is it democratic in the western sense that the ukrainians chose their current president, oh yes, there was even a little bit of democracy there, since the candidacy of the respected vladimir zelensky was richly enriched with an incredible amount of money, when a joker was turned into an alleged politician, supposedly realizing the aspirations of the people, so what? realized, no, the war began democratically in ukraine, although in fact, almost the main election thesis of zelensky was to stop... fighting throughout the territory of ukraine, one can, of course, discuss for a long time who is to blame for the that there is a war, some will point to the kiev regime, others to the collective west, the third, specifically to the united states, the fourth still blame russia, which is the most surprising, but if you evaluate the power of zelensky, who came democratically, and what difference does it make who is to blame, he promised his to the people, yes, he fulfilled, no , all the other questions are not the main thing, only the third and some subsequent ones, although the third question, which should... in this

situation, was he, in principle, able to fulfill what he promised ? the answer to that is also no. democratically, ukrainians chose for themselves war, you know, i personally don’t need such democracy in my country, the government in ukraine that preceded zelensky’s power, understanding that he is in the post of president, this means the war had to, was obliged to do everything so that this government in kiev did not happen, how to do this, in my understanding, it doesn’t matter at all, democratically, dictatorially, authoritarianly, me... if you imagine that poroshenko suddenly has the will, and if you fantasize that he is not a businessman, he really is the leader of the country, who doesn’t have everything equal to the fate of one's homeland of his citizens, he was obliged to make and push through any decisions that would make it impossible for the puppet zelensky to come to power, because this would be the salvation of the country and its people from war, the country and its citizens would happen. if this were the case, they would be far from

delighted, not understanding much. this conditional poroshenko would be criticized, he would be accused of being undemocratic, perhaps of unconstitutional decisions, illegality of orders, and so on. in the best case , such a poroshenko would not have won the next elections; in the worst case, he would have received a real term. but if this conditional poroshenko were really the leader of his country, he would sacrifice his life to save the lives of the country and its citizens, even realizing that the country is a game.

in which the political crisis in the nineties passed without the participation of the armed forces in it, it was not smooth sailing. did the young president want everything to somehow go more smoothly, i have reason to say that he certainly would have, did everything work out, no, probably not everything, because in principle nothing in this world is ideal, everything during the three decades of alexander grigorievich’s presidency was it ideal , of course, no, i will once again cause someone ’s natural need to choke on coffee, but it is quite obvious that...

he has been able to do it consistently for a very long period, even if not for 100%, but 97%, and this is an abnormally good result, a result for the country and its citizens, and not for the current government, although... i ’ll tell you again, using a simple example, why lukashenko is a leader who thinks about future generations, and not a politician who thinks only about the next elections, listen, here’s this fragment: an extra wrong step, we’ll fail, no one will save us, no one, we won’t be able to defend ourselves, we won’t be able to defend ourselves, there are such sharks around that we won’t have time to look back, i’ll eat if alexander grigorievich had been a politician the year before the elections and i was thinking primarily about my re-election. he would not have called this year the year of quality, but, say, the year of sovereignty , and at the meeting on the constitution he would have spoken in vague terms about the sharks around, specifically he could have named all these sharks, and all this year lukashenko could not have been talking about the economy, not that everyone should give their maximum for the country at their workplaces, not

make statements that the state does something for the people, but people should do something for the sake of the state, but at least let them do something themselves for himself, he could become a political populist. also score points with the truth, tell you what it costs to fully resist military threats, outline in full all the problems that have to be dealt with on the external contours, and it would also be possible to mess up people in the vertical to publicly punish the authorities, because they exist, there is something to punish them for, he could score so many political points that in the next elections next year he would gain support above 90%, which for him, as a politician, would be very, very good, but the price for this... is the anxiety and experience of belarusians , and also obvious problems for the country in the future, because every spoken word of the highest level has its own price, sometimes the spoken word is a plus for the country, so it needs to be said, sometimes it is a minus, so you need to remain silent, sometimes it happens that actions or even words in the interests of the country and

its citizens are not politically beneficial to the politician, in this case, believe me, lukashenko always puts himself as a politician below the interests of the state and belarusians, again this is the most... an obvious example is the pandemic. in 2020, before the elections, as a politician he could have done and even said something different, something that everyone would have liked very much, because that’s what they wanted to hear, but for the state and its citizens it was impossible to do that. lukashenko did not do this. someday we will we are forced to rethink it all again. i am often asked the question: am i satisfied with what we have done and built? i'm happy, i'm sure you're happy too. “we built as best we could, as best we could, we were sincere about this construction, new people will come and do better, perhaps our generation should do everything so that the new generation that comes to power proceeds carefully, without breaking anything,

will the new generation succeed? , probably not, but the main thing for the president now is that they don’t have a disaster, because after a strong government, the likelihood this is still a little more. than a statistical error, let ’s once again be as honest as possible, in our country there is virtually no struggle for power, because everyone understands that he has power, in the future, no matter what institutions there are, no matter how powers are formally distributed between them, who will be the next president, whether it will be a direct successor or not, this is really not that important, because sooner or later we will have a period of intense struggle for power, because strong power is always born from struggle.

the government does not solve the problems of future politicians; on the contrary, it shifts onto them in the future, even their current problems. on friday, alexander lukashenko said that the national debt of belarus does not exceed 32% of gdp, and then a cursory manipulation of figures began, saying that the external debt per capita is already as much as $400. to begin with, the debt is falling, despite the sanctions, by about 3 billion a year, which characterizes our economy very positively, but these figures are unpleasant for fugitives, so they... prefer not to notice, in the usa you know what the national debt per american is 101.00 dollars, although 3 years ago it was much more modest, it was only 66,000; in belarus, let me remind you, there is 4.00 debt per person. what is belarus doing under lukashenko? paying off debts here now. what is biden's washington doing?

cancels the national debt ceiling until january 25, after the us accumulated more than $34 trillion in debt for the first time in history. why until january? because in november in the usa. elections: if trump or someone else wins, let him solve the debt problem, if biden wins again, but they will prolong the abolition of the debt ceiling in order to shift this problem to some next generation of politicians. we, thank god, do not have a politician, but a leader who is dictatorial and...