[000:00:00;00] fearlessly, they even went to the embassy of the people's republic of china in belgrade, where this is an international law, they said, there is no such international law, which was not needed, it was outdated, why, because they wanted to act, well, without regard to this international law, then, when russia began to take some actions, they said, how can this be, it’s a disgrace, russia violates international law and the charter, but always, unfortunately. adjust this international law to suit yourself, is it good or bad, it’s very bad, but at least it’s something exists, which is a guideline, my only concern is that if this is completely swept into the basket, removed, well then there won’t even be guidelines, so it seems to me that we need to follow the path of permanent gradual

changes, but this is necessary do definitely. the world has changed, thank you, sergei karaganov, i am one of the veterans and founders of the club, i am in a state close to happiness, on the day of its twentieth anniversary, because, well , old people should say that, generally speaking, it was better with us, it wasn’t like that, with us better, better now, more fun, more interesting, brighter, more colorful, so thank you too. for participation, my question is this, as for having more fun, it seems to me that it sounds bold, when it’s more interesting, then it’s more fun, that ’s when it’s more fun for you, to be honest, i don’t really, outside, here in russia, and

it's quite enough at the club now. one simple question is being discussed, i’ll formulate it as follows, uh, from myself, of course, not from not everyone, uh, isn’t our nuclear doctrine of the use of nuclear weapons outdated? it seems to me that it’s certainly outdated, it’s even looks frivolous, but created in other times and - perhaps in a different environment, and even follows old theories, containment no longer works. isn’t it time for us to change the doctrine of the use of nuclear weapons in the direction of lowering the nuclear threshold and go, of course firmly, but quickly enough, along the ladder of escalation, containment, cutting off our partners, they have become insolent, they directly say that because you have such a

doctrine, and that never... this is one question, it contains another, peace in the coming years, even when we win in one way or another way in ukraine, or around ukraine, the west will still live, go through very difficult times , new centers will rise, new difficulties will arise, put back the same fuse that was nuclear deterrence, which held the world for 70 years, now this west, having forgotten history and fear, is trying to eliminate this fuse, shouldn’t we change our policy in this

area? i, i from... know your position, i have read some of your documents, articles, notes, and i understand your feelings, let me remind you that in russian military doctrine, there are two, two, two reasons for the possible use of nuclear weapons by russia. the first is the use against us, that is, in response to a counter strike, so to speak, but in practice, what does this mean, the missiles were launched, our missile defense system detected, ah, recorded, let us know that the target was territory of the russian federation, all this happens in seconds,

so that everyone understands, and... already understanding, knowing information about what is being done to russia blow, we, for our part, respond to this aggression. and i want to assure everyone that today the response is absolutely unacceptable for any potential aggressor, because from the moment the missile launch is detected, no matter where it comes from, from anywhere in the world’s oceans, or from whatever territory, in response to in the event of a counter strike , such a number, so many hundreds of hundreds, of our missiles appear in the air that not a single enemy will have a chance of survival, and in several directions at once, second, second reason

the use of these weapons is a threat to the existence of the russian state, if even conventional weapons are used against russia, but the very existence of russia as a state is threatened. here are two possible reasons for the use of weapons that you said, do we need to change this, and why, everything can be changed, i just don’t see the need in which, well, let’s say, today something would threaten russian statehood and the existence of the russian there is no state,

which means, i think, no sane person it wouldn’t occur to me in my clear memory to use nuclear weapons against russia, but nevertheless, the point of view is yours, other experts, people who are patriotic, very worried about what is happening inside the country, around us, worried about what is happening in our country on the line of combat contact in the ukrainian direction, i understand everything, we look carefully and, believe me, respect your point of view, but i don’t see such a need to change our concept there, the potential enemy knows about

everyone knows about our capabilities, here it’s another matter, well, for example, i’m already hearing calls, for example, to start testing nuclear weapons, to return to testing, here, that’s what i would say, the united states has signed the corresponding international act, document, treaty banning to test nuclear weapons, and russia signed it, russia signed and ratified, and the united states signed but did not ratify, well , now we have almost finished work on... modern types of strategic weapons that i spoke about and which i announced several years ago, the last successful test

of the petrel, a global -range cruise missile with a nuclear installation, a nuclear propulsion system, was carried out. we have actually finished work on the sarmatian, on the super-heavy one. the question is that we just need to complete some procedures in a purely administrative and bureaucratic manner, move on to their mass production of putting them on combat duty, and we will do this in the near future, as a rule, specialists, well, new weapons, we need to make sure that there's a boyzar, special boyzar, it will work without failures, but we need to carry out tests, well, i’m not ready

to say now, we really need, we don’t need to carry out tests, but behave in a mirror way in relations with the united states. i will repeat once again, when they signed, but did not ratify, and we signed and ratified, in principle, behave in a mirror manner with that, but this is a question of the state duma department, theoretically it is possible to revoke this ratification, it is enough if we do this, this will be quite enough, now in the west, some are already open they express the position that the support for ukraine is so, excuse me, the support for ukraine is so active.

