How the great-granddaughter Khrushchev lives in New York

This is probably a whim of history. Nina Khrushcheva, the great-granddaughter of the Soviet leader, who called to catch up and overtake the United States and almost unleashed a nuclear war with her, became a US citizen, has been living in the country of "decaying capitalism" for 19 years. He teaches propaganda at the School of International Relations at New School Universiti in New York. According to her joking statement, she is “engaged in propaganda” like her famous great-grandfather once did. Only, unlike Nikita Sergeevich, he stakes not on communism, but on democracy.

“I now live in New York, and because of the disputes whose grandchildren, Khrushchev or Nixon, will live under capitalism or communism, my life is very closely intertwined with his name,” writes Nina Khrushcheva in Snob... - I, as they say in English, die hard a liberal democrat, but for the Republicans as a favorite toy: after all, even if Nixon lost the Vietnam War, he still won the cold one against Khrushchev, who promised to build communism by 1980; instead, the Soviet Union collapsed and I left for the United States. ”

Granddaughter of the First Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee Nikita Khrushchev, Professor of the International Relations Department of the New School (New School) in New York, senior researcher at the Institute of World Politics, head of the Russia project Nina Khrushcheva is very proud of his kinship with the well-known political figure of the Soviet Union, who, in her opinion, conducted anti-Stalinist reforms, revived the bourgeois ideas of freedom and personal comfort , in fact, ahead of his time. That is why she took the name of her mother, writes "Gordon Boulevard".

Her grandfather is Leonid, the eldest son of Nikita Khrushchev, a military pilot who died during the air battle in March 1943. Leonid and his second wife, a woman from Kiev, Lyubov Sizykh, in 1939, had a daughter, Julia (Nina's mother). Khrushchev practically adopted a two-year granddaughter and raised her like a father. Including because Love Sizykh in 1943 was convicted of espionage.

Nina perceived Nikita Sergeevich as her grandfather. In the last years of his life, he spent most of his time at his dacha in the suburbs, where Yulia often came with her daughter. Khrushchev died in September 1971, when Nina just went to first grade.

“He was a very good grandfather. Everyone always says about this that “our grandfather is the best,” but he really was a very good grandfather. I remember him, because he always said to the harsh adult shouts when we did not behave well: "They are children: let them do what they want." Once he allowed us to jump on the couch, from which the springs were coming out, and we jumped, because it was so much fun. Naturally, it shocked everyone, and he came in and said: "They jump for me, because if I jump, the sofa will fall apart" " — recalls Nina.

Now in the large Khrushchev family, a difficult relationship has been established. The youngest son of the first secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, Sergei, also lives in the United States. But relatives hardly communicate - their views diverged against the background of Russian aggression against Ukraine. Sergei Nikitich supports Putin's policy, while Nina Lvovna condemns the annexation of Crimea and military operations in the Donbas.

On the subject: How Belarusian Jew Meyer Lansky became the crime king of New York

The magazine talked about life under the name of the famous great-grandfather with Nina Khrushcheva "Mission" и Radio Liberty.

Why are the descendants of Russian leaders leaving the country? For example, you or Svetlana Alliluyeva.

Svetlana Alliluyeva decided to leave for several reasons, including political. It was very uncomfortable in the USSR after the XX Congress. But I, I want to emphasize this, had no political motives. I just wanted to look at life outside the totalitarian system. It was interesting to me. I wanted to study, went to University at Princeton. She did not intend to stay in the United States, but received a doctorate, a job offer and decided to stay. After all, by that time I had time to love New York with all my heart. I do not consider myself an American, I do not identify. In general, I have a lot of problems with the States. But I'm a New Yorker, that's how I define myself.

Who else left the Khrushchevs, and who remained in Russia?

My uncle, Sergey Nikitovich, left, he lives in Boston. Publishes memoirs about Khrushchev with his own comments, writes books about the USSR. I think he is free to do it there, there it is more in demand. The youngest son of Alexey Adubei has also been living in Boston for two years. He is a very good scientist, received a grant. And the rest of the family, my sister Ksenia, is all here in Russia.

You have lived in the United States for 19 years and probably managed to get to know this country. In addition, you are teaching students such a specific subject as propaganda, and you are probably comparing the two states. The United States is proud of its democratic gains, this is the main fetish of Americans, they are proud of their economic power. How is Russia different from the States in this sense?

