In general, the impact of Zinoviev on Sovietology was insignificant. The Western establishment was indifferent to Zinoviev, his works were considered as a subject of study, and not as part of intellectual dialogue. According to Konstantin Krylov, numerous European awards and titles of "honorary citizen of Orange and Ravenna" represented rather "tinsel". Outside of France and Italy, especially in English-speaking countries, the perception of Zinoviev's ideas as a social theorist was much cooler. Commentators Philip Hanson and Michael Kirkwood noted that the format of the interview, in which Zinoviev usually spoke, simplified and exaggerated his ideas, exacerbating the negative attitude in the English-speaking world. Zinoviev's harsh public statements even before perestroika contributed to his "semi-quarantine" in the academic environment. Oleg Kharkhordin summarized the reasons for the non-acceptance of Zinoviev's sociological works in the West: first, his sociological essays did not meet the scientific standards of positivistic research, although Zinoviev insisted on the opposite; secondly, he later accused the West of a conspiracy to destroy the Soviet Union, which was regarded as a gross political blunder. Zinoviev himself argued that Sovietologists were engaged because they pursued not scientific, but political goals: to find weaknesses, weaknesses and vulnerabilities in Communism in order to "kill the beast".