MainPIR Press News№ 32, 2024. Zvenigorod hosted VIII International Timerbaev Debates on «Who does this world need – a statesman or an individualist? On the 225th anniversary of the birth of Alexander Pushkin»
№ 32, 2024. Zvenigorod hosted VIII International Timerbaev Debates on «Who does this world need – a statesman or an individualist? On the 225th anniversary of the birth of Alexander Pushkin»
ZVENIGOROD. AUGUST 20, 2024. PIR PRESS. «Pushkin’s poems are well-known to everyone who speaks and loves the Russian language – all over the world, without borders. However, the participants [of the debates] face a task of high complexity. They are expected not just to know the works of the brilliant Russian poet (his poetry, his prose, his letters) but also to sense Pushkin – which is probably different for everyone. This is the most important thing. We have never before organized Timerbaev Debates on such a topic, and this is a challenge for the participants; and an experiment for us, the organizers,» – Dr. Vladimir Orlov, Director and Founder of PIR Center, in his opening speech to the participants of the VIII International Timerbaev Debates and participants of the XXIII International School on Global Security.
The VIII International Timerbaev Debates took place within the framework of the XXIII International School on Global Security. The topic was “Who does this world need – a statesman or an individualist? On the 225th anniversary of the birth of Alexander Pushkin.” The participants of the debates were divided into two teams – each upheld one or another position. While preparing for the event, however, each team prepared arguments for both options, “an individualist” and “a statesman.” The participants were informed about their position only a few hours before the debates started on the eve of a hike around Zvenigorod – an ancient Russian town a few kilometers away from Zakharovo village. In this place, Alexander Pushkin spent his early childhood. A day before the debates, Dr. Vladimir Orlov, Director and Founder of PIR Center, consulted the teams.
It was the first time the debates were devoted to such a topic. The participants faced a challenging but exciting task. It required knowledge of Pushkin’s heritage in all its diversity, understanding, and the ability to answer the question: “Who does this world need – a statesman or an individualist?” referring to examples of Alexander Pushkin’s life and works.
The first team (those who advocated for statesman) was represented by Alexander Lavrov (Russian Federation), Third Secretary of the First European Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Larisa Dovgal Savelieva (Kingdom of Sweden), Research Associate of the research project on cybersecurity and approaches to it by China, Russia, the US, and the EU.
They presented the arguments based on Alexander Pushkin’s biography. Supporting their position, the first team cited letters from Pushkin’s correspondence and also read out fragments of his works, such as The Captain’s Daughter (1836) and the poems Stans (1826), The Poet (1827), The Prophet (1828). Also, Larisa Dovgal Savelyeva read the poem Kinzhal (1821, the Dagger), and Alexander Lavrov read the poem Iz Pindemonte (1836, From Pindemonte):
I value little those much-vaunted rights that have for some the lure of dizzy heights; I do not fret because the gods refuse to let me wrangle over revenues, or thwart the wars of kings; and ‘tis to me of no concern whether the press be free to dupe poor oafs or whether censors cramp the current fancies of some scribbling scamp. These things are words, words, words. My spirit fights for deeper Liberty, for better rights.
Whom shall we serve – the people or the State? The poet does not care – so let them wait. To give account to none, to be one’s own vassal and liege, to please oneself alone, to bend neither one’s neck nor inner schemes nor conscience for obtaining that which seems power but is a flunkey’s coat; to stroll in one’s own wake, admiring the divine beauties of Nature and to feel one’s soul melt in the glow of man’s inspired design – this is the blessing, these are rights!
*(translated by Vladimir Nabokov)
The second team (those who advocated for individualist) was represented by Veronika Terpugova (Russian Federation), a fourth-year student of the International Relations faculty of MGIMO-University and Asel Nurdinova (Kyrgyz Republic), Chief Specialist of the International Military Cooperation Department of the Ministry of Defense of the Kyrgyz Republic.
They also cited Pushkin’s works, letters, and biography. They placed special emphasis on the fact that Pushkin served in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Empire but was never promoted. Veronika Terpugova noted: “If Alexander Pushkin had been a statesman, he would have been diligent in his duties and strived to serve Russia in diplomatic or any other position.”
