and then it's a very similar process. uh. quite curious but uh, i see that it's really european uh. the european union - that's what i'm saying, they always perceived us as second -class people, and we always played along with this. well griboyedov read woe from wit. there, chatsky tells in detail how the then russian elite treated the same france, although we had just won the war. yes and but continued to talk in french about france is not in the world. better end. and so on. this went on for a decade. well, the last last moment. it seems to me too it is important when we see again i say, it seems to be the people of diplomats, europeans, humanists, who say, we must resolve this conflict on the battlefield. that is, it means to destroy these barbarians. uh, that means, that is, we were, firstly, really expelled from the humane world, where there should be tolerance, that is, we don’t fit in there 145 million. they say it fits everywhere, but it doesn’t fit here. why is this happening? because it also seems to me, you understand, such a politician of technology management already european anger, because people first went through the skating rink, here. everything is common tolerance and they

have a lot of questions, when they are told, you must love the syrian refugees there , they have questions. why should we continue to do this, there is a covid history there, a very difficult one, and people’s psyches, as it were, are also staggering a little. and they are told, listen to everything, it's just that the russians are really to blame for everything. i say, that's exactly what these russians really unleashed in our calm, quiet europe where there has never been there, after the forty-fifth year, no wars there , forget yugoslavia, it’s just that turkey bought it there. kip , in fact, there were no tanks there, there was nothing like that, which means that this is the first time in the last 60 there. that is, first of all, they are second-class people. eh, no laws of humanism apply to them, of course, and then there are economic and other reasons, so i say the laws of humanism again, in their understanding they did not work here, and therefore even such seemingly civilized people. they say, it is necessary to their military way to the end interesting. interesting elephants and

general one another, as they say, uh. so yes, one is more difficult than the other, and, indeed, the same barrel is not only a barrel, you can cite many of them, the barrel is really just very indicative, because, even if he spoke this language, and he does not jump off this language . he keeps saying it. look, this is today's boomer and this is the same barrel who is clearly broadcasting not some personal story of his own, but broadcasting something radically, changed in the head and in the plans of those on behalf of whom he says all this, listen european union diplomacy chief josé barrel urges eu member states to promptly provide kiev with the weapons he asked for as ukraine prepares for russia to step up its campaign in the east of the country barrel told eu diplomats that a solution is needed take in days, but weeks? and here is the indigenous caretaker, who does not just talk, there

are some smeared things. he says no no need on the battlefield. need more weapons need urgently more weapons, as quickly as possible and the question arises. this is clearly not him by himself, but he is broadcasting some, or a new plan, or some new, let's say, some new stage of their plan for us there, based there on some kind of elephants, but then what is this plan for your look now, that is, how far. they are now, apparently ready to go. i don’t know, i think that, in my opinion, they already know for a long time that this violinist is not needed, so pay attention to how he ran around somewhere in the dressing rooms and they didn’t let him in serious negotiations. he does not decide anything and he does not really have any powers. he really is. i totally agree with you, only broadcasts. the point of view, in my opinion, is going on,

pumping out and in the future the aim of pumping out certain means, including, maybe even they hope someday, as it were, but to compensate. well, they stole 300 billion from us. here they justify this theft, uh, by the fact that here we are, uh, you fought here, we helped ukraine, and this is the very thing in order to slam our 300 billion that's because we will come for them, and they will tell us, well, you understand, but we had a different point of view, look, that's the point. let's just say that ukraine won't be able to pay for everything , so you can watch everything. that is people. the point is not only in the bore, the point is that here you are anna lena berg who says that ukraine needs more weapons, the time has come for creativity. well , she has such an interesting idea, and that means it’s about creativity, and johnson, who , of course, talks about the transfer, means, uh, already

