national security and those who sit across the river have not already happened within the walls of the pentagon. uh, because uh, the idea, as i see it, is inflicting a strategic defeat on russia. uh, hmm, it's, uh, hmm , based on the fact that, uh, russia won't use nuclear weapons. e, if, uh, well, those, uh the concessions that will be demanded of her, they will not lead to destruction. here are the states. at least, they will not immediately lead to the destruction of the state. that is, they can and most likely will, but not immediately. so. yes, this is true, and that is why i inserted this word. yes, that is, these will already be consequences for which the americans cannot bear responsibility. it is you yourself that you have begun to begin. uh, internal squabbles, uh, about the new

brest peace, and we have nothing to do with it. it's like iraq in terms of prominence. yes, when, after the american invasion , e began, in fact, an internal civil war began between sunnis, shiites , explosions and other acts of violence on the territory of russia after the military victory. and you remember what happened right, so uh, that's what can be done in this regard. but first of all, you have to keep in mind that the russian leadership, i think, is confident that russia will be able to achieve its stated goals in ukraine without the use of nuclear weapons. it seems to me that the russian strategy is based on two postulates, the first is that russia has many times more

resources than ukraine and the second is that russia has much more will to see things through to the end and much more here, but is at stake for russia than for the united states of america and here are these two. uh, one thing, let's say, is material, the other is intangible, but just as important, allows russian leaders, as it seems to me, to count on victory , but the problem here, uh, is not that, uh, russia , at some stage, in order to crush ukraine, must use nuclear problem weapon. i see in the other, and this is precisely connected with your first question about fear and about the absence of fear and its danger, one is not afraid. uh, the americans obviously raise the stakes all the time. yes, if we look at

february 22 to the present day, the rates have been constantly increasing; this is such an incremental approach. we will give a little more. a little more, uh, more powerful, more long-range, more advanced types of weapons to ukraine and, uh, let's see the russian reaction. so far, the russian reaction has not been something terrible for the united states ; at first they were not sure that this reaction would be acceptable to them. uh, they thought that the risks could be higher, so they acted and continue to act so very gradually, but i, uh, i would compare this behavior with the behavior of a person who plays russian roulette and constantly pulls the trigger. with a pistol, not realizing that a nuclear bullet is inserted somewhere in the drum,

what's the matter? here. everything you say seems very convincing to me, but you just said something with very serious consequences. so you would say that, uh, president biden is a chess player, and that our task for the russian leadership is to influence his honorary one. and if you're talking about leaders who play russian roulette, how can you influence them? well, i think that all the same, except there are leaders. well, there is an environment there is public opinion? and this public opinion should read the signals from moscow . now we will move on to your next question about what should be done. i think that our ideas about nuclear

deterrence have changed a lot, or at least should have changed as a result of the ukrainian war. uh, the notion that nuclear deterrence is just having a nuclear officer you 've been doing security for years, which is what we're talking about now, you talk about this as a professional analyst, including the problems with nuclear weapons so, well, including i can't name very many people who taught with an authoritative air to speak on these terrible topics. you start asking them additional questions and it turns out that there are few who stand behind the big words? and i know your work. you really know what you're saying, you thought it

through, thanks you thought it through and, frankly, these are painful and heavy feelings. sorry opened to do. a what needs to be done, then, uh, we are talking about not up to the first persons, then up to those who shape the policy of the united states of america failure, but i said that our ideas about nuclear deterrence today should not be the same as they were, say, on february 21, 22. look, we thought that

nuclear deterrence completely protects us from aggression against ours , of course yes, and i just emphasized that it is us e that it protects us from intrusion into the spheres of our vitally important interests by any important interests. there are no peripheral interests, but vital interests. and we u thought that it goes without saying what uh? well, look, if you take, uh, a historical example, i already called it cuba in 1962, the united states of america seriously considered the option of a nuclear war for destruction by the soviet union as a response to the deployment of soviet missiles, it will save up only for the deployment of missiles in cuba, which

was a symmetrical response to the deployment of us jupiter thor missiles in europe, in particular in turkey in italy, uh, but as it turned out, uh, unlike the soviet union which retreated in the year 62 under the influence of the prospect of nuclear annihilation, the united states uh boldly move forward. ukraine has become, as my american colleagues said, at one time land aircraft carriers of the united states of america moored nearby. here is the moscow pier, yes, and it does not bother, did not bother and still does not bother. uh, united states because there is no counterweight. there is no balance, no, the limits of ambition, the united states moves historically moves until it meets some serious