During the debates, participants of the XXIII International School on Global Security actively expressed their opinions, participated in the discussion, and asked questions to the teams. The debates resulted in a draw: neither team was able to attract new supporters to its side. The participants noted the high level of preparation of the teams and shared their emotions after the debates.
“One can forever look at three things: fire, water, and the debates “What does this world need: an individualist or a statesman?”. After participating in them, I am sincerely convinced of this. This question has worried the best minds for centuries and will remain relevant, perhaps permanently. Participants in the debates were particularly interested in considering this issue concerning the heritage and biography of our everything – the great Russian poet Alexander Pushkin, whose 225th anniversary we celebrated recently. The teams were given a difficult task: to thoroughly read not only the poetic heritage of the poet but also elements of his biography, excerpts of his private correspondence, and memories of his contemporaries. These profound studies supported the debates, during which both teams defended the positions that fell to them by lot in a rigid, clear, but consistently accurate and respectful manner.
So, who was Alexander Pushkin in the end, and who does this world need? Everyone may have their own opinion, but the debates resulted in an exciting conclusion that a society without individualism cannot progress, but an egoistic individualist is a disaster for it. Therefore, the task of modern society is the creation of bright, individualistic personalities who can direct their thoughts and achievements for the benefit of social development. Such was Alexander Pushkin, who at different periods of his life was an individualist or a statesman, but always a patriot,” – Alexander Lavrov (Russian Federation), Third Secretary of the First European Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
“Timerbaev debates were new to me. Our team and our counterparts were able to draw a parallel between Pushkin’s image and the present time. I think the Timerbaev debates is a good platform to look at the issue from all angles,” – Asel Nurdinova (Kyrgyz Republic), Chief Specialist of the International Military Cooperation Department of the Ministry of Defense of the Kyrgyz Republic.
“Our team received many interesting and sometimes provocative questions from the audience; it was tough to answer them. In my opinion, we succeeded thanks to united work and a positive atmosphere. At the same time, the debate audience’s interest in our position prompted a more skillful presentation of our arguments. It is also worth noting the brilliant preparation of the second team, who skillfully exploited the vulnerabilities of our position. Many thanks to the PIR Center for this experience!” – Larisa Dovgal Savelieva (Kingdom of Sweden), Research Associate of the research project on cybersecurity and approaches by China, Russia, the US, and the EU.
“It is not the first time I have participated in the Timerbaev debates, and for me, this event is always about burning topics for discussion and providing an opportunity to look at seemingly familiar things from an unfamiliar angle. This time, the debates were special, given that they were not devoted to international security issues; it made the task even more exciting. I incredibly enjoyed working with Asel, Alexander, and Larisa,” – Veronika Terpugova (Russian Federation), a fourth-year student of the International Relations faculty of MGIMO-University.
The XXIII International School on Global Security participants also shared their opinions and impressions on the debates.
“Both teams had a difficult task. It is worth noting that, in the end, they managed to defend their position with honor and dignity. Finally, someone learned something new from known books and opened new pages from Alexander Pushkin’s life. As we know, friendship usually wins, and this time the glory went to it, as both teams tried their best and passed a tough test,” – Azim Vakhidov (Republic of Tajikistan), PhD candidate in Political Science and Master’s graduate of the Russian-Tajik (Slavic) University.
“I would like to express my great gratitude to the PIR Center for organizing the Timerbaev Debates devoted to the topic “Who does this world need – a statesman or an individualist? On the 225th anniversary of the birth of Alexander Pushkin”. Although, I initially underestimated this topic because I wanted to discuss nuclear weapons, missiles, etc., However, it seems that we should be scientists, diplomats, or the military, not because we are only interested in something closely related to these professions. I believe that we should go into these professions because we desire to serve the country. To do so, one must lifelong learn. Moreover, thanks to the debate question, we can acquire the knowledge necessary for this purpose,” – Mikhail Luchina (Russian Federation), a first-year student of the Master’s Program Global Politics and International Political Analysis at MGIMO-University.