ship-based missiles, by the way, ship-based missiles, that is, missiles that, in principle, could pose a threat to our black sea fro. uh, the pentagon tells the fleet that a number of countries have already transferred tanks to ukraine, and a number of countries are still thinking about it, you know, here you are. uh, slovakia which supplies there. uh, the s-300 division, but it is no more, but, and it is no more, but nevertheless it was also transferred to the czech republic- and you understand, i have speed. i can help you, of course, you just answer my question. you bring it all down there, to a barrel of 300 billion. in fact, people say we will not stop, and we will pump so many weapons there. how much is needed to defeat russia on the battlefield? i used to be that they are seriously already moving on. here, as it were, to this pa- it cannot be for the sake of 300 billion. and it is people who know that nuclear weapons. yes, this, of course, is not my area of ​​​​competence, but still i am. i graduated from an educational institution at the top and i understand that with

industrial inflation of 30% they are simply on the verge of a complete disaster and the only thing that can distract from the population from this collapse of this catastrophe. this of course, this is the story. well then, then you again tell me that their task , with all the talk about large weapons, urgently and on a large scale, is not destruction on a military basis, but is to divert their population into another scenario. i want to understand the true script, not the cover script you know, but the script is actually here and i don't understand and no. here is the root right now to argue with you private traders sergeevich that's why i still so persistent, well, firstly, because i'm a bore and secondly, because this is a serious question, because if we proceed from the version that this is such a socio-economic reason to explain to our population why they began to live worse? and maybe it is sensitively worse, then on this path you can reach a certain point. and then

when excuse me, people start to burn out in the military. and if this is the goal, to really destroy us by military means and, roughly speaking, to win, then this is completely different alignment. these are different things, a mobilization resource, both human and military-technical, and they still haven’t really calculated it, i remind you, i remind you that it was for all that, we can treat the third reich in any way, but we should not consider the wehrmacht general staff as idiots. they miscalculated our mobilization resource. and they understood this, if i’m not mistaken in october of the forty-first year, but when the siberian divisions arrived, in fact, with everyone. for all the importance, so to speak, their motivation is not very the most important question. that’s why i’ve been repeating it time after time and the rhetoric of barrels, and all these pentagons that have broken off the chain, johnson berboke pentagons and so

on more weapons more weapons more weapons, or is it a plan to go into a confrontation, military with us to some end. and what could be the end of a confrontation with a nuclear power, and then this is one state of their heads and a plan, or this is the solution of some of their tactical socio-economic tasks, in which the whipping up of military hysteria plays some important role. it's me who insists different things are different things for the seriousness of the assessment - this is us. this is where i take the risk. again, they will not agree with a respected colleague. in my opinion. the question is an insular man, you take the risk, you must disagree with your colleague, otherwise it is clear that the military potential and, uh, the military power of the russian federation has always been our political position, i have always been, i am not afraid of this word, a horror story for europe for the west, and now what is happening in ukraine this is accurate measurement of russian military potential. which either with the help of western weapons will

somehow leveled, or even despite this military assistance, this western pumping of ukraine of all kinds of heavy weapons of this potential. enough to break the back of this one from the western coalition in this sense, and here, it seems to me, the question is absolutely existential, it is clear what to imagine the situation. e conduct of hostilities. right now, at the moment , i can’t have nato troops on the territory of russia, because there are the same nuclear weapons, but if we take the modulo without this nuclear weapon, that is russian military potential is the latest weapons, not counting the nuclear confrontation. it is measured as much as possible in what he spoke about, and my colleague, right now in ukraine, and in my opinion, a fundamental political decision has been made in the west. a. let's check about let's pump up ukraine putin said that if we dare to interfere somehow, then a rather tough answer will be clear. let's get to the very edge . yes, we will not officially interfere, but heavy weapons, but anti-ship missiles,

but all kinds of air defense systems. this is the maximum test of strength - this is very important for our military potential, on which, in my opinion, on which i can now, i’ll say a tough thing, the entire position of the russian federation in the current world architecture is being talked about and the chinese are talking about it the west yes, there is definitely , energy is political, but military power is fundamental even now with the help of this pumping. they will try to level this military power and at the same time measure right. but this we said even to exhaust. e. well, right now the united states is fighting against russia in one hand and ukraine in the other hand. they already now hold europe and the goal, she says, is directly to deplete russia as much as possible without bringing it to use. uh, i and uh in the hope that maybe russia will back down. and if

