Στιγμιότυπο από την εκπομπή REVIEW με την Ιρένα Αργύρη, στην τηλεόραση της ΝΑΥΤΕΜΠΟΡΙΚΗ, Σάββατο 21 Μαρτίου 2026.
Το Σάββατο 21 Μαρτίου 2026, είχα τη χαρά και την τιμή να είμαι προσκεκλημένος να συζητήσουμε με την οικοδέσποινα της εκπομπής REVIEW, στην τηλεόραση της ΝΑΥΤΕΜΠΟΡΙΚΗΣ, Ιρένα Αργύρη, τον πόλεμο στο Ιράν.
Ειδικότερα, εστιάσαμε σε μια σειρά κρίσιμων θεμάτων και παραμέτρων:
1. Το πολιτισμικό υπόβαθρο της κρίσης στη Μέση Ανατολή και τη Μεσοποταμία.
2. Οι κοσμοαντιλήψεις και ανθρωπότυποι Δύσης και Ανατολής που συγκρούονται στο πεδίο του Ιράν.
3. Η έννοια της θρησκείας στην Ανατολή και Δύση και η εναωμάτωσή της στην πολιτική.
4. Η επίθεση στο Ιράν ως νέα εκδοχή Σταυροφοριών.
5. Η έννοια του χρόνου σε Ανατολή και Δύση και η επίδρασή της στη χάραξη στρατηγικής των “παικτών”.
6. Ο Δυτικός Ορθολογισμός στη γεωπολιτική και οι δυνατότητες επίλυσης της σύγκρουσης μεταξύ Δύσης και Ανατολής.
7. Ο ρόλος της Ελλάδος: τί είναι η Ελλάδα για τους γείτονες, τον πολιτισμό, τη δύση και για την ανατολή, και κυρίως τους ίδιους τους Έλληνες. Τι είμαστε, τι νομίζουμε ότι είμαστε, τι πρέπει να είμαστε, πώς πρέπει να αντιλαμβανόμαστε τον εαυτό μας και συνεπώς πώς πρέπει να πορευθεί ο Ελληνισμός.
Μπορείτε να παρακολουθήσετε τη συνέντευξη από αυτόν τον σύνδεσμο:
Σε αυτό το επεισόδιο του νορβηγικού Podcast Praktverk συναντάμε στο Όσλο τον Νορβηγό Ορθόδοξο ιερέα π. Johannes Solberg και τον Έλληνα ερευνητή φιλοσοφίας στο Πανεπιστήμιο του Όσλο Panagiotis Pavlos σε μια συζήτηση για τον Χριστό Παντοκράτορα — όχι μόνο ως τον Κυρίαρχο των πάντων, αλλά ως Εκείνον που βαστάζει, στηρίζει και διακονεί ολόκληρη την κτίση.
Η συζήτηση είναι στα Νορβηγικά αλλά μπορείτε να ενεργοποιήσετε ελληνικούς υπότιτλους σε προβολή YouTube από τον υπολογιστή σας.
Χρονικά σημεία:
00:00 Χριστός Παντοκράτωρ – κυρίαρχος των πάντων και διάκονος 00:33 Παρουσίαση του Panagiotis Pavlos 01:26 Φιλοσοφία, μουσική και βυζαντινή ψαλτική 05:04 Βυζαντινή μουσική, λαϊκή μουσική και παράδοση 08:38 Νορβηγία, Ελλάδα και εθνικός χαρακτήρας 12:45 Ιεραρχία, αυθεντία και οι συγκρούσεις της εποχής μας 16:20 Η χριστιανική εξουσία ως ταπείνωση 20:24 Παντοκράτωρ, Ecce Homo και σύγχρονες παρεξηγήσεις 23:40 Ο νοετικός άνθρωπος και η απώλεια της μυστικής εμπειρίας 27:15 Ορθολογισμός, μεταμοντερνισμός και αγώνας για εξουσία 32:36 Η Ελλάδα ανάμεσα στην πίστη, την παράδοση και τη νεωτερικότητα 33:02 Στηρίξτε το «Tro i tiden» μέσω VIPPS 36:30 Ηθική των σχέσεων, πολιτική και πολιτισμική σύγκρουση 45:10 Είναι ο Χριστός πραγματικά η αλήθεια για εμάς; 48:35 Αλήθεια, κοινότητα και εκκλησία 52:15 Η Ενσάρκωση και η μεταμόρφωση του κόσμου 55:10 Ο σκοπός της ζωής, ο θάνατος και η οντολογική θεραπεία 57:50 Κοινότητα, αλήθεια και η ταυτότητα του ανθρώπου 01:07:28 Ο Παντοκράτωρ με ανοιχτές αγκάλες 01:08:40 Ταπείνωση, ηγεσία και αληθινή αυθεντία 01:11:15 Πόνος, κακό και ο δρόμος προς την ταπείνωση 01:13:03 Επίλογος
Η συζήτηση ξεκινά από τη σύγχρονη αναστάτωση γύρω από την ιεραρχία, την αυθεντία, την εξουσία και τη νομιμότητα, και εισέρχεται στην πρόσφατη δημόσια συζήτηση μεταξύ του Asle Toje και της Hilde Sandvik για τον Χριστό Παντοκράτορα σε αντιπαραβολή με το Ecce Homo — τον Χριστό ως τον πάσχοντα και ευάλωτο. Ποια εικόνα του Χριστού αναδύεται σήμερα στο πολιτικό τοπίο; Ένας Θεός δύναμης ή αυτοθυσίας, όπως αναρωτιέται η Sandvik;
Συμμετέχουν: Audun Janøy πατήρ Johannes Solberg Panagiotis Pavlos
Panagiotis Pavlos hosted on Document.no Doc-TV’s Dagsorden television show by Hans Rustad, Oslo, Wednesday, October 15, 2025.
Contents: Interview with Matthew Boyle in Washington – President Donald Trump and the Crisis of Europe – Left, Right and Far Right – Norway and Christianity – Left and the Aversion of God – Christ as the True God – The Tree of Knowledge and Artificial Intelligence – Sin and Death – The Resurrectional Confrontation with Death and the Hieromonk from Mount Athos
Hans Rustad: Welcome to Dagsorden! It is Wednesday, October 15, 2025, and I have Panagiotis Pavlos with me. Welcome!
Panagiotis Pavlos: Thank you for inviting me, thank you Hans!
Rustad: We have already met once, and then I realized that you have a lot of knowledge about something that concerns us in particular: Late Antiquity and the origins of Christianity. And you are Greek. That means you have a long history that we can draw from. You also traveled to Washington to interview Matthew Boyle, who is one of the important editors of Breitbart News.
Interview with Matthew Boyle in Washington
Pavlos: That’s right. It was this May when I was in the United States for a conference in Chicago, and on the occasion of my presence there, we arranged to meet and talk with Matthew Boyle. It was then four months into President Trump’s new term in the White House. We had a thorough and detailed discussion regarding this first period in President Trump’s new term, and of course about Ukraine, the Middle East, Europe. As well as what Matthew Boyle says is President Trump’s big goal, namely dealing with China.
We spoke in detail, and I must say that he himself is a very enthusiastic supporter of Trump. He is, as you know, the chief of the Breitbart Bureau in Washington, and one of the journalists who is very close to the US President. They have a very good relationship.
Rustad: They are very close.
Pavlos: Indeed, they are very close and very good friends.
