to find oneself in the flow of time and in the flow e of universal life, because only by turning and opposing oneself to something that was before that one can self-identify, therefore this history is an important factor in the existence of mankind. that is, almost like nature. how would you comment? well, actually, yes history. as a matter of fact, it really is about us, but about us in time, because about us in statics to understand, in general, nothing is possible. well, about how to look at a photo, yes, and imagine completely human life. it is very difficult. there photographs are always in general, deceptive, but in time, yes, and even more so with previous generations. and we can say, a lot, and hmm actually. we specifically, so to speak, study ourselves in time in order to really learn something about ourselves. tell yourself, well, let’s

talk about how we study ourselves, it ’s clear that the topic is vast. i would really like us to touch on different aspects of all this, but since i formulated the topic, how is history a strict science? well maybe a little so publicistically sharpened. now, when we talk about science with all the division of sciences, let's say humanities. there are definitely natural or any other divisions. all the same , science is associated with a certain law with a formula. now, are there legitimate histories? how would you answer this question around this question? what is natural for many centuries, i would say e starting from the 19th century, especially apparently history has its own global laws of development, which are not always the case. can uh, that's enough formulate. i would rather say that hmm the general orientation of those.

other periods in the history of certain events, for example, here, uh, colossal upheavals in those times when the world system was changing , the transition from the magnificent conditionally rome, uh, to the middle ages, it took 300 years of continuous wars of continuous chaos in order for a new system to be structured , then almost thousands of years pass, but a little less, if we count from the thousandth year and uh, when a new period begins, the renaissance arises , the reformation is a huge period of upheaval and the warrior, including the early modern period, and a new world is born, is born, well, again a new , different attitude to history. so we got such regularities. that's how it seems to me in such a turbulent period. well, here are the laws and patterns. this is not the same thing, fyodor aleksandrovich. well , probably not the same thing, it’s probably clear

that the concept of regularity presupposes some kind of mitigation. yes, so to speak, but here's the answer to this question. i, as such a standard historian, will always remember that how, in fact, this question was answered before me, yes, and here. in general, we can immediately say that, by and large, when it came to the laws of history, it was, in general, an attempt to transfer some rules of the game , say, to the natural sciences. yes, on the science of man, so i still probably wouldn’t talk about the laws of history, or rather, i wouldn’t talk like that. in the everyday sense, in the sense that they are trying to create a certain system out of many people. yes, so to speak, which is like that, as if they were atoms in it people are present, yes, so to speak, who are really there according to certain , it seems rules, so to speak, they are not invading, yes to say, naturally science, but man is free. and in this sense, it is far

from always predictable. and perhaps, by the way, the fact that he is free is a certain law of history. yes, this is unpredictable fundamentally unpredictable. but i once talked on a similar topic with igor evgenievich surikov and he said that there may be laws of history , but it’s a big question. are we capable of them get to know victoria ivanovna, what do you think? i think that he was to a large extent right, but he obviously drew attention to a very complex thing, that when we look already, that is, at the general course of history, we see, we structure it, and in general we somehow understand, i try catch. well, some kind of general flow and general direction of development, and we find them not only we establish them, but also from the natural flow of life. naturally, the interaction of people and

historical events, but to finish with this, so to speak, general theoretical part of our dissertation. yes, do i understand correctly that if we look for some extreme points of view, here in those approaches about which you told viktor ivano that there were many of them, yes, and discussions were and are ongoing that we will have marx at one pole well, quite tough like that yes, but on the other. well, let's say heinrich ricoeur, who said that the sciences are about culture. they relate to individual, uh, things of value, and not to patterns and laws, like the sciences of nature, uh, these are so extreme. yes point of view, as far as i understand in the assessment, and i'm just wondering. so, do you personally lean towards which pole on this spectrum, so to speak? i think marx yes is a very good example, really. yes, that is, this is an attempt to create a theory of everything in the humanitarian sphere, such a formula. yes, a total formula, which even in

the natural sciences itself cannot be created. yes, but at the other pole. uh, maybe not a ricker. this is exactly what it is, but the idea that a non-human exists in certain circumstances. they determine, yes, but on the contrary, that a person, strictly speaking, ultimately determines those processes, yes, that is , let’s say on the other side at the other pole, maybe there will be microhistory, maybe there will be a history of a person of a specific person of specific people. but klyuchevsky, by the way, argued. yes, as far as i understand, with the fact that history deals with a specific person, or am i confusing something. and he, of course, argued, but strictly speaking, his era as a whole was argued by my scientific great-great-grandfather klyuchevsky yes, it naturally existed in certain circumstances. naturally yes. well, nevertheless, still significant. and they were determined, that is, here he is, so to speak,