The difference between the United States and Russia, from my point of view, is that in Russia the institutions of governance are subordinate to the technology of governance. In the United States, on the other hand, technology is largely subordinated to governance institutions. I do not want to say that Russia should become exactly like the United States. It absolutely shouldn't. But if Russia wants national identity, wants to become a strong power, it has no other choice but to become a rule-of-law state with social institutions not under the control of the government.

Russia, first of all, seeks to become strong, but this is not entirely correct, because in general, the country must first become successful economically, which is why it becomes strong. Basically, the US follows exactly this formula. And Russia, in my opinion, lacks innovation in economic activity.

What do you mean?

In Russia, they believe that purchasing new equipment from the West is becoming an innovative economy. This is not true. The economy becomes innovative when a large amount of a product is produced within the country, which is consumed by the entire world market, and not just consumed, it is also desired. A striking example of innovation - the Finnish concern Nokia... Twenty years ago, the Finns invested in a new production, and today every fourth mobile phone on the planet is produced by the concern Nokia... And in the United States, forty percent of the economy is an innovation economy. In the USA, they invented the Internet, they invented personal computers. And now the whole world buys these computers.

Not so long ago, the media - both American and Russian - began talking about the danger of a new round of the “cold war” between the two powers. This happened after the famous statement by then-US Vice President Dick Cheney, who frankly stated that Russia is stifling democracy and putting pressure on neighboring states. What could be the future relationship between the two powers? And how does Russia look now in the American media, on American television channels? How objective is this image?

In fact, neither Russia nor the United States needs the Cold War, and I do not think that the top leadership of these countries is looking for aggravation. Yes, some American media are still trying to make the image of Russia a nightmare. In this sense, nothing has changed since 1991, when I first arrived in the United States. Back then, who was born in the USSR, I was treated as if I had horns and hooves. This is undoubtedly the result of ideology. But, fortunately, it has not been elevated to a total system. Because there are media outlets that also condemn American politics. When Dick Cheney said in Vilnius that Russia was killing democracy, the reaction of the American media was as follows: maybe Russia really has problems with democracy, freedoms, and so on, but not Dick Cheney to talk about it. This is exactly what the New York Times wrote, for example. In general, in my opinion, Russia and the United States now have more common problems than irreconcilable conflicts.

The United States is considered a highly politicized country. It is curious whether there is still interest in the personality of Nikita Sergeevich?

Khrushchev is remembered and, surprisingly, good to him. We can say he first discovered Russia for the Americans. His memoirs are popular with readers.

There is an opinion that he was an insufficiently educated person, he suffered from this and he himself understood it. I remember the first time I heard a recording of his voice, I was surprised - it was not the voice of an uncultured person: absolutely correct speech. And then I read you that he knew Tvardovsky and Nekrasov by heart.

He was not educated in the sense that we understand it today. He was a worker, he had a school education, then he went into the revolution, then his grandmother Nina was his teacher in political economy, party history and so on. He rested such education. But he was a very curious person: he read books, was very interested in everything. So I'm just talking about that. I often hear (and my mother always suffered greatly from this) that he was an ignoramus, an idiot, a fool, and could not read. And even now the film “Death of Stalin” has thundered in Russia. As always, very “smart” people banned him, because he kind of insults our own Politburo. And in this film Nikita Sergeevich cannot read, Nina Petrovna reads to him aloud. This is complete nonsense and nonsense - he loved to read. And respected those who know more.

On the other hand, there were several precedents that alienated the intelligentsia from him. This is when he began to teach her: in one case - having gathered at the Sparrow Hills, in the other - by coming to an exhibition in the Manezh. My good friend, a wonderful artist Boris Zhutovsky, told me about it in person. But another thing - again, what a person! - how he then rethought it all, how he realized that he was wrong, and did not hesitate to admit it! Nikita Sergeevich began to invite the same Boris Zhutovsky to Petrovo-Dalnee. Once, I quote Zhutovsky, he said: “You understand that I, of course, haven’t read Pasternak’s novel, but they told me, and I froze it all in the heat of the moment”. This, of course, was also an amazing feature of him.