Rustad: I have read most of the interview and it is interesting to hear your impression of Boyle and what he said. Because the Norwegian public is unaware of the fact that in the United States a completely new media has emerged in the last ten years. Exactly, as you said, MAGA predates President Trump. It started under Obama. So it is a river with many supply streams, which has now turned into a flood. The hate propaganda of the Norwegian media is like speaking against the weather. It is an historical natural phenomenon, but these media think they can exorcise it. And that is very promising.
Pavlos: It is true. Before we talk a bit more about that, I would like to say that the work that you are doing here at Document.no is very important. We are living under times where we are experiencing a whole new level of complexity, both nationally and internationally. We see, for example, how difficult it is to resolve the situation in Gaza. We can talk more about it. There was the Peace Agreement the day before yesterday, very important, but it is still early. So I think we are living in times where things are very complicated. And it is not enough to just have the systemic media that only communicate a certain kind of narrative that often does not correspond to the truth at all. It simply serves interests. I think the same is true for the US, not only for Norway, not only for Greece, but also for the US. And that is perhaps why there are media outlets there like Breitbart you mentioned. Charlie Kirk also did a tremendous job, and it is a very sad and tragic story. But what I saw with Matthew Boyle, besides being a very experienced journalist and a person who deeply understands what President Trump’s vision is…
Rustad: …and down to earth.
Pavlos: Absolutely. He is very down to earth. It was also very easy to talk together, he was very friendly. We were in a cafe right next to the White House for two and a half hours, and then we prepared a TV interview. So I saw a very down to earth person, as you said, even though he is one of the closest people to the American President and has access to the White House whenever he wants. But what impressed me the most was that he had a complete overview. And despite the fact, as he characteristically told me, that “I am not a member of President Trump’s staff,” he was nevertheless perfectly capable of understanding his vision, and of analyzing in detail how the American President thinks or acts. This is interesting, because yesterday and today, for example, I was reading about President Trump’s friendly relations with Turkish President Erdogan. There are people who are concerned that we have a situation and a relationship here that could be quite dangerous.
President Donald Trump and the Crisis of Europe
But you would hear from Matthew Boyle that President Trump is a man who can say good things about various people, but in his strategic thinking he remains unaffected, despite what he says. His words are part of his strategy. And it is important to hear this from a man who is so close to the US President, who has experienced him in everyday life, and in real situations. This is very interesting, I think.
Rustad: So Trump reads the situation and understands how to handle people and then brings them to this point that he wants. We have seen that many times. He does things in a very different way than professional politicians who deal with the wind and the weather. They are opportunists, unlike Trump who thinks long-term.
Pavlos: That’s right. And of course, it is still early, it hasn’t even been a year since January 2025, but I think we already have some indications. For example, the fact that Trump has already served as President of the United States before; there is nothing he needs to achieve now, he has done everything in his life. In this sense, it is reasonable to think and believe that he is simply trying for the best, both for his country and for the world, what he himself considers best.
Furthermore, and equally important, I do not recall anyone in our days who has experienced two assassination attempts. He did. But he did not lose his drive, his conviction and his strength; on the contrary. I think that says a lot. Yet, something that I find impressive and very important – and I think we will all agree on this – it is the first time in many years that the US has a President who leaves no doubt that he is in control of things. Whereas with the previous Biden administration there was a President, but at the same time there was a feeling that behind him there was a multitude of invisible factors that defined and determined US policy. Now, we see that Trump is taking the lead. Of course, this can have certain negative consequences; for instance, the fact that he is unpredictable, or that he does whatever he wants, or that he can suddenly cause certain situations that are difficult to manage. I remember, for example, a relatively recent interview of the Norwegian Prime Minister Støre, when he somehow pointed out the unpredictable nature of Trump and the question of how to interpret situations. But overall, I think that if one tries to understand what President Trump is trying to achieve, then it is not too difficult to adapt and get into a good understanding and agreement.
Rustad: However, with regard to what you are referring to, the Støre case, European politicians and the media alike, are talking about a straw man that they themselves have created. And the more they insist on it, the lower they fall. While Trump is constantly rising and advancing. We have not seen Trump in a fall like other politicians.
Pavlos: That is true. And the best example is what took place the day before yesterday [on Monday, October 13, 2025] in Sharm El Sheikh. That is, he, together with Sisi of Egypt, invited twenty countries to participate in this agreement. One would say, okay, he did it deliberately with the expectation that all of them would offer to contribute large sums of money and other resources to Gaza. That is one thing.
The other thing is that he shows an openness and dedication. He sees that Europe is basically going through a political crisis. It is not a lie to say that today’s European leaders do not demonstrate independence. They do not have the resilience that, one might say, Trump expects them to have. He said it yesterday on the flight back to the US, that “I do not come along well with weak guys”, “I come along with tough guys”. This means, therefore, that he himself would like to have interlocutors who want the best for their country and in an independent manner, not as satellites. Unfortunately, today Europe is a satellite, on many levels. This is not good for the population, for the peoples of Europe. This may also be partly true for Norway, to the extent that here we have a systemic approach to a new reality. By “systemic approach” I mean that we do not directly see what is happening and is in progress, but we live in a situation like what someone once told me, that, okay, what we are living in is a parenthesis now, in 2028 we will have the Democrats back into power.
But that’s not the point. The point is that one should respect the reality in which Donald Trump is the President of the United States. And so it is reasonable and prudent to adjust your policy, to adjust your political goals and so on, and to try to respond to that reality, without seeking to create a reality that does not exist.
Left, Right and Far Right
Rustad: As you know, Europe is ruled by the Left, which cannot understand America. They do not want to understand because they only see Obama’s United States, that is their America. But it is not the real United States, the historical one. So they invent this old word, the Right, the Far Right. And so, a parallel is increasingly created with the 1930s, in a completely different way, however, from what the Left claims. Because it is the Left that has now given itself the mandate to use violence.
Pavlos: The story with the “far right” is funny. Because what is actually happening is that we observe the Center, for example, or the Left shifting more radically to the limits of the political framework, towards the corner. And they say that those who are on the Right, who remain conservative, are far right! However, it is not that the latter shifted to the far right, but that the former shifted in the opposite direction.
Things are therefore relative. If I move away from you, and if I am not honest, I will say “ah, you are standing far away on the edge!”. But this does not reveal the truth that I have moved away, I have withdrawn, I am the one who has not maintained my original positions and values.
Norway and Christianity
Rustad: Let me tell you, you are Greek. You Greeks have a long history of 2,500 years and more. We have a much younger history, 1,000–1,500 years. But we have now cut our roots from our own history. We are sitting on a branch that is breaking, as we have no knowledge of the first Viking period [Norrøn times, 800–1350 AD] and the old deities. We also have no knowledge of Jesus Christ. We are throwing Jesus Christ out the window. While in five years from now we will celebrate in Stikkestad the thousand years of Christianity in Norway, they have de-Christianized the country! So what have we left? Nothing.
Pavlos: That is true. There is a crisis. And I don’t know to what extent Norwegians are aware of the fact that Norway is a Christian country. Saint Olav died, or rather was killed, in 1030 AD. That means, 24 years before the Schism. At that time the Christian Church was One, Orthodox, Catholic, Apostolic Church. That was before the separation between East and West. Isn’t that right? Therefore, I, as a Greek and as an Orthodox Christian, know that St Olav is celebrated in the Greek Church, he is one of the Saints of the Church. This is very important. Lutheranism and Protestantism come much later, after 1500 AD.
Rustad: Yes!
Pavlos: So what is happening today, which I find very unfortunate, is that in Norway there is a gap in the consciousness of Christian identity. This is because Christianity is no longer seen as part of our being, of our existence. It is seen as a cultural value, or as a hobby, a religious subject that we may or may not be interested in.