not without such populist influence. yes, so to speak, not without a populist approach. yes, he talked about the fact that there are people first and foremost, and only then a veteran’s man. remember, we are just like you, but we were talking and i can go over it now, of course. correct me, but you said that if you look for some laws, then these are the turning points in clash of different cultures. yes, i 'm trying to convey in my own words, and usually you or often. yes, the one that counts wins, well, less. that's how it actually was, as if the roman empire, probably not very precisely, no. no, i understand what you are talking about, but i also wanted no, this is just such an ordinary turn of phrase. you know, one usually gets the impression that when a person is free, he acts. that’s how he wants and in general, the whole story consists of these fragmentary

actions, fragmentary events fragmentary. even such short processes, but just like a mosaic comes together into a single whole. for example, in the hagia sophia you see a golden glow, and you don’t think that it was formed from a mass of pieces of smythe and the same way in history. why, like, uh, the definition of the crusades or the hundred years war? or and so on other events. they are given later they are given after uh, hundreds of years after they uh happened because the participants had no idea. they even appreciated what was happening differently, but already through the centuries it was clear the integrity of these events, the direction of these. the transmission process is dedicated to the fact that prophecy, so

i would like to say that there is a difference between prophecy and prediction by prophets. after all , they already see, and for them the word is clearly connected with the highest pure being. they don’t just know, they see, because it already exists in this existence, as we know at once, and therefore they reveal what historians are looking for in the sources. he does not begin to philosophize. the one who starts. eh, with some general provisions. he's unlikely to get there to the essence of things, but still he has some assumptions, and he goes into these sources in the same way. they already exist events have already happened, but the historian does not yet know what he will find. there he knows exactly what is in this one. he can

only find soil and springs there. e his support, but if he stops, he will not make any generalizations for himself. i’m not saying global historical work , historical research will not work. today we have gathered our thoughts about whether history is a strict science or a prophecy about the past victoria ivanovna ukolova fedor alexandrovich guide? i'm vladimir legueida. we continue, however, from the beginning, this is the general meaning of historical distance. and what it should be, i understand that it depends on the scale of the event, but still , what is the minimum after which we can, strictly speaking, call the crusades crusades. it is impossible to determine, in general, or to say, because everything is common in general, so to speak, our human this story. it basically didn't end and uh, in the end we then we’ll have to say, yes, that when it’s over, then we’ll put everything in

its place. yes, he is a historian. naturally, yes , tell him, in fact, it is quite convenient to judge from a certain distance. perhaps it would be better if it were larger, but it is desirable that the sources be preserved. what is it otherwise? yes, it will be difficult. here, but he is a very common. before that, a certain retrospective trap like this. yes, because he turns out to be, how to say, e smarter than his heroes. yes, this is very deceptive indeed. in fact, such a situation, so to speak, because, and he is never smarter, in fact, yes, to say, he needs it perfectly. it's just knowing the consequences. he just knows the consequences. he is here very often. eh, as if he was tempted to tell why it should have taken place exactly as it did, yes, then they tell him the truth, well, if you drew this very line wonderfully. carry it forward a year, and that’s it. and here and here the space begins. yeah because it's actually,

uh, basically there's no straight line we we deal with people. this is fundamentally important to know, yes and a. all of our generalizing models are still a generalizing model, that is, in other words. here are the leaders of the crusades, they went to the crusades not because feudalism had come. yes, so to speak it is this is how we will explain, i believe that feudalism did not exist at all. well, let's say, yes, they have nothing to do with it, they, after all, uh, set off from the crusades not because feudalism came and not because feudalism did not come. this is not a conversation at all this, yes, these are ours, generalizing just schemes about which we can conduct, by the way, endless discussions. this is actually normal and correct renaissance yes, the status of an independent historical era, yes, or is it two eras three or five? yes, and a half, yes. well, be that as it may, it’s all the same, really. all the same, we must, yes, say , approach these people very carefully, so to speak, politely