america doesn't go, it will receive all of europe as its own donor. then i'll be a fat piece, then i'll now ask you all a rather unpleasant and, in a sense, disturbing question for me. not do you think that in the situation that you all described to me in one way or another, those who described. if , well, a detached, let's say, an analyst , time, in a sense, works against us and for them yes, unfortunately, yes, which means that this plan of theirs, which we have now discussed with you, and, as it were , revealed its parameters of its goal and all those elephants. this means that this plan is a worker, and then we would like to understand it, but if we understand it, and it is a worker, it can be successful then in the paradigm in which we are now we are working. we are essentially working under their plan

nobody knows, it seems to me that i'm sorry , time is working against them and against us. i believe that time is exceptionally against us. i will explain why, because just about the economic factor that a colleague was talking about, the united states has said that by the end of the year they expect our country to leave the twenty leading economies in the world, and this is the measurement of our political potential, which will try to level out, reduce, check and and so on, coupled with the economic crisis. in my opinion. what they dreamed about all their lives. this is very pliable ground for the dismantling of the political regime in our country. it does not know how easy it can be called dismantling, but for the low regime of the political regime. uh, let's talk about them, this plan, after all, from the point of view of what we have come to. here, they have these elephants they do. this is

how we understand it, but it's all the same from the point of view of time. scale well our mobilization resource to keep under these sanctions to continue wage this endless war. if it will be tanks, if it will be air defense systems. if today i don’t know, i didn’t have time to check this video, but it’s like a video is circulating on the network that allegedly the ukrainian armed forces were given an order that it was possible to conduct military operations on the territory. e, for example, e by the adjacent territory of the russian federation that is, if this is very much delayed, the question arises about the margin of our economic strength, it can be somehow estimated like this in time. i'll make another remark then about, uh, tasks. uh, west and from your question. there, after all, it is, as it were, an element of social technologies during tough questions, and not what you know there, here, because when i spoke, i spoke primarily about the european union, and they, because they are talking about this

you asked the european union - this is important, because at the beginning of the discussion we did not divide europe . the united states and if you ask such a question, you don’t have to say it anyway. in my opinion, here the european union, uh, proceeds from one reason for the tasks in the united states, after all, from several others. in this regard, the position of the united states may be different. by the way, it can be much tougher than even tougher , because europe, in my opinion, is more focused on solving its own social economic problems. plus, their traditional psychological complexes are added here. and here is also an element of such polytechnology, and of course the average states. the task is something more serious. at least well, european politicians. they can’t help but understand that imagine what the final part, after all, questions should also be asked about this . here's what the victory over russia will look like on the battlefield. what will a country that possesses nuclear weapons be like, how do you

want to defeat it, that, probably, these weapons were not used, probably, and therefore i still think that there is a certain element here. uh, from their point of view, such a tough game, when they deliberately increase the edge with stiffness, but they must understand that this is a weapon. let's say since you are talking about the time of such a tough conversation, that this weapon will be used if we will start having problems militarily. and how it will be applied and for whom it will be applied , whether they are pushing for this, but if, or or i personally think that this is still a global catastrophe, and all serious politicians should understand this, but i do not exclude that there are mysterious people in the united states who think this is war. they can somehow get around, but in europe there should not be such people around. i understand that you agree that we may be to this patent. now we're in this in this place let's stop, because, in a sense of the word , time is always working against us, because this is the time of advertising. here's what you need, yes. now we'll look at the ads and return to this conversation.