But, to put it this way, what is missing today –we see that in the society- is the ontological connection, understanding and knowledge that man is created by God. What does that mean? And not just created by God, but created in the image of God. And not just in the image of God, but also in his likeness. This implies that we have a teleology here. That man has a purpose, an end, which is to become like God. If we understand this deeply, it is something explosive! It opens up to completely new horizons. Because all what we are discussing, politics, geopolitics, everything, it concerns the present of the world which we live in.
But here is the question. Okay, here we have war – Heraclitus the Presocratic says “war is the father of all things” and we see this every day. But the question is: are we interested in solving problems for sixty, seventy, eighty, ninety – as Norwegians live quite a long time – a hundred years? And then what? Zero? Nothing? Christianity carries a very valuable truth, precious for all people. A Christianity that does not recognize this truth ends up being just a “religion”. I think, therefore, that we should reflect on this and realize that we have escaped and distanced ourselves from our roots and sources.
Rustad: “We threw the baby out with the bathwater!”, we say in Norwegian.
Pavlos: Exactly! That’s a very apt phrase.
Rustad: And I believe that in this spiritual crisis of Europe, which is also a political crisis, Europeans will return to history to rediscover their roots and share them with new inhabitants who want to become Europeans…
Pavlos: …Let’s hope so!
The Left and the aversion of God
Rustad: Well, I am convinced of that, because we have such a rich heritage, don’t we? I mean the Greek heritage, the Roman, and of course the Jewish, Israel; these are the great stories.
The Left, however, aversions God. That’s what they do! If we wanted to put it into words, the central point is that Netanyahu bows down to God, just like Trump, in contrast to European politicians.
Pavlos: Perhaps there is an explanation, I think, for this. One can interpret it as a reaction to an untrue belief in God. For example, if you say that “I believe in God” and at the same time do all the opposites to this belief – after all, Christ says that if you do this and this and that, by these the world will know that you are my disciples. What does this mean?
It means that it is not enough for me to say that I am a Christian. I must also act as a Christian. And what does it mean to act as a Christian? It means to act as a person who sees the image of God in the persons of all other people. If I do this, then I move on to a level that is “beyond” being “left” or “right”. This is something beyond being or being named in a certain way.
Christ as the true God
If we read the New Testament, we see that Christ shattered all the frameworks, all the ways of understanding the people of that time had, and introduced a completely new reality. Sometimes this reality seems contradictory, but it is not. Because what happens with Christianity and Christian epistemology, if one may say so, is that truth is not defined on the basis of principles that are independent of God. Rather the principle is Christ himself. So if a true Christian attempts to establish principles, he must do so through a personal relationship, a personal connection, with Christ.
Today, I sadly recognize that we are losing this reality. We often create a Christianity that is an ideology. That is why Christ says, I do not know when I return to earth whether I shall find true faith. This is how I understand it. That Christ, as the true God who knows what is happening within man, sees all the situations and challenges that take place in the human soul, all the crises and all the stakes. That is why he “wonders” whether he will find faith again in people, at the Second Coming, and so on.
Therefore, it is not very easy to put aside our opinions, to abandon our thoughts, right or wrong, what we consider to be either true or false, in general, to abandon everything and meet in a personal way with Christ. And from this meeting and relationship to receive our direction. That is, how will we function politically, whether shall we do this or that. To put it this way, if a person truly believes in Christ, it does not harm whether he is a left-wing or a right-wing. Whereas, you can have someone who is either right-wing or left-wing but who does not believe in Christ; then he harms everything.
Rustad: That is so. But in this case you should feel a pull towards the transcendent. And the Left does not feel this! They oppose everything that moves upwards. They only move on a horizontal plane. Besides, that’s why we have the sign of the Cross.
Pavlos: This observation about the Cross is very correct!
Rustad: Isn’t it? And I think about how this tradition has reached us. I was in Rome where Christian Schou showed us around. We went to churches. Caravaggio is a painter who moves a lot of people because his paintings have a lot of power.
This image of Paul, of Saul, who is overcome on the road to Damascus, is in one of these churches. They are the kind of images that you don’t forget because they make you feel something. Caravaggio is, in other words, a power, precisely because of what he depicts. He is the messenger of a message: that Saul became Paul.
Pavlos: This happens because, due to the fact that they are created by God, all people have the spirit of God within them, in some way. So they are, in a sense, divine. And we should not forget that we are in a situation where man has fallen from Paradise. But what is Paradise? It is not a place; it is a way of being. The Fall, therefore, is not a change of location, rather it is precisely the divorce of the relationship between God and man. That man denied God and believed that he himself could become God in the place of God.
If I wanted to somehow try to interpret what you said earlier about people who belong to the Left and deny God, it would not be very difficult, since man has an absolute freedom. He has the freedom to deny God. If man did not have this freedom, then God would not be a true God. He would be a tyrant, and that would make no sense…
Rustad: …Our God is not Allah…
Paul: True. What you are now saying is also important. Because if God is not a person – for example the Greeks, all Greek philosophy understands God as the highest principle, as the One, from which everything comes. This is largely true. But the Greeks of the ancient world did not have the personal experience of God that Paul had on the road to Damascus, which made him completely converted and become the greatest Apostle of Christ while previously he was a murderer. We observe a radical change here.
The pre-Christian Greeks had clearly arrived at a correct understanding of the transcendental but not in a personal way, as is necessarily the case with the Incarnation of Christ. To contemplate that God comes and becomes man is not something that man can fully grasp. To believe this and to recognize it, is a gift. It is a gift, because man will always be a creature. How, then, can I, who am created, and have a beginning – I am not eternal, I have a beginning and I will probably die too – how, then, can I say that I have the ability to find, first of all, God, to recognize him, and then say to the people “hey, here is God!”? This is completely absurd.
Therefore, we are talking about a manifestation, a revelation, just as we have the revelation in the Old Testament with Moses. But now it is not a revelation through signs and symbols; it is precisely God himself who becomes man, so that there is no one who has the excuse to say “and who is God? Show him to me!”.
The Tree of Knowledge and Artificial Intelligence
Rustad: There is, as you mentioned, Moses and there is also Christ. But there is something third, still, in the eyes of the beholder. Because in Paradise Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge. And they became “wise”. They then made clothes to cover their nakedness, and God said to them: “who told you that you were naked?” Because this was a result of their eating from the tree of knowledge.
Today, however, there is AI, artificial intelligence, which offers the great temptation, because you can become omnipotent. There is the temptation to become God, as it happens in Silicon Valley and in these environments where one can become a great destroyer of the world. They can destroy the world.
Pavlos: Artificial intelligence is very interesting, because here we have the greatest challenge. That is, as man has the ability to perform miracles, he can believe that he is God. This is a repetition of the deception that Adam and Eve suffered from the Evil, who convinced them that, if you eat of this you will become God. The problem was not that they simply ate, since – again – God is not a tyrant who wants to prevent man from benefiting from everything. But with the “you will not eat of this fruit, of the apple” he actually told them: “do not try to do anything without me.”
So we can say that the prohibition that God gave to the first man, Adam and Eve, was essentially about telling them: don’t try to do things without me because you will perish. Not because I will make sure that you will pay for it in some way. But because this is how things work since you are created by me, and since you do not have an ontological autonomy, you are not self-sufficient. So it makes perfect sense that,if you decide to separate from me and destroy our relationship, you will lose.
This was said with love. That’s why Christ later, when he comes and becomes man, says: “without me you can do nothing” [cf. John 15:5]. This is a repetition of the original prohibition “you shall not eat of this”. Now Christ repeats it in other words and says “without me you can do nothing”. Not because this is an obstacle, but precisely because this is a revelation of a truth. That is, “look, you can do anything with me”!