try to understand them, in fact, as soon as such a conditional dialogue and history with not just a source, but a historian with these people. that's when we actually start something. but look, comrade scientists, here is the question i most likely, i hope that i will be able to formulate it. so you said, yes, there is this risk, uh, that someone might think that you know more and there is, as far as i understand, the standard error of hmm a bad historian who evaluates the past from the standpoint of today. yes, using some categories, uh, today and so on, but in general, in a sense , he cannot evaluate otherwise. yes, of course, we will allow when we say, relatively speaking, the city of the state of the policy is even a city-state, because this attempt at definition can be accepted if we immediately make a reservation that it was not a city, not a state in the modern sense, there and so on, but there is a line somewhere that cannot

be crossed using this already existing knowledge. we cannot remove them. yes, in assessing the past, especially the distant past in history. there is one very an important predictive function, humanity always needs support. well, the main thing is, of course, religion. it's clear what it does. humanity is humanity in many ways, but history also shows this in our time. i've been watching lately. despite the fact that the research is being fragmented. rome into fragments is considered intolerant to consider the crisis of the third century in rome as a crisis, that is, our values ​​are attached and at the same time i will examine it with a political scientist, especially american rome as an ideal hmm, of course, not historical rome but it’s very important here that there is historical rome turns out to be defining milestones on a huge piece of history, that is

the first rome as the first form of globalization let's say now it is so defined, which is the first time. although this is not entirely accurate, because at the same time the same process is taking place in china as in the third century bc during the punic wars, when a pattern of struggle took place. to leading e civilization hmm after hmm world mediterranean domination is the same process, right? uh, here i’ll grab onto this - this expression is historical analogies, how much they help us understand something, and today and i was listening to lectures here, and about the peloponnesian war, and i thought, how does it all help in modern times, or is there more risk here or help address, it means, what do you think, well, this all the same, explanatory models, but one cannot go too far with them, that is, one cannot exist without them, but they, uh, cannot be absolutized, that is,

ultimately. it’s just that history must really understand the delicacy of its position. yes, he is, in a sense, an intermediary between people of the past, with whom he builds a certain dialogue, and his readers, people of the present. that is, he, strictly speaking, should, by and large, yes, in the language of the present. tell modern people and they should understand this, and so to speak. about a-and people or events there, naturally, so to speak, well, first of all it’s about people, because, and that means in the people of the past. yes and accordingly, yes , so to speak, he should not modernize too much, but at the same time, if he begins, yes, to tell the story, the way people of the past said, no one will understand, of course, he performs the function of an intermediary, so it’s about the same with models. but tell me, then ogurevich, in my opinion, said that when you talk with a person from the past you need to hear his answers e don’t impose yours on him

yes but here’s how it is here, so to speak, e with e hmm creativity in science victoria she would you once talked to you. hmm. in my opinion , it was extremely interesting to talk about the fact that history is also a game. of course, there is a place for creative imagination. let's just say erber aika this is the name of a rose and wow. there are so many things, including literary allusions, but this is a book. whether it is about the middle ages or not, in general the existence of human society and man is khoma ludans a person playing. yes, this is a very well-known concept, but the fact is that it is the research approach that has dominated the last 50 years. let's say. so , unfortunately, we, especially, trying to understand those who lived before us, imposed their thoughts on us and believed that in every era a person

changes radically in all the little things. is not so. here. uh, now the old idea is beginning to emerge that in the basic parameters of those parameters that man, as a biological species, which is characterized by thinking and creative thinking, he remains hmm, in general, quite stable. can i answer you, will i object to you, or will i answer you with lotman, who said that throughout the entire era, people loved and hated, they experienced it, but they did it in different ways, correctly, they did it in different ways, but there is a deep-seated it remained and this allows humanity to maintain stability, if only there were changeable images, changing in every era, the transfer of this integrity of humanity as a cosmic

phenomenon and history would not be carried out. she unites. and by the way, returning to him is not a coincidence. we know, let's take the surface. rome first rome second rome third and fourth. well, the ocean is already raging, rome is trying on the crown in the fourth , this is the shadow of the mirovsky famous historian, and we see how rome is trying on the crown in the fourth and therefore, uh hmm why did they try to fix such complexity now uh, hmm fukuyama said something, history ended with victory, liberal democracy turned out to have won nothing. and thank god, when history ends, historians will not be needed. you me. i'm sorry, so bail. uh, in general , existence and history, as a science, is special, but i’m talking more about history, which is in public life and not only in

