - both in the international aspect and to study the processes taking place in our country, study and systematize the history of perestroika, and publish books based on documents from the perestroika era. In addition, since Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev is a figure in whom there is constant interest - among our journalists and in the international press, we have a small department that deals with media relations. I am involved in this, as well as other international affairs, helping Mikhail Sergeevich on his trips abroad, although now he travels less. There is a lot of work, and, unfortunately, now because of this I have less time to work on my own books and articles. In addition, I am an active translator, I work with various organizations and combine this work with work at the Foundation. I have been next to Gorbachev for 30 years now. This is a rather rare situation, as far as I know - somewhat unique.
Interviewed by Evgeniy Kudryats
"German-Russian Courier", October-November 20 16