Sin and Death
Rustad: You are a philosopher and you know ancient Greece. So I would like to invite you, we are going to start a radio podcast about the fact that we do not learn anything in school anymore. There is a logic in the Bible. Just as there is logic in the Greek world. And there is a greatness in that. Because in the Bible, Paradise was lost and so sin entered the world. That has been grounded. It is the primary mythology of our origins, and the consequences of sin are death. But most people do not know that, Panagiotis! They don’t know that sin enters the world and the wages of sin is death.
Pavlos: That is true, and I think we have a duty, first of all, to delve into that truth. That is, to understand that death is not an action of a God who seeks revenge against us. But, as already said, it is an ontological consequence of our own decision. At the same time, again, this is not enough. Because death is an ontological state. It is the most serious state of separation of soul and body. It is truly a catastrophe. It is a decay. We do not have similar experiences before we die, so that we can delve deeper into this truth and reality. So, the question is, how will we talk about death while we are alive?
There are Greek philosophers who said, “I am not concerned with death, since as long as I live I am not dead, and therefore I do not care. And when I die I will not be alive, so, again, I do not worry.” But this way of approaching death is quite sophistical. The truth is that death is a radical destruction of humanity as we know it. And the only way to delve into it, and not just delve into it, but essentially the question is how do we overcome death, how do we defeat it? Is there any way out of death?
If, for instance, you ask me why I like Christ, or why I am a Christian, I shall answer you this: if Christ is not sincere in what he says about the Resurrection, or if Christ has not risen from the dead and does not grant us the Resurrection, then I am not interested in him. Then, he is nothing more than all the gods that have arisen in human history.
If there is value in being a Christian, it is because Christ is the only one who took upon himself all the sin that you spoke about earlier. Which was not his fault, it is we who decided to commit it. And he somehow absorbs everything, becomes the one who goes to the bottom, to the lowest, becomes the humblest being in the history of the world, descends into Hades and resurrects the dead. Thus, Resurrection is the most subversive thing that man can understand, or rather experience. If there is no Resurrection, then Christianity is completely useless.
The Resurrectional Confrontation with Death and the Athonite Hieromonk
Rustad: I heard Kasper Støvring mention a meeting he had with a hospital pastor, who told him something very interesting. That is, on their deathbeds, people struggle against death. They refuse to give up life because they want to live and they believe that science will save them. Because this is the worldview we live with today. To cling to life because science will soon grant us immortality, as some believe. So this priest said: “the most important thing I do is to reconcile people with the fact that they are going to die. Because when they accept it, they calm down. Then they surrender to what is about to happen and thus they gain peace.”
Pavlos: This is a very honest approach. I will tell you a true story, which happened very recently. I was in Greece a month ago. And the reason I was in Greece was that on Athos, on the Holy Mountain, where there are many monasteries, there lived a hieromonk very dear to me, I loved him very much, who died. So it was his burial and I went to his funeral. There I was informed about some of his last words, as well as some moments and images that people who were close to him described to me.
The first is that he himself was very happy and grateful to Christ. Shortly before his passing away he received the Holy Communion, before his death he prayed, and he was so happy and peaceful that he said: “I look forward to the celebration of my funeral.” That’s what he said.
The second is that shortly before he died – I heard this from a person who saw it with his own eyes, and therefore it is true – the room where he was, in the hospital in Thessaloniki, was illuminated with a very special light; only the room in which he himself was. It was not an easily described light, it was indescribable. It was not like the light of these spotlights here in the studio. It was a different kind of light.
And of course, there was his funeral on Athos, where only men and not women can go, as is the case. It was a ceremony where of course people were very sad but at the same time there was a joy that you could feel. A joy that this person who is now lying in the grave, who was a very humble person and who in his last moments said “I am worth nothing, absolutely nothing, I am nothing” and, at the same time, I am very happy because Christ loves me and I will go to Christ.
In this sense, you can say that this man is not reconciled with saying, okay, I embrace death since I have no other choice. Instead, he was very happy that life had reached an end that is not the end but the beginning. Again, this is not easy – as you rightly said before – to do through scientific methods. It is impossible, precisely because we are talking about a reality that is not of this world, so to speak. We do not have the premises and the data, if we want to speak in machine terms, we do not have the necessary data to process it. That is one thing.
The other thing that you mentioned, artificial intelligence: I think it is very good that man has the ability to perform these miracles. The very fact that man can perform them, artificial intelligence, is a confirmation that man is created in the image of God. Because God has transmitted to man, and has enriched him with, all his own capabilities and abilities. So, just as God creates man out of nothing, so too man has the ability to create something so intelligent. Besides, Christ said that people will be able to do more miracles than him, as we read in the Gospel.
So this reality does not surprise us. The question is how will we use this power and ability? Shall we use it for the good, to glorify God? Or shall we use it to replace God, and so we will return to the Fall and the Original Sin…?
Rustad: Or will we serve Evil?
Pavlos: Exactly. Therefore, everything depends on our choice. Everything depends on what we will.
Rustad: Panagiotis, we have now gone through many, and even big issues. But it was very pleasant and I think that our viewers also appreciate it very much. And I would like to be allowed to invite you to come again.
Pavlos: Thank you very much, with pleasure!
Rustad: Thank you for this time, thank you for coming.
Σχίζεις το ασημόχρυσο πέλαγος στα πόδια του Άθωνος να προφθάσεις την εξόδιο ακολουθία του Γέροντος Βασιλείου Ιβηρίτου, και μέσα από αναρίθμητους ιλιγγιωδώς ιπτάμενους λογισμούς ο νούς σου καρφώνεται μια στιγμή στο ιδιόμελο του Εσπερινού της Κυριακής των Βαΐων: «Σήμερον η χάρις του Αγίου Πνεύματος ημάς συνήγαγε…».
Επί σαράντα χρόνια η μορφή του πατρός Βασιλείου χαράχθηκε μέσα σου τόσο οικεία, ώστε να νιώθεις όχι ότι πηγαίνεις στο Άγιον Όρος αλλά ότι επιστρέφεις σε αυτό. Δεν τον κατανοούσες καταλαβαίνοντας τη γλώσσα του αλλά κοινωνούσες από το βίωμα, αλλότριο και υπερκόσμιο, που την άρθρωνε και την εμπλούτιζε. Η ομιλία κι η γραφή του σε χρόνο ενεστώτα, όπως τα λειτουργικά κείμενα, καθώς «ο χρόνος είναι κινητή εικόνα της αιωνιότητας» που στην Εκκλησία βρίσκει τα όντα σε «αεικίνητο στάση» και «στάσιμο ταυτοκινησία».
Κοντά του ανέπνεες ελευθερία άλλης τάξης που δεν περιχαρακώνεται σε λογικές προτάσεις. Το πρόσωπό του εξέπεμπε τέτοια χάρη πρωτόγνωρης δύναμης και γλυκύτητας που ξεχνούσες τον εαυτό σου και σου θύμιζε πώς περιγράφει ο Άγιος Διονύσιος Αρεοπαγίτης την εκστατικότητα του θείου έρωτος στο «Περί Θείων Ονομάτων». Σπανίως μια ανθρώπινη μορφή σε ελκύει με τρόπο του επέκεινα εκπέμποντας ιλαρή αγαθότητα και κάλλος όχι περιγράψιμο αλλά μετεχόμενο. Μετοχή αλλόκοτη ως ξένη, και επιθυμητή ως απολύτως συγγενής.