conversations. and as one of the factors in the formation each time of a new historical reality. in this regard, i have a question because... i was recently talking with philologists, and i involuntarily remembered i think it’s somewhere in gasparov’s book. or is he quoting baktinat? eh, what shakespeare didn’t put into it, there are hundredths of what we read in hamlet today. today we are also partly talking about the fact that each generation, including historical documents, reads in its own way, and in what way this manifests itself in its own way, it can manifest itself simply in its own way, because you and i live here and now, then yes, we look through the glasses that we have and, in general, cannot take them off. yes, but nevertheless, we are still talking about people, and this is ours this is fundamentally human. the only thing really. and speaking of people. we, uh,

again, need to understand. yes, they were other people. they lived in a different era. yes, but nonetheless. this is the most important thing that happened to them. this is what we, in principle, are able to understand; everything else is, in general, details in the grand scheme of things, but that’s what we need. as a matter of fact, this is precisely why we talk about this experience because it is fundamentally the only thing present. oh, which must be talked about, which must be shared, when at 23 years old at the beginning of graduate school. i started deal with the last romans. in our country this was not accepted in essence, even in the encyclopedias none of all were mentioned, who are now figures and scientific schools and that’s all. i didn't think that i would have to go through all this. now, when i was translating fear and kosyador and reading these sources, when it is better to go to the barbarians, it is shameful to be a roman, the very name is shameful before this, by the way, augustine still regretted. well

, the fact is that alaric defeated. rome was a tradition for him. and when i had to worry about the collapse of the country in which i i was born in which my life took place and will see all this, the understanding is completely different. and that epoch also opened up in a completely different way, because a different interaction began on the personal level of the individual. you know, why we read books is not because we watch clips, we empathize, we become these heroes, and a real historian must also be objective. but, if this interaction does not exist, history turns into a rigid diagram on decayed parchment. and history is a living perception. that's life. in my understanding, every

period and our period is brilliant. showed the story passed through each of us. although many have not comprehended this, everyone will feel this way, perhaps, uh, obviously. they will make it so flat and super pointed. but why, as far as i understand, in the film about the great patriotic war, red army soldiers in uniform in 1942, which couldn’t have happened, it would be bad for the officers. yes, it will be bad, because it is a historical mistake. but let's say when my beloved alexey fedorovich losev describes the lyceum and we understand that he is fantasizing, well , to the fullest, because what did he look like there, what kind of trees grew there? how did they go there? we don't know for sure. this is good. as i was assured, one antique specialist. eh, or you don’t agree with this formulation of the question, respectively. well, i think that it’s still

a question of distance, really, that is, let’s put it this way, when in a thousand years we make a film about the great patriotic war, well, the chase of ’42 will be fine will. anyway, you and i once talked about hmm this topic. i'd just like to clarify. but you have personal criteria for what you consider artistic. in nature, on historical topics, whether it is acceptable or unacceptable in fiction is quite wide, acceptable, because in fiction it is important to influence and in this sense, shakespeare is an anti-historical person, because when i read or saw, we even have a play going on richar, 3 and i saw this monster. this is all this has been debunked, literally the remains were found richard it turned out that there was not a single fact that existed. there wasn't even his presence, but everyone remembers the monster of richard

iii. if you look at more hmm earlier means plays that are dedicated to the predecessor or christ then you will find the same thing shakespeare did not write history. he was not a historian. he was an artist. i'm not sure that if it were just that someone would read a boring story about the change in the parameters of richard the third, that he didn't have a hump there and that's it. this and this will be interesting. it will be an interesting unit i really like , published several times. we have a book by the ferro brand on how children are told history in different countries of the world. well, it broadens the horizons especially when it is visible, and when, using the example of one country, he quotes in a textbook from different eras, and in general, the question, of course, with all the expansion of horizons , the same objective history remains, how to find it, especially when today we say

and we say justifiably that we will not allow some things that are important for us to be rewritten there for our vision of the past, probably we can do this say. that’s what you think about this in this case, well, you just need to, in fact , immediately start from the fact that there is academic science and there is the teaching of history, and tell it school stories, school history is still real. the formation of a civic position is the formation of patriotism, to put it simply - this is a conversation, in general, about love for one’s country. and by the way, speaking about love in general, just for humanity at the same time, but naturally, so to speak, any, again, teacher will talk about what everything was there not easy. but what can i say? there is no such thing to say, only such a black and white picture, a black and white picture is about theology. here. eh, history is a mixture. yes, inevitably. absolutely. well, that is, it’s clear.