is connected with the fact that russia somehow did not respond convincingly enough for the entire year and a half to the escalation on their part, i don’t know, convincingly, not convincingly, but now only at the beginning of the so-called counter-offensive, this is the latest data, only since june 4, ukrainian units have already lost over 90,000 people, these are sanitary irretrievable losses, 557 tanks, 100, almost 100 armored vehicles of various classes, convincingly, not convincingly, that’s why we have our own understanding of what is moving and how, we understand where and what we need to do, where and what we need to add, we calmly move towards achieving our goals. i am confident that we

will achieve them and achieve these goals that we have set for ourselves. thank you, radika dsi, thank you, mr. president putin, thank you for another, i would say, historically important and thoughtful speech. i am always very impressed when i listen to you, i have a question and a personal request, the question concerns my country, canada, as you know, the canadian parliament just made a mockery of themselves when they applauded a ukrainian nazi, a veteran in the canadian parliament, more than 440 people applauded, and no one...

wondered: is this right? as you know, prime minister trudeau has apologized, i think twice already, the speaker of parliament has resigned, and to me this really shows the scale, the scale of how far the western position has come, they are so focused on their ignorant concepts that they even forgot. how much is russia did it in order to defeat nazism? they don’t understand that if it weren’t for russia’s contribution, the second world war would have ended differently, there would have been no victory , they forgot how much russia did for victory, 30 million lives were lost, a huge number, it’s hard to even imagine this scale, could you comment on this? what do you think of it? and my personal request to you. this concerns me personally and excuse

me if i mispronounce this, but this concerns my friend, the friend of many of us here and my husband, dimitris konstantipoulos, and this is kaberlitsky's question, as you know, he was detained and he is concerned about his personal condition, i have several reasons why i am talking about this. several petitions have been signed in western countries, of course, a lot is said about this case, but we do not sign these petitions because we do not agree with their content, because they are completely anti-russian, we have a letter to you, and we hope that you will read it, and we hope that you will understand that we are addressing you as friends of russia, of course, we are in a difficult situation because we do not agree with the position.

your friend, but we remember how much we learned from him, he has an excellent knowledge of russian history and he has always been committed to russia, and this is our personal appeal to you, please take this personally, thank you. you know, i honestly don’t know in detail who? such a kagorli, that’s how my colleague tells me, of course i will take this paper of yours, look and react, i promise you, okay, as for your question, god knows, you and i did not agree that this question would be, but i was waiting for it, honestly to you

i will say, and moreover, i took, took information about what actually happened, for us this is not, not an ordinary event. let me remind you that, uh, this division, in which that ukrainian nazi you mentioned served, was created by hitler, by hitler’s command on april 28 , 1943, the nuremberg trials are not us. yesterday or in the conditions of today, and the nuremberg tribunal declared the sss galicia division, in which this ukrainian nazi served, criminal, and responsible for the genocide

of jews, poles and other civilians, this is a decision of an international court. let me remind you that this decision was made by independent prosecutors and judges, well, ultimately the judge, of course, based on the data provided by prosecutors in various countries, this organization was declared criminal, which means, let me remind you of the words, i specifically took this paper with information so that it was specific and demonstrative that the speaker of the canadian parliament said, today in this hall there is a ukrainian-canadian veteran of the second world war who fought for

the independence of ukraine against the russians, i i'm proud to say that he is a hero of ukraine and a hero of canada, and we are grateful to him for his service. first of all, if the speaker of the canadian parliament says that during the second world war, this canadian, canadian-ukrainian or ukrainian-canadian nazi, fought against the russians during the second world war, he does not... does not understand that he fought on the side of hitler, and not on the side of his own homeland of canada, or was a fascist collaborator, in any case he fought on the side of the nazi troops,

let's say he doesn't know this, i have no way in any case, i don’t want to offend the feelings of the canadian people, we treat canada , no matter what, with respect, especially to people, but if he doesn’t know that hitler and his minions fought against russia during the war, then he’s an idiot, well that just means , it means he just didn’t go to school, doesn’t have basic knowledge, and if he knows that this man fought for... hitler and calls him a hero of ukraine and a hero of canada, then he’s a scoundrel, or this or that, well, with these people we

have to deal with, these are our opponents today, from some western countries, well? this is important in my opinion, the speaker of the canadian parliament says: he fought with the russians, and today he continues to support, there is a further quote, today he continues to support the ukrainian troops fighting against the russians, he essentially put hitler’s collaborators, the ss troops, and today's ukrainian combat units fighting. everything he said was against russia, he put them on the same level, this only confirms our thesis that one of our goals in ukraine is this is denocification. it means that it is still there and is recognized, this is the nazification of ukraine, our common goal, i think it is common, is to achieve

denazification, and finally, of course, it looks absolutely disgusting that everyone applauded, applauded this nazi, and especially the president of ukraine, in whose veins , whose jewish blood, jew by nationality, stands applauding the nazi, not just a follower of the nazis, not just an ideological follower, precisely the man who destroyed the jewish population with his own hands, he personally destroyed it, because the german fascists created this division of the sss galicia.