Δεν σου έδινε ντιρεκτίβες, μάλλον σου μιλούσε με τρόπο άλλου -κατά Χριστόν- Ηρακλείτου, όπως το μαντείο των Δελφών που ούτε λέγει ούτε κρύπτει αλλά σημαίνει. Αποφατικότητα των καταφάσεων και κατάφαση των αποφάσεων συναμφοτέρως, όπως το θεσπίζει ο Άγιος Μάξιμος Ομολογητής στη «Μυσταγωγία», ανώτερα μαθηματικά άλλης λογικής, Ορθόδοξης κατ’ αντιστροφήν διαλεκτικής. Γράφει στα «Αποτυπώματά» του: «Όταν ένας άγιος σου μιλά για την κόλασι, οσφραίνεσαι την ευωδία του παραδείσου. Όταν ένας πλανεμένος σου περιγράφει τον παράδεισο, παγώνεις από την κρυάδα της κολάσεως». Ευφυία απαράμιλλη ιλιγγιώδους αντίστιξης, αλληλοσυμπλοκής λόγου αποφατικού και καταφατικού εφάμιλλη.
Ο Γέροντας Βασίλειος δεν ήταν φιλόσοφος, επιστήμων, τεχνίτης, διανοούμενος, ποιητής, ως φορέας κατατετμημένης γνώσης ειδικής, αλλά ως υποδοχέας των ομόκεντρων εκφάνσεων της παρουσίας του Ενός «ού εστι χρεία». Δεν ήταν θεολόγος ως «θεολογών» αλλά ως φανερωτής -όσο σου ήταν δυνατόν- του Θεού Λόγου Χριστού. Ως λειτουργός δεν προέβαλλε εαυτόν αλλά αποκάλυπτε τη λογική λατρεία της Θείας Ευχαριστίας ως ιερουργούμενη θεουργία.
Σε αγαπούσε τόσο που καθώς ασχολιόταν μαζί σου, αισθανόσουν το είναι σου να παίρνει αξία και νόημα τέτοιο που μόνος σου εσύ δεν μπορούσες να του προσδώσεις. Ήταν λόγος, ώστε από θεατής της αγιότητας να σου έρθει όρεξη να γίνεις μέτοχος. Κάποτε η λάμψη του θείου έρωτος στο πρόσωπό του αντανακλούσε μέσα σου λούζοντάς σε με τέτοιο φως ελευθερίας, που να μην θέλεις να αντισταθείς στη δρόσο του Πνεύματος.
Δεν σου προσέβαλλε το έλλογον του αυτεξουσίου αλλά σε απάλλασσε από το άλογον του ακουσίου. Δεν σου μετέδιδε πληροφορία αλλά εμπειρία. Δεν σου διαμόρφωνε τη σκέψη αλλά σε μυούσε στην αληθή ελευθερία. Δεν επεδίωκε να σου δώσει κάτι δικό του αλλά να σε βοηθήσει εσύ να κοινωνήσεις την Πηγή του Παντός. Δεν σε παρέπεμπε στα γραπτά και τις κατακτήσεις του πνεύματός του αλλά σε μυούσε στον πλούτο των άλλων, των μεγάλων.
Δεν σου μιλούσε για να καταλάβεις αλλά για να αναλάβεις. Δεν σε καθοδηγούσε ως οπαδό αλλά σου ανέπαυε τον λογισμό. Δεν παραμελούσε τίποτε και κανένα αλλά σε όλους και όλα έβλεπε την Χριστοείδεια και Θεοείδειά τους. Αφού και το κακό ακόμη εφίεται του Αγαθού, καθώς έλκει το είναι του από αυτό, όπως μαρτυρεί ο Αρεοπαγίτης. Δεν τον ενδιέφερε να σε εντάξει σε σχολή σκέψης αλλά να βοηθήσει τη σκέψη σου να σχολάσει· «Σχολάσατε και γνώτε…»
Δεν σε έκρινε γι’ αυτό που είσαι αλλά σε διέκρινε γι’ αυτό που ο Χριστός θέλει να γίνεις. Δεν σε τακτοποιούσε στα μικρά, σε άπλωνε στα μεγάλα. Δεν σου έλυνε απορία διανοητική, σου χάριζε εμπειρία ασκητική. Δεν σου δίδασκε τα θεία αλλά τα έπασχε φανερώνοντάς τα κατά το μερίδιο της δικής σου αντοχής. Δεν κήρυττε στους κτιστούς τον Άκτιστο αλλά υπηρετούσε το γεφύρωμά τους.
Τον ευγνωμονείς όχι για τις απαντήσεις που σου έδωσε αλλά για τα ανεξήγητα που σου μίλησε. Πονάς με την κοίμησή του. Αλλά χαίρεσαι με τη βεβαιότητα ότι είναι παρών, όπως υποσχέθηκε σε ένα μοναχό της Μονής της Παναγίας Πορταΐτισσας λίγο πριν το τέλος: «Εγώ θα φύγω αλλά εδώ θα γυρίζω. Θα τα παρακολουθώ όλα χωρίς να μ’ ενοχλείτε· χωρίς να σας ενοχλώ».
Έπρεπε να φύγει, ώστε να αντιληφθείς ότι το δεύτερο ενικό του προφορικού και γραπτού λόγου του ήτανε κάλυψη και απόκρυψη εμπειρίας πρώτου προσώπου. Νύν πάντα πεπλήρωται Φωτός, Γέροντα Βασίλειε!
Panagiotis Pavlos (Hellas Journal), MVP Filip Ivanović
Tokom prve zvanične posjete Atini, 11. i 12. marta, novi ministar vanjskih poslova Crne Gore dr Filip Ivanović dao je ekskluzivni intervju za Hellas Journal.
Šef diplomatije države kandidatkinje za narednu članicu Evropske unije i članice NATO-a, imao je opsežan i srdačan razgovor sa dopisnikom Hellas Journal-a u Oslu Panajotisom Pavlosom.
U detaljnom razgovoru, ministar Ivanović je ukazao na snažnu podršku koju grčka Vlada i njegov kolega gospodin Jorgos Gerapetritis pružaju glavnom vanjskopolitičkom prioritetu Crne Gore, pridruživanju EU. Osvrnuo se na nedavni Diplomatski forum u Antaliji i na sastanak sa turskim ministrom vanjskih poslova gospodinom Fidanom, istovremeno pozivajući Grčku da pojača svoje prisustvo na balkanskom poluostrvu.
Dr Ivanović je pozvao mlade Grke i Grkinje da budu ponosni na svoje jedinstveno nasljeđe. Očigledan je entuzijazam sa kojim govori o helenizmu, grčkoj civilizaciji, umjetnosti i kulturi, kao i o grčkom duhu uopšte, dok otkriva svoj lični odnos sa Grčkom i Atinom, budući da je i sam bio eminentni istraživač grčke filozofije sa značajnim, međunarodno priznatim filozofskim doprinosom širenju grčke paideije u svojoj zemlji.
Crnogorski ministar prenio je očekivanje koje balkanske države, kao što je Crna Gora, imaju u pogledu uloge koju Grčka, kao svojevrsna kolijevka demokratije i kulture i garant evropskog jedinstva i integracije, ima u regionu. Tom prilikom se osvrnuo i na mogućnosti i strategije daljeg produbljivanja bilateralnih odnosa između Crne Gore i Grčke u nekoliko oblasti saradnje, između ostalog, vojnog obrazovanja, akademskog istraživanja, kulturne i naučne diplomatije, u sektoru investicija.