resistance or a serious response. for now , how is this resistance. maybe russia can help without unleashing a nuclear war. see there are many different options. well, first of all, in my opinion. this is probably the most this thing is not about it, a necessary thing for us and already in the second place. it's kind of a signal back. we must be serious. uh wonder about that e today is capable of deterring nuclear weapons. what are our containment doctrines that uh exist today uh, in my opinion, is it largely or largely outdated against the backdrop of the ukrainian war? and there are, uh, questions about whether uh. well, let's say the creation of a powerful

military fist or a powerful military base on the territory of a neighboring state, from which this state threatens us with a strike from close range. does this? an incident in which nuclear deterrence should come into full operation when we're talking about nuclear deterrence. uh, that doesn't mean the use of nuclear weapons. this is a very big difference. this is a very big difference . uh, various, first, doctrinal changes in themselves. uh can have a deterrent effect. today, our uh, military doctrine and , accordingly, the conditions and, uh, the type of use of nuclear weapons provides for a response to a counter strike. i think that under certain conditions,

when it comes to a dissential threat to the state, it can be included in this doctrine of preventive nuclear strike. it can if it is backed up by appropriate technical organizational administrative others, here it is. sorry to interrupt again. this is a very important point. i was afraid you would say that doctrinal changes needed to be made. i fear that the most drastic doctrinal changes would be ignored unless they were backed up by something very, compelling and concrete, of course. and what exactly could that be? i think that's just our experience with failure, let's say so. uh with the failed ones, well failed, maybe not the right word ignored verbal interventions, at the highest level uh, makes us

think about what specific measures we could u take so that these warnings would look in the eyes of decision makers at that side more compelling, yes. here, already during the discussion that began in russia, i believe that this is a very positive moment, there are various proposals. there are proposals for the resumption of nuclear tests there is a proposal in the course of conflicts during that the situation that we have today with the west with nato , the united states of america, at some stage, provide for the possibility of demonstrative nuclear explosions, which will show, uh, the

seriousness of intentions . yes, because after all they are surgeons , they are absolutely, because our strategy is still based on the fact that we will win without nuclear weapons, but we must exclude the appearance in ukraine and or e. in connection with ukraine, uh, such funds directed at us that could really threaten the existence of the state. today , president putin once again and very effectively warned that this was a retraction. in nato, not only i think, but we are talking about membership, but infrastructure is a road to nowhere. let's listen. as for ukraine's membership in nato, we have repeatedly spoken about this. this poses

a threat to the security of russia, obviously and in fact hmm and the reason for this is a special military operation. one of the reasons is the threat of ukraine joining nato, i am sure that this will not increase the security of ukraine itself. ukraine yes, and in general, e will make the world much more vulnerable e and e and will lead to additional international tension in the international arena. and therefore no good. i don't see it. our position is well known and formulated long ago. our position is well known and formulated long ago. and in general, it cannot be said that nothing has been done. uh, when saakishvili attacked the peacekeepers in 2008. russia used force when they unilaterally tried to change the regime in syria russia used force when they carried out a coup d'état in

ukraine, russia helped crimea return, as they say, to their native harbor, so it's not clear. i don't say it doesn't do anything, a special operation is a very , very dramatic action and we are really dealing with people who are not very easy to impress, because it seems to me that this is a question for them. uh, sorry not only geopolitics. but their e psychology. i even said psychiatry for them, since they are at the same time white empty, and on the other hand, the most powerful in the world for them it seems, humiliating and dangerous and here in these conditions i would like to ask you if any. concrete actions

that could be taken without taking a real risk of a nuclear third world war, which made an impression, for example. putting strategic nuclear forces on high alert. for example, the movement of tactical nuclear weapons, which would show the growing possibility of their use, for example, as i warned today. uh, foreign minister lavrov appearance, and f-16 somewhere on the territory from which they could launch nuclear strikes against russia, in response to this, not rhetorical, but specific actions against these aircraft, that is, a combination. words of actions of actions that would be more resolute and clear than

the collective west has seen so far, but on the other hand, definitely not suitable for the line, beyond which they might think that tomorrow they will be removed by strategic missiles. well, if we talk about planes, then in any case they will go astray. i think here i am in mind f-16, if they are more likely, when they enter service. ah. there are no questions here, as for the airfield from which they will fly. here is an important question. this is again a question. uh, associated not only with the use of nuclear weapons, but in general with an increase in the level of intensity of the war. after all, the war is being waged on our side, er, in very limited means and in very limited ways, so many things that many military experts have paid attention to this almost from the very beginning of the operation