first of all, for the destruction of the civilian population, in the decision of the nyuneng court it is written as follows, they were blamed for the genocide of jews and poles, approximately 150,000 poles were destroyed, of course, no one considered the russians to be gypsies at all, they were not even considered people, which means million jews were exterminated in ukraine, think about this figure, but didn’t this happen, and doesn’t anyone know this? yes, everyone knows, everyone knows, wasn’t there a holocaust, and when the president of ukraine applauds the man who personally exterminated the jews in ukraine with his own hands, he wants to say by this that the holocaust did not happen, but isn’t this disgusting, by all means.

if only they fought against russia, such people, all means are good if used in the fight against russia, but i can imagine that there is simply an irresistible desire to defeat russia on the battlefield, to achieve its strategic defeat, but is it really possible to do this at such a cost ? i think this is - this is just extremely disgusting i really hope that not only we here in a narrow circle at the aldai club will talk about this, but somehow public organizations, those who care about the future of humanity, will still formulate their position on the issue

clearly, unequivocally condemning what happened, thank you, i saw gabor, there, gabor, where , that’s where, where you saw it, now i lost it, but here’s the gabosh from hungary, mr. president, i won’t ask this time, tom, what will happen to odessa, although uh, we have many in hungary they ask what will be the name, the name of the neighboring country, from odessa, you have, no, no, no, you asked last time yes, yes, yes, what is this i have another question, what, well, well, please, excuse me , yes, yes, yes, that means, mr. president, we know that you are interested in history, so now i would like to approach not... to the current reality from this point of view, and if

we talk about history, then we know what significance did the fact that peter the great opened a window to europe have for the development of russia? europeanness is part of russian identity, of course, now europe is in decline and is doing everything to...' russia didn't like it , but seriously, as a european, it's scary to hear the statement that some european cities should be subjected to atomic bombing, bombing, that today is the euro, although sometimes i listen to what europe means to russia today, because this is not a question of what kind of problems we have about russia. what does europe mean for russia today, will russia completely turn its back on

it, and do you think so? it would be a mistake wall up this window. and if we are already talking about history, then another question is what if the new russian history textbooks have caused a serious discussion in hungary. more precisely, the lines about 56, describing what happened as a kind of color revolution. do you also think that 1956 was not a real revolution? and do you agree with another controversial comment in the book that the withdrawal of troops from central europe - in 1990-90 and 91 - was a mistake. i remember, i know that in

vladivostok, you said that the introduction of tanks was a mistake. year, but if it was a mistake, then do you think that this withdrawal of troops is also a mistake? you think that this is a question, this is a reason for writing a dissertation, it probably means that you said that you would not talk about odessa, although you mentioned it, but last time i abstained, i can say that odessa is, of course, a russian city, well, a little bit jewish, as we are saying now, a little bit, but, now we won’t talk about this, if you are in the mood to talk about another topic, then,

firstly, to the window, to europe. you know now my colleagues said, the world is changing and climbing back and forth through the window all the time means tearing your pants, but not the best thing to do, why climb through the window when there are other doors, this is the first, second, russia without any doubt, well, the civilizational code of russia, just like europe is based on christianity, this certainly unites us, but we are not going to impose ourselves on europe if it doesn’t want it, we don’t refuse, we don’t slam it, you said whether we regret or not , well, why should we be sorry, it’s not

we are slamming the door to joint communication, it is europe that is fencing itself off from us, creating such a new iron curtain, we are not creating it, but the europeans are creating it at a loss and to their own detriment, i have already said, i can repeat it, the economy of, say, united states, it is growing 2.4%, and the european economy is going into recession, has already gone , and some european figures who are definitely not at all inclined, positive, friendly, somehow towards our country, they give the correct diagnosis, well-being was based on cheap energy from europe on the development of the chinese market, the well-being of europe was based on these factors, of course, high technology

, well, hardworking, disciplined, working class, talented people, all this is certainly true, but there are fundamental factors in which, which europe itself refuses, i in my opening speech i spoke about sovereignty, you understand what’s the matter, because sovereignty has multi-vector dimensions, that ’s why we say all the time, and i say all the time, that russia cannot exist as a non-sovereign state, it’s just...' to exist at all, because it’s not just about issues of military and other security, it’s about other components , that’s what happened to europe, many european leaders, so as not to accuse me, don’t accuse me of being rude to someone there , or i’m defaming someone,