Na kraju je ukazao i na neophodnost hitnog povratka međunarodne diplomatije, ponajviše sada kada živimo u vremenu turbulencija na međunarodnoj sceni, u čijem je središtu rat u Ukrajini i Gazi.
Hellas Journal: Vaša ekselencijo, ministre Ivanoviću, dragi Filipe! Veliko je zadovoljstvo što ste ovdje, u vašoj prvoj zvaničnoj posjeti Atini nakon preuzimanja dužnosti ministra vanjskih poslova Crne Gore. Nadamo se da ste imali uspješnu posjetu sa produktivnim sastancima i dobrom komunikacijom sa grčkom Vladom.
MVP Ivanović: Moram da kažem da sam veoma srećan što sam u Atini. To je, kao što ste i sami rekli, moja prva zvanična posjeta Grčkoj od kada sam postao ministar vanjskih poslova Crne Gore i počastvovan sam gostoprimstvom i srdačnom dobrodošlicom. Prvog dana posjete, razgovarao sam sa prvim potpredsjednikom Parlamenta, kao i sa ministrom vanjskih poslova Helenske Republike. Takođe, položio sam vijenac na grob Vasosa Mavrovunijotisa, kako ga Grci znaju, odnosno Vasa Brajovića, kako ga Crnogorci poznaju. On je bio veoma istaknuta vojna ličnost 19. vijeka u Grčkoj, a zbog svog crnogorskog porijekla predstavlja snažnu vezu između naše dvije zemlje i naša dva naroda.
Veoma sam zadovoljan sastancima koje sam imao, te činjenicom da sam izuzetno prijateljski dočekan u svim institucijama. Ono što je u ovom trenutku veoma važno jeste spremnost da dalje nadograđujemo prijateljske i dobre odnose naše dvije države. Jednako je značajna i grčka podrška primarnom vanjskopolitičkom cilju Crne Gore, koji se ogleda u našem nastojanju da postanemo prva sljedeća članica Evropske unije. Moji sagovornici su me danas uvjerili da će Grčka pružiti punu podršku, kako političku, tako i ekspertsku, ovom cilju.
HJ: Kako ocjenjujete stav i pozicije grčke Vlade prema ministru vanjskih poslova jedne balkanske države? U smislu da dođete ovdje, sastanete se sa Vladom i istovremeno, dok očekivano imate određene teme i pitanja na dnevnom redu, date im uvid u to kako balkanske države gledaju na Grčku, a možda i na ono što očekuju od nje. Da li je to bio pristup u vašim razgovorima?
MVP Ivanović: Kao što sam danas svim svojim prijateljima i sagovornicima kazao, kada govorimo o glavnom vanjskopolitičkom cilju Crne Gore, ali i drugih balkanskih država koje teže članstvu u Evropskoj uniji, moramo se ujedno prisjetiti i ključne uloge Grčke u ovom procesu koji je 2003. godine obilježen Samitom u Solunu i obećanjem o proširenju EU, tada posebno na zemlje Balkana. 21 godina kasnije, ovo obećanje i dalje čeka na ispunjenje. Svojim sagovornicima u Atini sam prenio i da očekujem da Grčka ponovo preuzme vodeću ulogu i da bude glasna zagovornica proširenja EU na sve druge zemlje, a posebno na one koje su u regionu Jugoistočne Evrope. Grčka ima istorijske veze, ne samo sa Crnom Gorom, nego i sa drugim zemljama ovog regiona. Uz to, vrlo dobro zna koje su prednosti, a nekad i problemi, te stoga vjerujem da može da bude najbolji promoter evropske integracije regiona. To bi bilo izuzetno korisno, rekao bih, za vanjsku politiku Grčke, za vanjsku politiku Crne Gore, za region, ali i za EU.
HJ: Preuzeli ste dužnost ministra vanjskih poslova Crne Gore prije skoro četiri mjeseca, i to u periodu nezabilježenih turbulencija, kako na regionalnom nivou, tako i šire, što je slučaj, na primjer, sa Ukrajinom i Bliskim istokom; stvarno prolazimo kroz teška vremena. Kako ta geopolitička dešavanja utiču na zemlje poput Crne Gore, koje iako nijesu u veličini, recimo, Njemačke ili Francuske, a ipak pokazuju sve veći stepen integracije u zapadne institucije i sigurno se kreću ka punopravnom članstvu u EU, odnosno aktivnom učešću na međunarodnoj sceni?
MVP Ivanović: Kao što znate, Crna Gora je članica NATO-a već sedam godina, a takođe je i predvodnica u procesu evropske integracije. Uvjereni smo da se proces pregovora može okončati u narednih nekoliko godina, te da možemo postati, kako sam ranije kazao, prva sljedeća EU članica. Zaista, geopolitička situacija je izazovna. Suočavamo se sa veoma ozbiljnim i teškim krizama u različitim djelovima svijeta, koje dovode u pitanje samu egzistenciju i koncept diplomatije i međunarodnog poretka. U svemu tome, Crna Gora je zauzela vrlo jasan stav da podrži međunarodni mir i stabilnost i poštovanje međunarodnog prava. S tim u vezi, u potpunosti smo podržali teritorijalni integritet i suverenitet Ukrajine; bili smo, i nastavićemo da budemo u potpunosti usklađeni sa Zajedničkom vanjskom i bezbjednosnom politikom EU, uključujući i sankcije Rusiji u sukobu sa Ukrajinom. Naravno, ne smijemo zaboraviti krizu u Gazi koja se u posljednjih nekoliko mjeseci odvija pred našim očima. Crna Gora i ovdje ima veoma principijelan stav – najoštrije je osudila teroristički napad Hamasa od 7. oktobra 2023, ali je i konstantno pozivala Izrael da svoj odgovor na napad i svoje pravo da se brani od terorizma ostvaruje u okvirima međunarodnog prava i međunarodnog humanitarnog prava. Ono za šta se sada zalažemo je humanitarna pauza koja bi dovela do potpunog primirja. Takođe vjerujemo da je dvodržavno rješenje jedino prihvatljivo za ovaj sukob, da i Izrael i Palestina imaju pravo na sopstvene suverene države, te da objema treba garantovati bezbjednost. Po našem mišljenju, ovo je jedino trajno rješenje, za koje se zalažemo u svim multinacionalnim i multilateralnim formatima.
S druge strane, ruska agresija na Ukrajinu dovela je do novog načina promišljanja u EU. Kao što znate, proces proširenja EU je bio prilično tehnički proteklih godina, ako ne i cijele decenije, a sada je kristalno jasno da se bezbjednost i prosperitet evropskog kontinenta najbolje mogu postići jedinstvom; a jedinstvo – članstvom u EU. Stoga bih rekao da se način razmišljanja promijenio. Proces proširenja je sada možda više politički, ili u najmanju ruku, u istom stepenu politički, koliko i tehnički. Bez sumnje, Crna Gora je na putu da iskoristi priliku koja se ukazala i da, kao što sam već rekao, do kraja mandata ove Vlade okonča proces sa svoje strane i postane prva sljedeća članica EU.
HJ: Nedavno ste učestvovali na prilično velikom događaju, Antalijskom diplomatskom forumu, čiji je organizator i domaćin bio turski ministar vanjskih poslova. Tamo ste imali priliku da se sastanete i razgovarate sa kolegama iz brojnih zemalja, ali i sa turskim MVP Hakanom Fidanom. Kao što vjerovatno već i znate, Grčka je od decembra 2023. godine krenula u proces zbližavanja sa Turskom. To je definisano Deklaracijom iz Atine, početkom decembra prošle godine, uprkos fundamentalnim izazovima i problemima u bilateralnim odnosima dvije zemlje, primarno zbog revizionističkog karaktera grčkog susjeda. Možete li nam ukratko reći kakve utiske nosite sa tog sastanka? I, ako smijem dodatno da preciziram pitanje: Kako Crna Gora gleda na ulogu Turske na Balkanu?