many seemingly obvious things for experts. well, the destruction of bridges, the destruction of railway junctions, attacks on the decision-making center, in the end, on the government quarters in kiev, many, many other things, uh, drive zelensky into a bunker so that she doesn’t show from there, so that no one comes to kiev, a lot of such things are not being done. uh , there are a certain number of self-restrictions on the russian side, therefore, before we talk about transaction plots built not on timidity, but on scientific consideration of possible very serious consequences. yes, for sure, but uh, they exist. and the further we go on this one. e escalation stairs. and we follow it, be that as it may, until we reach the nuclear level, until we are threatened, by an existential threat. here is the present

moment. we are not losing the war in ukraine , and moreover, the ukrainian counter-offensive has apparently bogged down today and uh, there is a lot here that uh russia could do so that the west would pay attention. the west will pay attention and start thinking differently only when it will collide. defeat, what it takes to change the thinking of the west is its defeat in ukraine this is the goal of the russian operation , because today it’s not about ukraine, not in the zelensky regime, it’s about a clash between russia and the west, and either one or the other side will come out of this conflict a winner. if we want to develop further freely and, uh, independently, then we must win in this struggle. this is a very

difficult task. this is a particularly difficult task, because uh everything has a price could, in general, be fairly easy to do. they could have consequences that the management should calculate and i think, uh, it's very good to do that, but uh, i think they're saying, well, a very fundamental thing. we need to, uh, change our psychology a bit, those processes of nuclear sighing that worked during the cold war. they were for a different time and for a different generation of western leaders. and now, perhaps, containment is required for the especially slow-witted. this is true and what was

the main task of deterrence is to deter a massive nuclear strike on our territory. if we talk about our containment today is not the most urgent task. today, they are trying to destroy us, as a great power, not with one massive blow. and as they say 1.000. uh, blows of blows of a thousand blows of daggers. today russia is trying not to decapitate to choke, but i will uh end up with a simple thought. thanks but it won't work. it was a big game. eh, dmitry is great to you. thank you for these very important and serious reflection observations. and we we'll be on air next week. thanks a lot.

there is no call to the home phone of zaytsev's apartment. why are they sticking around? hello today, we gathered our thoughts about the manipulation prank and the information field in general vladimir kuznetsov alexey stolyarov, better known as vovan and lexus, i am vladimir left. yes, we are starting. please tell me, i would not like to ask you 1101 questions today. how are you doing? yes? let's talk about the information field in general. what is it like, how to live in it fight and so on. and you know what my pre-question is. but where do you get your information from? i mean, not for getting the news. well, i mostly

probably have telegram chats. yes, and plus, if you need to find out some somewhat alternative information, there is twitter, but it’s clear that every telegram channel. still, but, well, someone is interested and it is necessary to filter. where are you from? well, similarly, i just try to use all possible sources from federal television channels. e telegram youtube channels and, accordingly, something somewhere average for the hospital, the information is mine. here, uh, it comes from there. what i try is different, exactly different, well, of course , you work professionally in the genre, yes, after all, but you agree that we are today and this, in general, is a blow to classical sociology. yes, we are different today. not only there by sex, age and so on. but mainly according to the sources of information, and therefore here is the sociology of marketing, which was once

based precisely on gender, age, some stories or social groups there. yes today they collapsed because, relatively speaking , there are some teenagers in the same class. yes , they are. they have favorite bloggers about the existence of each other's bloggers. they may simply not know, this is true or not. and yes, it is, let's say, and even take a television internet audience. here is a classic example. if they compare, then the internet and television, well, let's say, when we also often go to certain television broadcasts, and this does not increase subscribers on social networks, because that i yes, if our ether militia, we hope to call to call people. here, let's say. the same audience, after all, well, on tv, it is somewhat older, probably, and young people, who, for example, read us on telegram channels or that they don’t really watch tv on vkontakte and youtube, well, and if you take the classic tiktok , who used to work in russia

there are completely different, opinion leaders for young people for there fourteen sixteen years old people, about whom we don’t know further at all, but they have million millions of views. see question. so you say, other opinion leaders. that the problem is still radical, that the point is not that other opinion leaders? here i repeat again. here in one class, he is eighth graders there. yes, they can have favorite heroes about existence, which is the hero of another, yes, their classmates. people may not know, because this has never happened. well, yes , segmentation is serious, and if we even return to the experience that we had until now, then relatively speaking, a tenth grader some he could listen to the same music as, relatively speaking, another person older than him by 10 years, conventionally rock music. yes, there are these horn leaders, that is, the tastes were, in fact, not much changed over the years. and now even half a year, if people there