actually. i insist. it seems to me that given this very bright uncovering of both western european and american politicians, well, it would be time, well, to raise questions what is called an edge, since we are talking about security and peace and our country and the future in general, in a very broad sense of the word, so now advertising will be back, do not switch. this is about our life with you in relation to our judicial system. so that no one doubts. in my court they try to get to the bottom of the truth, i rely only on facts and only on human evidence. and that then nothing i just took and left. you may have killed a person. it must be admitted, the identity of the sons. i'm afraid you

won't like it. he is danila razin of the father whom i imprisoned. if he finds out, if he even thinks it was you who hit his son. i need get rid of the car. your honor, the premiere of a multi-part film will soon be on first i rely only on facts and only on evidence in business, plans are sometimes frustrated,

but we do not lose heart, but turn them into new opportunities. pentalgin is the number one remedy for the pain of spasm and inflammation with periodic female headaches and other types of pain pentalgin do without pain video

i personally did nothing wrong to him. wonderful memories, but, unfortunately, it’s not about me that you will ever leave. good morning alexander ivanovna is all right.

what else is not right for a temporary stop of labor activity? let's try with us, just finally, the doctor appeared. we continue to work

live and discuss what is absolutely obvious , and over the past few days it has become even more obvious that both at the level of the rhetoric of individual politicians such as barrel and at the level of simply condensed conversations about the need to supply weapons, and urgently weapons and weapons of serious and heavy a and tanks and air defense systems and ship missiles and so on further. ah. there is a feeling that this kind of collective west that opposes us has moved on to some tougher confrontational scenario. and here the question arises. before advertising, we began to say that at the same time, these people know that russia has. it has nuclear weapons in its arsenal and talking about victory on the battlefield over the country that it is is like going into a very dangerous, like a very dangerous clinch,

and it’s with her that we’ll talk about it now. still. are they ready to clinch or is it there are still some options, many are following with interest and correctly. in my opinion, they make a chancellor upon his arrival in moscow. austria and not hammer who, uh, on saturday, uh, visited kiev, who arrived in moscow today, who met today with vladimir putin, and now, literally, during the advertisement, his press conference began, but before that he had already said that it was not friendly visit, that it was a very tough conversation, albeit a constructive one. and in the midst of all that has been said, a question arises in your mind. we still at the stage where they can consider hammer to be some kind of collective negotiator for this. west or is it a man who came? as too many people think and write to bring being a neutral country some kind of ultimatum please

remind you know two heroes of such an investigator are good and evil. well, that's always been the story. here is an attempt to play this game. it seems to remind me. here is now the position of the west 3 days ago, on the eighth day, a closed summit was held. nato uh-huh and that's why it was closed, what was discussed there this is one of the questions many experts have been asked. what is going on there on this closed themselves and that's it, in my opinion. a barrel is a person who begins to quietly voice the decision made there on this themselves, and he says what he is preparing, firstly, the population of europe for what needs to be prepared for a complete rupture of the economic russia to be ready. such a position is expressed and checked, you know how the pulse of the patient is measured, what people will say about this european product, next question. uh, who are thrown they talk about what is generally a discussion of peace peace

talks. as such, they lose their meaning. that's what they said, and moreover, coordination. all these negotiations will no longer be conducted with any turkey, the coordination of these negotiations is transferred to the united states of america, and then they throw such moments further. that is, this technology is already beginning and the technology is like this. e, already tested in ukraine this is a technology. what will you be ready for? that is, here we are to you, this is how we will be we will supply weapons, we will supply tanks, we will supply anti-ship missiles. uh snbc. she said not so long ago that perhaps we will supply ballistic missiles, perhaps to strike directly at the russian federation, and now the question arises. and what are you ready for and what do they feel. willingness, what framework is checked , what framework will you act on, and what

are you there for? as a matter of fact, enough spirit. we understand this, that we have enough spirit, no matter how busy it is, and we understand who we are dealing with, how since it’s impossible to talk about spirituality in this territory, uh, which is my homeland today, because they will lay down military logistics. i'm trying to understand, and how will they deliver? as a result, it turned out to be in the dnepropetrovsk region. come on, you know here , right now, i think this is not about the military component, and i'm not talking about it now. i'm not saying, as a military expert, how will they do it? i will speak. i say they've taken the course. yes, what are they headed for? they declare and prepare their population, first of all and at the same time. they make the same promises to ukraine that we will support you. in any case, you start an internal confrontation. they are what they say, if we start