MVP Ivanović: Tako je, učestvovao sam na Antalijskom diplomatskom forumu i moram da kažem da je to bio jedan veliki veoma dobro organizovan događaj. Tamo sam imao priliku da se sastanem sa nekoliko kolega, posebno sa onima sa kojima se mi sa Balkana, ili iz Evrope, ne srećemo često. Tu uglavnom mislim na naše kolege i prijatelje iz Azije, Afrike i Latinske Amerike. Bilo je veoma zanimljivo i korisno sastati se sa brojnim političarima i kolegama i razgovarati o mogućnostima saradnje i unaprjeđenju odnosa. Kako ste i sami rekli, sastao sam se i sa ministrom vanjskih poslova Turske Fidanom, što je bio naš drugi susret u proteklih nekoliko mjeseci. Sastanak je bio veoma srdačan, a ministru sam zahvalio na pozivu i organizaciji Foruma, koji je bio dobra prilika da razgovaramo o određenim pitanjima iz domena bilateralne saradnje Crne Gore i Turske. Moram da konstatujem da su odnosi između naše dvije zemlje veoma dobri, obilježeni dobrom povezanošću, brojnim turskim investicijama u Crnoj Gori, i, rekao bih, dinamičnim političkim dijalogom. Veoma sam svjestan odnosa između Grčke i Turske i razumijem ga. Mogu da kažem da tamo gdje postoje izazovi i problemi, diplomatija treba da preuzme primat. Pozdravio bih sve napore dvije zemlje koji za cilj i rezultat imaju ublažavanje i pospješenje odnosa između država i njihovih naroda, na temeljima međusobnog poštovanja i poštovanja suvereniteta. S druge strane, sve tri države, Crna Gora, Turska i Grčka su saveznice u NATO-u. Grčka je članica EU, mi smo, kao što sam rekao, predvodnica u procesu evropske integracije, dok je Turska takođe zemlja kandidat za članstvo u EU. Dakle, iako u svim odnosima postoje stvari koje nas razdvajaju, odnosno na koje gledamo drugačije, uvjeren sam i u postojanje veza koje nas mogu približiti. Stoga bi bilo veoma korisno fokusirati se na teme koje približavaju zemlje i narode. Turska je veoma aktivan akter u regionu Balkana, kako u Crnoj Gori, tako i u drugim zemljama i pozdravljam njenu aktivnost i ulogu na Balkanu. Takođe, dobrodošla je i aktivnija uloga i vidljivije prisustvo Grčke i to je poruka koju sam prenio svojim sagovornicima. Ne samo u pogledu grčke podrške procesu evropske integracije, već i u kontekstu bilateralne saradnje između Grčke i zemalja Balkana.
HJ: Govoreći o odnosu između Crne Gore i Grčke s perspektive pridruživanja zajedničkim institucijama poput EU, moglo bi se primijetiti da je u zajedničkoj svijesti većine grčkog naroda, barem onih određene dobi, Crna Gora u velikoj mjeri povezana sa srpskim narodom i ljudima. Koliko je danas aktuelna ta percepcija? Kako bi se najpreciznije opisalo moderno stanje Crne Gore, čiju vanjsku politiku vodite, i kakve su danas težnje Crne Gore i njenih građana?
MVP Ivanović: Tokom istorije, sudbine pojedinaca, naroda i država često su bili duboko isprepletani. Mnoge države današnjeg Balkana, uključujući Crnu Goru i Srbiju, dijele istu istoriju kroz različite epohe. Kao što znate, Crna Gora i Srbija su činile državnu zajednicu koja je trajala gotovo devedeset godina, i naravno, vrlo je prirodno da postoje istorijske, kulturne, pa čak i porodične veze između njih. Trećina stanovništva u Crnoj Gori se smatra Srbima. Imamo oko četrdeset i pet posto ljudi koji se identifikuju kao Crnogorci, a takođe imamo bošnjačko, albansko i hrvatsko stanovništvo u Crnoj Gori. Ali ono što je vrlo važno jeste da je Crna Gora ustavno definisana kao sekularna i građanska država, država građana, a ne država naroda ili etničkih grupa i zemlja u kojoj svaki pojedinačni građanin ima pravo njegovati i ispoljavati svoj identitet bez bilo kakvih negativnih posljedica ili reperkusija. Kada je riječ o vanjskoj politici, ono što je takođe vrlo važno sada jeste da je osamdeset posto građana Crne Gore – a to znači građani Crne Gore svih etničkih grupa i religija – vrlo proevropski nastrojeno i žele da vide Crnu Goru kao sljedeću članicu EU. Dakle, ono što radimo jeste da sprovodimo vanjsku politiku Crne Gore kao ujedinjene građanske države i koja može biti od koristi za svakog pojedinačnog građanina, bez obzira na njegovu etničku pripadnost, vjeroispovijest ili bilo koji drugi aspekat identiteta.
HJ: Želio bih da pređemo na nešto ličniji nivo, s obzirom da imamo i prijateljstvo koje seže dosta daleko u prošlost i profesionalnu saradnju u oblasti filozofije. Sigurno je da većina grčkog naroda nema pojma da ste vi, ne samo veliki prijatelj Grčke u teoriji, pravi filhelenski orjentisan čovjek, već i – i ne bih se bojao to tako nazvati – u praksi, istaknuti naučnik antičke grčke i kasnoantičke filozofije i jedan od eminentnih stručnjaka u izučavanju Dionisija Areopagita i njegovog naslijeđa. Molim vas, možete li nam reći nešto o vašem odnosu s Grčkom, njegovim počecima i kako se razvio?
MVP Ivanović: Hvala vam na pitanju! Uvijek je dobro vratiti se svojim akademskim i naučnim korijenima. Tako je, po obrazovanju imam doktorat iz filozofije i religijskih nauka, a moje područje ekspertize su antička grčka i kasnoantička filozofija, kao i vizantijska filozofija. To su teme i oblasti koje su me veoma zanimale od samog početka mojih studija filozofije. Naravno, interes za te oblasti prirodno me doveo do toga da još više cijenim i istražujem grčku istoriju, kulturu i civilizaciju. Tokom svoje akademske karijere imao sam priliku i šansu da posjetim mnoga mjesta u Grčkoj; ne samo da posjetim, već i da boravim u Atini tokom dužeg perioda i da upoznam grčki narod, atinski život. To je veoma živa kultura i društvo, i moram reći da se ta, veoma duboka, lična veza sa Grčkom najbolje može definisati jednom riječju – ‘ljubav’.
HJ: Fantastično! Budući da je ljubav ključna riječ ovdje, koja bi poruka bila koju biste prenijeli novijoj generaciji Grka danas koja, moglo bi se reći, možda ne shvata potpuno značaj helenizma i svijesti o njemu i grčkom duhu? Koji bi bio savjet, kako naučnika koji je proveo godine proučavajući grčku kulturu, filozofiju i književnost, tako i prijatelja Grčke koji je na čelu vanjske politike države Balkana koji teži da doprinese helenizmu u regionu?