yes, what is there to say the devil with god so to speak, e is fighting in the human heart, but it's all so covertly it turns out in the end, yes, that's why it's one thing - to say so. here is the history teacher. he tells the children about one story. yes, but another thing is academic history. where exactly speaking already, in principle, other approaches. that is, this means that this is a very dangerous statement, so to speak. that is, he says that he is deceiving, it turns out that he is not deceiving them, but there is one approach to children as adults, another approach is a dialectical combination. there is no escape from them; this is education. it is generally built on this. yes, you can’t just come to a child and start feeding his infant, yes, with adult food. ekaterina, as the author of many different textbooks, what do you think? to the thought of the same calling, wood here we started with him again, he remembered that textbooks always describe not what

real modern historians now think. and what the historians of the past thought, how great the risk of this, he drew attention, of course, to a very important thing, and what we are talking about now, that if we are talking about the present moment, then, naturally, we cannot fix it. eh, in the textbook, immediately and directly, nevertheless, the textbook reports some set of facts, but i want to say that in each country this set is different, and this has been the case since ancient times. and another thought is that now the historical arena has again come out with all their might, for example, ancient eastern civilizations , those civilizations of some kind iran e, the middle east africa africa, which it would seem that hundreds of thousands of years even slept for hundreds of years, and i assure you, that in 20 years, if the situation continues and

it is possible to form some kind of new system , history will look completely different for historians and, er, european europe. we have a mostly european history, where europe or the european view dominates even if this history of china, the chinese will never agree with this. i timidly told you about the third century bc asynchrony for us was a struggle, by the way, if carthage won, then there was not much. perhaps christianity would not exist. it would be closer to the phoenician civilization, therefore, yes, this is a different question, but it must be said that they are my rights , justified rights, just as the struggle is going on now, for example, even about whether there was a special chinese person counted numerous e, representatives of primitive

species, we know that this is a nonlinear process was all this, therefore, i think that history will change a lot, world history, the history and history of each country will be forced to find its historically grounded and historically structured place in this new world history. i accept, among other things, uh, valmator, uh, interviewing applicants, but they actually notice. this is not my deep observation that this is a sense of history even at the level of knowledge of chronology. and for children today, well, either not, or it’s very bad. and this, apparently, is connected with some kind of system there teaching, apparently related to the fact that i am now trying to change and so on. but if right now it was necessary to try to explain, to this very child, the applicant. why is this important? if you were responsible, how would

you do it? well, this is really the main problem in teaching in general. yes, but ultimately. and if you put the question so globally, then in general, the problem is, uh, to teach or, say, who gives a lecture on ancient greece yes, and especially not a historian, by the way, not students the historian is to explain to the student how ancient greece still sprouts in his life. that is, why is she important to him? victoria is she. and you kind of answered. well, you know, if it's about ancient greece, no, i mean, that's why it's important. you see, historical examples don’t work. so i tell the students that look, frank writes in his work about the collapse of idols, how they hoped for what they thought, more precisely, that all evil is concentrated in the regime in the tsar in the gendarmes, just this is enough change and everything will change, and then when

they realized that this was not so, it was already too late , the students answer me that you are talking to us about life, and you are talking about some business to us? days long gone. here’s how to convey that all this has to do with us in our time is very difficult to convey, because the time i mean is, unfortunately, the beginning of the 21st century. this means that the century was marked by the fact that people everywhere were busy, exclusively with personal lives and personal events. eh, in particular cases they very often simply were not given the opportunity to think about something, only today's consciousness is focused on today. look at politics, life, everything, and don’t even think about history. moreover, the statement was an accurate story. it ended with the triumph of the liberal model. i think that this is connected with this and it seems to me that the grandiose events that have been going on in

recent years will return a person to the need to, uh, feel more deeply and uh, still look for support in their ancestors in history itself is not accidental . it sometimes takes on monstrously funny forms, like dreams about europe or the dream of rome, by the way, not only johnson, but the secretary general of the council of europe, waltersteiner. he actually started his book. uh, centuries or the beginning of man, he writes about the european union, like a purified dream we see, what this purity has become. and how, during the french revolution, free ideas were stroked, and then these ideas went out into the streets and became transformed. uh, monster, uh, bloodthirsty, so i think that time uh, hmm, will make people think and

make people return to history, thank you very much. i think we didn’t agree, but that means i'll have to collect my thoughts. thank you very much again victoria ivanovna ukolova doctor of historical sciences fyodor aleksandrovich gaida doctor of historical sciences. i'm vladimir left. yes, we were gathering our thoughts about history. if you liked gathering your thoughts with us, you can find all of our podcasts on the first channel website 1tv.ru. hello, this is a psychics podcast, where i am journalist natalya loseva and clinical psychologist, candidate of psychological sciences mikhail khors, trying to play out the most complex solitaire games of life situations, ours today the situation is unusual in that the request came from my husband, alexander, hello. hello, you have arrived. hello, yes,