have a significant difference in this generation, that is, in half a year some new leaders appear. well , the importance of leaders is falling. i've heard pr people even say the departments of the media space, that is, the leaders of public opinion. straw, yes, if earlier a lot was built on them, well, there advertising, marketing, and so on, today, as i understand it, their value is declining. well , maybe because of those speeds that we talked about, like the story with the butterfly. yes, from a doll. yes, literally butterflies. today you are a star and a plus. this is the youth who thinks that here we are, we began to receive some money and big ones there, and millions of views are all forever. you used to be able to hold on for 10 years. yes, let's say it's stable there, and now a year will pass, it's all good a year, and that's all, and all this will end. and here, look at it here, if you try to analyze it in general, and what about the information space, that is, i represent today, i recently could not stand it, i also wrote in my telegram about one situation, when and everyone began to discuss events that had not yet happened,

based on well unverified sources. they imagined a lot of things for themselves, then the event happened, it turned out to be completely different and people, instead of admitting that they were wrong, predicting this event, because they checked the sources are not ready for this recognize, and experts or experts? i don't know. and they start coming up with conspiracy theories. they say they didn't really show us everything. not everything was said there and so on. i somehow exclaimed the rules of three sources, but in the end it was time and one of my colleagues wrote, but some kind of naive romantic. this is all absolutely in the past , the information field has changed radically, no one checks anything. well, why don't you want to believe? what do you think, well, yes, no one checks, and rather the media make some kind of picture of these expectations. yes, here i have examples immediately came to mind with the so-called counter-offensive of the ukrainian army, because there was a counter-offensive rather in the western media and for the western

audience, probably, there was just such a picture in my head that, then, such a wave should go to clear the russians there these bad guys, crimea, donbass, everything, that's it. and a few expectations, well, they didn’t come true, to put it mildly, and the question is, what’s next for these western western media, how should they continue to promote their audience , somehow explain it to them, but do something to further in they believed it, tell me, well, well, we still teach here, and at journalism departments, and students, that journalists are obliged to check the facts, but practice tells us that the facts today should be checked by the reader, viewer, listener. here is how, in reality, this change happened or did not happen, you need to double-check it yourself or not. well, the standards of journalism, firstly, are gone. as such, such a term new media appeared conditionally, that is, of that classical genre, to which everyone used to get used to it already.

no, and therefore it is generally a question of faith, of course, of course, of what the reader wants to believe, because, as they say. yeah uh people don't want to know the truth people want to think they know the truth. and here it is exactly the same. each media outlet has its own audience of conspiracy theorists or something else, it is useless to prove something to these people. they read what they like, with what they internally agree, but in fact yes, indeed , journalism is after all. uh, the kind of profession that should rely on analytics on fact checking. now there is no such demand, unfortunately, well, i would say, i still don’t want to, so to speak. oh goofy. says no one checks anything. yes, it’s clear, what checks, although i could also say that when it’s approaching me, it’s much easier to make a mistake.

yes, yes, now even let's give an example of a simple recent conditionally speaking, what also rushed through telegram channels on many respect the official that the press secretary of president peskov said that he would have an address that would affect the future of russia, everyone began to publish it at home. as a result, everything is already in detail before the performance. everyone knows the content of the statement, which has not yet been. yes, but it turned out that this is a source in general, which constantly comes up with some fakes. and so everyone decided to rely on him. well, or how often, let's say. here is such a comic media panorama, yes , and still come across. how many years has some serious media serious money that has been republished? yes, but how can i explain this, well, i can understand, when i somehow got a panorama, it means that i paid attention to my humble person. no, my students began to write. did you say that? i say guys, well, at least you look.

what is the reason for this? it's not that critical. today we perceive information. well, also, probably, what the media is now hunting for, and there the situation is clear there. some news. well, you need to publish it as soon as possible, otherwise another telegram channel will do it in 5 minutes and, accordingly, you will not have reposts, and the audience will be smaller and somehow it will probably be lost all professionalism. the whole e. well, here, too , this double-edged sword, as they say, because the situation is a choice. here a journalist faces a situation of choice, either such, yes, and i can be the first, or i check and most likely the first i will no longer be, but in classical journalism there is also such an interesting thing as, uh, there is an unnamed source, an unofficial source. yes and and how can we check this source? or is there such a thing. e, interlocutor at the moment, e record did not comment on our request to him.