to defeat the russians, then we will begin to defeat the russians with you and all the goodies of our victory. yes, everything will be right, but look, the west is still it, here, in my opinion, on this, uh, its closed. sami, he discussed one important issue that in this conflict, maybe there is one winner. here is one winner, which reporting point to take for victory, it's generally that's another question. that's what to consider victory, that is, a complete defeat there or uh, the start of a war in russia, or there the beginning of some kind of internal conflicts, the creation of internal conflicts in the russian federation, or something else. everyone here can see a different goal for themselves. the west can rightly see one thing, russia can see another in your cleansing, given the closed nato summit rightly said about it and really absolutely on the rise going statements about a number of deadlines. and, well, as if

heaviness - weapons, after all, in your opinion, not a hammer - it's still a negotiator allowing for the possibility of an agreement or this person, being from a neutral country, and already offering such a kind of ultimatum you know, i would not fit so well. here's how to a neutral country. to austria although she really has such a neutral status. well, yes, yes. well, in others, yes, yes, yes, well, at the same time, an attempt to clarify russia’s readiness in these negotiations, in my opinion, will clarify the ultimatum no, here. speech is your point, a until friday. i think it's an ultimatum. i believe this is an ultimatum. let's just look first at the voyage of these european politicians and the austrian chancellor to kiev before these travels of european politicians zelensky in an interview with western media.

still, he uttered the very important word negotiation. yes, he used the word negotiation. what they say, well, we're not going anywhere, all the same, negotiations immediately after the visits. these comrades, the word negotiations, generally left the discourse, not only there zelensky arrest. and with them, in general, the entire agenda, informational - this is very important, and in the west the word negotiations has begun to be excluded. based on this, again, i can be wrong and thank god if i am wrong, the visit of austria, which is a neutral country that is not a member of nato, is certainly an attempt with the help of such a thing is not to convey an ultimatum. simply, because other conditional messengers who could from a position, well, at least some kind of neutrality of economic interest, of course, on the right background is respectful to tell our president that europe, forgive me for such a word, now you don’t agree and the west fits in from a military point of view and energy. look, if you say, and i'm not going to disagree here not to

argue with you because, well, this is all, so to speak, an exchange of points of view. we are all with you. eh, as if it’s not enough for this. we know that we can analyze something like that, in principle, what is in the public domain anyway, but if you say that from your point of view, after all, hammer did not bring some kind of ultimatum, then, then you there should be a version of the assumption about how today in this situation this ultimatum could be and the most important whose ultimatum, that is, on behalf of whom and what in your opinion then, if so on behalf of the ultimatum on behalf of the west, we do not we get involved even more in terms of military assistance and almost openly. exploitation in a special operation in ukraine a. you and here the options may be different, it seems to me, yes, but from the position of reality, and the west does not look at the situation in ukraine, but what we hear is a statement. it would seem schizophrenic about the fact that we must remove all the troops, and this will certainly be a question. donbass, of course, they

will try to shove the story with the crimea there. that is, this is a full capitulation, how will it be expressed? in what phrases? what stages are the stages again? honestly, i can’t say i haven’t thought about it yet, but this is exactly the format of surrender, or after the war until the destruction of that very one, this is a very important political regime in our country. now the hell will start to disagree with you. it is until she starts e disagree. and here, by the way, uh, by the way, is the development of our conversation with you. it’s just that at the press conference itself, which is now being held in red austria, it’s not hammer who says that it was important for him to meet putin face to face, but with the facts in ukraine one on one. not really, i understood this phrase. well, i read like reuters. this writes no one was chancellor. austria not hammer says it's important to face putin face to face with the facts in ukraine one on

one not really. clear. i'm waiting for this phrase what.