Zhutovsky was invited because my mother brought Zhutovsky: his wife was then friends with my mother. So yes, they did come.

And what Unknown himself said about him: "I understood that I was talking with a living person." Belly to belly, they argued, he taught them, but realizing that this was not the final word. This, by the way, was organized by the KGB, it was organized by Semichastny on purpose, knowing that Khrushchev is a passionate, explosive person, and now they will sweep this avant-garde rag-tag away. And dared no one! So I think that these stories are for the benefit of the memory of Khrushchev, and not against the memory of Khrushchev.

And all these people kept and keep a good, good memory about Khrushchev.

And after he was removed in 1964, they came to him, starting with Yevtushenko and ending with Vladimir Vysotsky. And Vysotsky, with his characteristic spontaneity, said: "Can't you get it back?"

Several years ago, an article about the fate of his memoirs was published in one of the Russian newspapers.

I did not read this article.

On the subject: Not what it seemed: why the Russian-speaking tourist didn't like New York

It said that Khrushchev, being removed from office, wrote a book about the USSR and transferred it abroad. And then he had to make an official statement that it had nothing to do with this book.

He stated that he did not transfer the book to foreign sources. And these are different things. And he really didn't pass it on. He wrote it for himself. And it was a shock for him to learn that she went abroad. And there are a lot of publications of various kinds. And very often mythology takes the place of facts in them. For example, Khrushchev's visit to the UN in 1961. For some reason, everyone firmly believes that he knocked his boot on the podium, no one wants to abandon this myth, including the UN. And he just kicked off his clutching new shoes, bought especially for the trip to New York, and stood in his socks. But the truth is that he then pounded on the podium with his fist.

Even in the encyclopedia of the Stalinist era, five pages out of seven are devoted to what problems Khrushchev had in his family. But, in my opinion, if this is an encyclopedia, it would have to be a story about time, political accomplishments or miscalculations, and not about what Khrushchev was a scum, respectively, in the family too. Our family even sued several TV channels and some authors even several times.

But do you agree that Nikita Sergeevich was still a controversial figure? A black-and-white monument by Ernst Neizvestny is installed on his grave - as a symbol of this contradiction ...

I recently watched an American film about the Cuban missile crisis. If there were another person in Nikita Sergeevich's place, he would have pressed the notorious "button". And if there was another person in Kennedy's place, he would also press. This is what the US is discussing. If George W. Bush had been in Kennedy's place, nothing good would have happened. Kennedy and Khrushchev had the wisdom not to do the irreparable. But Khrushchev was full of communist ideology.

Nevertheless, the human in him turned out to be stronger, which was uncharacteristic for the Soviet leader. And in his memoirs, I read them, in the last chapter, which made an absolutely indelible impression on me, he writes that he was wrong in relation to Andrei Sakharov. Sakharov said that he could not destroy humanity, therefore he refuses to work in the atomic program. Khrushchev was a temperamental person, he was very indignant, shouted at him. And in his memoirs he wrote: “If I had the opportunity now to apologize to Sakharov, I would definitely apologize. Because it is absolutely everyone's personal freedom to write, speak and work on the issues they want to work on. " And for the Soviet leader, in general, this is a big step forward.

For me, this person is definitely positive. And not because I'm his great-granddaughter. You see, a person who knows how to admit not only his mistakes, but even the mistakes of a country is worthy of respect.

On the subject: 10 reasons to fall in love with New York: the experience of a Russian-speaking tourist

Personal ...

Nina Khrushcheva's mother, Yulia Leonidovna (she died tragically in 2017 at the Solnechnaya railway station in Moscow - she was hit by a train, as the Investigative Committee said, she “did not have time to react to the signals of an approaching train”) in an interview with the newspaper "Facts" in 2011, she recalled:

“My daughter Nina lives and works in New York. And it's very difficult for me to get used to this city. I remember how my dad, talking at some event about his first trip to the USA, said: "I must tell you, comrades, that New York is a terrible city!"

Now, after visiting my daughter, I understand how this megalopolis suppressed it. Nikita Sergeevich loved the forest, the river, the field, the nature, and protruding high houses and gorges and streets between them simply oppressed him.

And every time I go out on the street in New York (and it is especially “impressive” in the summer), I must say: “I must tell you, comrades, that New York is a terrible city!”