MVP Ivanović: Ako kažem da su Grčka i grčka kultura kolijevka zapadne civilizacije, ne bih rekao ništa novo. Ali ponekad čak i poznate i stare stvari treba ponoviti kako bi se zapamtile. Ako postoji toliko ljudi izvan Grčke, ne samo u Evropi, već i na drugim kontinentima, u Americi, Aziji, Africi, koji obožavaju i vole grčku istoriju, civilizaciju, kulturu, filozofiju, umjetnost i tako dalje, onda ljudi u Grčkoj, posebno mlade generacije, treba da budu veoma ponosni na svoje naslijeđe. Ovo naslijeđe nije samo o antičkoj grčkoj kulturi i civilizaciji; nije samo o vizantijskoj kulturi i civilizaciji, već i o modernoj Grčkoj. Radi se o borbi za slobodu i njene vrijednosti, za vrijednosti demokratije, i to je nešto što bi svaki pripadnik mlađe generacije u Grčkoj trebao da cijeni. Za ponos je, kao što sam rekao, što ljudi izvan Grčke to cijene, pa bi ljudi unutar Grčke trebalo da budu još ponosniji na naslijeđe svojih predaka.
HJ: Dolazeći sada do nečega o čemu možda malo ljudi zna: često govorimo o institutima, o kulturi prijatelja, npr. o kineskoj kulturi – postoji mnogo stotina ‘Konfučijevih’ instituta širom svijeta – i očekivalo bi se da Grčka ima svoj lanac kulturnih institucija širom svijeta. Međutim, nažalost, to nije slučaj. Ali opet, prije nekoliko godina, pokrenuli ste jednu prilično jedinstvenu inicijativu. Mislim na Centar za helenističke studije u Podgorici, koji je, ako se ne varam, osnovan 2015. godine. Možete li nam reći nešto o tome?
MVP Ivanović: Centar za helenističke studije osnovan je 2015. godine kao neprofitna organizacija u Crnoj Gori, i rezultat je entuzijazma nekoliko mojih kolega i mene, koji svi radimo u Crnoj Gori, ali se akademski bavimo pitanjima grčke kulture. Neki od njih su studirali i istraživali u Grčkoj i imaju duboko poznavanje grčke kulture i civilizacije. Smatrali smo da je veoma važno da mi, poput mnogih drugih zapadnih zemalja i istraživačkih centara, osnujemo instituciju koja će biti potpuno posvećena proučavanju helenističke kulture i civilizacije, od njenih drevnih korijena do savremenih vremena. I osnovali smo Centar za helenističke studije u Podgorici. Pokrenuli smo akademski časopis pod nazivom ‘Akropolis: časopis za helenističke studije’. Ovaj časopis sada ulazi u svoju sedmu godinu. Biću slobodan da kažem da se radi o veoma dobrom i istaknutom međunarodnom časopisu. Na primjer, nalazi se na Scopus listi akademskih časopisa, što je jedna od prestižnih listi akademskih časopisa. Takođe smo pokrenuli Međunarodnu konferenciju o helenističkim studijama, koja je prvi put održana u Crnoj Gori, 2019. godine. Nažalost, plan je bio nastaviti godišnju konferenciju na različitim mjestima u Crnoj Gori, ali nas je zadesila pandemija covida i neki drugi krizni događaji, pa je konferencija odgođena. Ipak, nadamo se da ćemo obnoviti rad Centra i Konferencije. Cilj je njegovati, promovisati i istražiti odnos između helenističke kulture i zapadne civilizacije, a Crna Gora je jedno od mjesta u Evropi koje ima posebne veze sa Grčkom. Takođe bih želio ohrabriti svoje grčke prijatelje da daju svoj doprinos i promovišu svoju kulturu i civilizaciju širom svijeta na različite načine. Jedan od vrlo efikasnih je osnivanje i podržavanje centara za helenističke studije širom svijeta. Naš centar, naravno, nije jedini, postoji ih mnogo u SAD-u, Velikoj Britaniji, širom Evrope, pa čak i u Japanu. Dakle, ovo je veoma dobra prilika i za kulturnu diplomatiju, za naučnu diplomatiju, pored osnovnog akademskog istraživanja i interesa.
HJ: Da li ste imali priliku na sastancima, tokom ove posjete, da otvorite pitanja o bilateralnoj saradnji između Crne Gore i Grčke, upravo na nivou kulture, paideie, istraživanja i naučne saradnje? Ili je to nešto na čemu će se tek raditi?
MVP Ivanović: Postoji mnogo oblasti u kojima Grčka i Crna Gora mogu još bliže sarađivati. Jedan od dobrih primjera je obrazovanje naših kadeta na vojnim akademijama u Grčkoj. Ova saradnja je veoma plodonosna i mnogi mladi vojnici i oficiri iz Crne Gore su završili studije u Grčkoj. Razgovarali smo, tokom posjete, o mogućnostima povećanja broja stipendija koje Grčka nudi crnogorskim studentima za dodiplomske i postdiplomske studije na univerzitetima širom Grčke. Takođe smo razgovarali o mogućnostima povezivanja crnogorskih i grčkih univerziteta i istraživačkih institucija, jer smatramo da rad na zajedničkim projektima, razmjena akademskog osoblja, razmjena studenata, predstavljaju odličnu priliku za jačanje veza između dvije zemlje. Nadam se da ćemo uskoro imati i bilateralne sporazume u oblastima kulture, obrazovanja i istraživanja. Dakle, saglasili smo se da treba više raditi na tome zajednički, u bliskoj budućnosti.
HJ: I posljednje pitanje, dragi ministre. Koja je vaša vizija kao šefa diplomatije Crne Gore i kako biste željeli da se ostvari?
MVP Ivanović: Vlada čiji sam član postavila je četiri glavna cilja vanjske politike koje želimo da slijedimo. Prvi je članstvo Crne Gore u EU, drugi je nastavak aktivnog i kredibilnog članstva u NATO-u, treći njegovanje dobrosusjedskih odnosa i regionalne saradnje, i četvrti, dugoročniji cilj, aktivnija i vidljivija uloga Crne Gore u multilateralnim organizacijama, posebno UN-u. To su ciljevi vanjske politike kojem smo mi kao Vlada, a posebno mi u Ministarstvu vanjskih poslova, potpuno posvećeni i radimo naporno na njihovom ostvarivanju.
Kada je riječ o Ministarstvu vanjskih poslova, ono što je moje i obećanje Vlade, jeste obnova naše diplomatske mreže; fokus na jačanju kapaciteta; pružanje mogućnosti mladim diplomatama za različite vrsta obuka kroz saradnju s diplomatskim akademijama i međunarodnim institucijama, više usmjerenim na praktična iskustva, poput programa UNDP i sličnim organizacijama, studijskih posjeta, itd. Takođe trenutno je fokus na osnaživanju i daljem razvoju kulturne i naučne diplomatije, jer vjerujemo da su to najbolji načini na koje, relativno mala zemlja, može postići veću vidljivost na međunarodnoj sceni. Osnovali smo Direktorat za ekonomsku i javnu diplomatiju, unutar kojeg ćemo se fokusirati posebno na kulturnu i naučnu diplomatiju. Pored toga, želimo obuhvatiti sve ove ideje snaženjem digitalne diplomatije, jer vjerujemo da kombinovanje savremene informacione i komunikacione tehnologije sa diplomatijom može biti pobjednička formula za Crnu Goru u 21. vijeku.
HJ: Vaša ekselencijo, dragi Filipe, iskreno vam zahvaljujem na ovom temeljnom razgovoru i srdačno vam želim svaki uspjeh tokom boravka u Atini i u budućnosti. Bilo je izuzetno zadovoljstvo, i duboko sam zahvalan na vremenu koje ste posvetili ovom sastanku i razgovoru.
MVP Ivanović: Zahvaljujem. Bilo je veliko zadovoljstvo razgovarati sa Vama.