your wife is dealing with your family problem. anna is afraid of all types of transport, afraid of speed, and as i understand it, an, this has already begun to cause great discomfort, great inconvenience, for your life, for your everyday life, travel and entertainment. please tell me, natalya mikhailov. please help me, really. she is afraid of speed, comes to hysterics , comes to tears of speed. what 120 km/h. she sometimes he’s even afraid of the sound of the car’s engine . the sound doesn’t even begin to drive yet, but it just starts to get louder, and he’s already starting to get hysterical. the steering wheel is missing, but sometimes it touches there. what does it look like? ahh, all the fear, leaking heartbeat, tears, panic, trembling hands and it’s impossible to cope with it, you can’t even be distracted by something. that ’s what i understood from what alexander told us when he asked for help. by the way , this is a great guy who is looking for a way out of this situation in such a responsible way. it's great that it's level today

where you started. yes, tell me that there was a situation with accidents. and yes, i had situations when i was driving in the fall, it was a slippery road, slippery, dacha road, and i was driving with friends. and it so happened that they were making fun of the girls , trying to scare them. and in the end, we crashed into the fence behind the wheel, it was impossible to pull it out, i wasn’t sitting in the middle back and was just in the moment. i only managed to put my hands forward, because i wasn’t wearing a seat belt, and i had hmm , it hurt, my hands were taking me out of the car. i i'm watching everyone remain alive. yes, now we are scared. oh, well, i hurt my finger a little because i was cleaning. uh, into the front seat and they took me out of the car. i just look at the lantern and it floats me. that is , i suddenly had some kind of fear, i

either began to lose consciousness, well, they actually streamed, right? about 18-17 years old, maybe and then something else happened right away, yes, then in the same month i was going to the shopping center by bus, i already started getting off, that is, i stood up to the handrail and in front of me there was a picture of the windshield that the car suddenly turns in front of the bus and the emergency bus brakes on board. how to say stop? uh-huh and i, too, already came out on shaky legs. uh, i called my friends who were waiting for me - said, meet me. help. i can't walk, i'm scared. that is, too, there were no casualties. this yes is not very scary to say, but she impressed you. and what then was an airplane, my mother always told me as a child, anya, airplanes are scary , scary to fly hmm well, that is, there were aeros. yes

, but it has never flown. that is, she has it was then that she got a job in which she flew on a business trip and the work was related to normal. yes, and already so an yes, is this all normal? well, okay, i overcame this fear of airplanes and watched enough videos that help. e with aerophobia. and in principle, two or three trips everything went fine. until one case, when plane e we went to the runway, we began to pick up speed and already at high speed. the plane starts to slow down. i already have hysterical panic trembling hands, we arrived at the parking lot. and that he ate the plane in the end, or he even braked urgently and did not take off. he just slowed down. yes, one of them was hysterical, but for the first time it seems to me, yes, i

looked at everyone like that. they sat there as if everything was fine. we arrived at the parking lot and waited for about an hour, they said that the plane had been repaired and we could fly. i’m already scared, because what happened there, that we braked so urgently and now we’re taking off again. we go to the acceleration lane, we begin to accelerate. it's time to take off the speed even more and again braking and on this time there is such a slowdown that everyone starts screaming, everyone is already hysterical, like in a horror movie, a disaster movie, we were sent to the airport to wait. and then i called my husband and said, i won’t fly, i’ll die, because they’ll put us on the same plane, and now it’ll be repaired again somehow. and that’s it. and you haven't yet. i called directly, said goodbye to his mother, my mother

also reassured me, my husband reassured me. i still couldn’t help but fly, then you understand how i still am. that is, you were not at home. it was you who had to return from turkey came back and everything ended well. and yes, in the end everything is fine, when the third episode is completely clear. i think that i would like to fly. i’m not an airport at all, absolutely, but in this situation i would behave in exactly the same way, as if, of course, i would worry, because this happens twice and something else needs to be repaired, that is, in fact, a normal situation . and now, so you and your husband can't even drive . yes, because perhaps eating with me in the car is very important. yes, say it again it's out loud. anna can drive she can eat, right? so by car, but it's every time, uh, in my opinion, mmm her these tantrums. there are some moments that lead to emergency situations, because it distracts me from driving, even changing lanes won’t save me. anna is sitting next to you.