here you can refer. so why not comments from that side? oh no. well, this is a common situation after all. i still want a situation of choice. but it seems to me that, after all, for journalists there can be no choice for the responsibility of journalists, or , of course, you are hilarious. yes, uh, i would like for a short while, as they say, you know, i had such an amazing story. ah, let's say one media wrote. well, the article about how candles are made in the church is very interesting. it was not even interesting interest in detail. in general, cool, you know what it was called. only drugs are better. when i call with colleagues, guys, what are you doing? he says, well, what did they tell us, here is either a certain number of visits there per day, or we just close it to your editorial office and that's it. well, now, what to do with it? well, what is it, they really do not lie. as if, well, in

terms of, i don’t know that i exaggerated a little, but in fact this is not a hoax. as such there. yes? they do not say that the candles are made somewhere along with some drugs in a situation where the reader reads the headlines, in his head quite such an unpleasant associative is embedded, so there is a choice. you can read some official publication, you can read something like these clickbait headlines. knock-knock - this is a sale knocking on ozone on ozone you big strong are waiting for a big sale of clothes on ozone mission. amitin, you and i just have one mission and doing ours here. i help you. there, from monday on the first we have a birthday and we have prepared a surprise for you in our application , a product of your choice for only 1 rub. delicious

point one year together pay cards ozone bank. pay ozon with a card up to 25% open for free in the ozon bank application. when does dad have a bee, does the family have more internet? li and sportmaster plus fishing meet the new category in the mobile application. buy goods for fishing with a guarantee of the authenticity of goods sportmaster online savings card will make

the purchase of products significantly more profitable. get a debit savings card and get as much as 10% cashback bonuses from every order in the supermarket. pay for purchases and win free products for the whole year with a savings card. benefit every day, even i am konstantin ivlev. i don’t know how to improve this taste at a delicious point they use 100% chicken breast meat, so you feel the chicken and nothing extra. try chicken snikes in a delicious and full stop. if you can ride on the internet, lie on it , walk and even dance in it. reliable mobile internet with beeline on your side, anywhere

. what else? i also want to rest. ozon open and relax book profitably, hotels and apartments on ozon refresh the feeling at the right time will help a sip of pure water holy spring holy spring tune in to purity of sensations.

it seems that you have changed a lot on the first date, and the taste of your favorite nuggets, there are no 70 parameters for assessing chicken fillet so that the quality does not change over the years qualitatively tasty and point solution for every day with a free debit card this is an opportunity to make the house comfortable in one step and without commission. please your loved ones with convenient transfers within russia and to more than 10 countries of the world and receive not only emotions from meetings with friends, but also up to 30% cashback. do better every day a debit card for life vtb today we are discussing with vovan and lexus not only pranks, but also the state of the information field and the possibility of manipulation. but if we talk about, here is this new information space. yes , he has some laws. i remember, a was at one

such, let's say, closed meeting, where someone confidently said that the only law of the new information field is the absence. whatever laws. here it is or not. not well, here, too, of course, the question. e trust, because if you do these fakes, post there all the time. uh, something that is not true, of course, you will not be trusted. and you will be on the same level there with some fake ones. and if you want your audience to really grow there, then well, one way or another, but the question is still in dosage, that is, there are telegram channels that really do there. uh, true real news, and there, let's say, 15% of some fakes and come in because of these, well, a small number of fakes. well, well, loud how would it be, well, and you look and present the news, as it were, as it were, it seems, everything is fine, as it were, well, in fact , they also attract attention, they also deceive, but you know, uh, in general, it seems to me that it’s amazing that we are now discussing so calmly .

yes, although, in principle, we are used to it, we are spinning in this yes, yes, well, simply, well, in classical journalism, the journalist is responsible. for everything that he wrote , five-15%, not a single percent, the corresponding law on fakes, who also accepted it for a reason, uh, about the fact that iksmi questions are just more than anything telegram channels. first, there is the law. where are these laws written? yes, and what happens? and what if maliciously, uh, journalists publish something. but there is no such law in the telegram. but it is necessary that this be regulated. i think it's like fighting windmills, because it's an important fight. we had a podcast here about cervantes. we agreed that these windmills are very real giants, but you have it clear that there are some big canals. yes, where there is a million audience. what is there half a million, if some are small

, you can’t keep track of all the nudes and everything. well , there is a law on fakes there, which caused significant harm there, that there is infrastructure for the population. that's it. well , it’s not even spelled out there. no reason, there’s no need to cause harm. this must be this must be a fake, creating a threat to further all these consequences. but you know how, it seems to me, because, again, in classical journalism. here in any textbook it will be written that the functions inform to educate there to entertain there to entertain. well can you say yes? but of course, there is a very serious function of influence. and now, when i remember, when the same there are some social networks and the same telegram was just starting. why, uh, you mean anonymous channel. yes? to which i , for example, read on situations that i know well. i understand that this is not true. and i continue to read other news and i think, in theory, i should make a logical conclusion that since they are lying here, most likely they are lying there too, but i’m already there for sure