[000:01:04;00] today we are talking with alexei konstantinovich levykny, general director of the state historical museum, i am very glad to welcome you, thank you for taking the time, by the way, hello, what is history, i ask myself this question all the time, looking at what is happening in the united states, as you know, history is being completely rewritten, all old concepts are being rejected, statues are being toppled, statues of not only southern generals are being destroyed, but also of president washington, president jefferson, and the history books are being rewritten and they change the exhibition in museums, you know, this is really very scary for me to believe, because i have been to

the united states many times, yes, they very often say that the history of this country is quite short compared to european countries, to the countries of the far east , central asian, but i remember what a scrupulous attitude towards their history in this country there was, because in almost every small town there was a museum that told about the events, this is the attitude towards the civil war that you you remember, but this attitude towards your past, it’s simply amazing , your question can be... answered very simply , because this is history - this is our past, everyone has a past, you and i have a past, our families have a past, the state has a past, and we must treat this past very reverently, very carefully, if we remember such a very low level of relations towards a person in our country, this is when they said don’t remember your kinship, so

you need to remember your kinship. this is necessary for this to say the future, this is necessary for one’s understanding, this is necessary for understanding life, so to speak, this is for understanding the goals that we strive for, well, in russia, monuments are not demolished, thank god, and the disrespect for one’s own history that was after the civil war i also don’t see any war in russia at all, but on the other hand, in russia too. serious changes, including in recent years, including in connection with what is happening in ukraine, how does this affect the understanding of history, the teaching of history, the teaching of history in russia? you know, probably from the point of view, although this sounds somehow strange, from the point of view of the latest events that are happening on our borders, and relations with our

neighbors, i would even say with fraternal peoples, probably, uh, in some way degree, the trend is positive, because we have become, we have finally returned to this attitude, to history, which, for example, was brought up in me since childhood, yes, this attentive and careful attitude, you rightly said, because we, when we just now we were talking about the usa, we also experienced that the period when we destroyed monuments, first we destroyed the monuments of some, then we began to destroy... the monuments of others , as far as you remember, then even so to speak, in the events of the nineties we also removed some monuments, but it seems to me that we stopped in time, understanding that everything is valuable, and history is very important, the most important thing is that now a trend has been determined, i would not say that we have somehow changed our attitude towards our past,

on the contrary... we have clarified our attitude to our past, we realized that our past is for us important in all manifestations, will be the past of the great empire, be it the past. soviet union, and this is important for us, because one way or another, this is still the history of our people, when i talk about the people, i’m talking in general, about the people who inhabit our country, in russia, and in the world very much they say the hermitage, the historical museum, it is not so famous, although it is located in the center of the country , on red square and occupies a large territory there, on the other hand, i hear a lot of good things about what you are doing, and your father, was the director of the historical museum for many years, and no, he did not leave you

a legacy in the museums, between the time he was the director and you became the director, quite a lot of years passed, as they say, you deserved it with your own work and your own scientific successes, i remember: the historical museum of the late sixties, and of course, it was a completely different museum and in many ways with a different approach, but it seems to me that basically the interpretation of history has been preserved, i’m not mistaken, you know, well , you feel that you worked in a historical museum, you understood , so to speak, the main essence and clearly know its history, you know, this is surprising, if we remember the historical museum, when it arose, it... is very interesting time, the decision to create it is made by the emperor liberator alexander ii, this is the time, so to speak, this is precisely the period of the famous reforms of alexander ii, this is the period of growth of the national

self-esteem of russia, it did not arise at all by chance, and now you mentioned the city, after all, we a slightly different museum, because the fathers the founders of the historical museum, they conceived it as a museum of the russian state and the russian people, nearby there was already a state chamber, which represented the history of the dynasty, which represented the history of the supreme power, so here on red square a museum of the people is being created, and the ideas that were put into it by its fathers founders, they clearly corresponded to this, because one of the founders, the name of whom you know very well, is ivan igorovich. he said that all the glorious ones should be gathered here evidence of those events that can be collected in their various

manifestations and in their various reflections, religion, literature, art, military affairs, naval affairs, everything that could be collected, arranged in a chronological series and presented in its entirety, these are the features , the life of the russian people, this emphasized the life of the russian people, and he said another topic that is probably very well known to you, he wrote that the historical museum is not a place for empty pastime, it is a place for the affirmation of russian self-awareness and development russian self-understanding, which is interesting, because the historical museum has gone through different eras in its history, you recalled the events of the collapse of monuments, and when, perhaps, that function... which was laid down in the historical museum by its fathers, founders, it turned out to be an alien supreme power, i i’m talking about the time of the revolution, but he constantly fulfilled his role , it happened then, it happened in the thirties, it

happened during the war years, and it’s happening now, that is, this function, the great mission that was laid down, i’m not afraid this word is great people, first of all we will call ivanavich zabelin, as i understand it, emperor alexander ii himself was present at the opening of the museum, of course, when i worked in the museum, it was a repeat of the soviet era, i don’t remember that there was anything there particularly critical of him, but frankly speaking, well, they didn’t focus on him, that’s how they present it now. russian tsars, especially such a very autocratic and conservative monarch as alexander ii. you know, firstly, i want to emphasize, the historical museum opened on the days of the coronation celebrations

of alexander ii, they entered the familiar to you, this beautiful carved wooden portal, which faces red square, and found themselves in stunning beauty. uh, the front entrance, as we now call it, where all the important events are now taking place, i think that when you worked there, you didn’t see them, because they were painted white, in fact, these are the most beautiful... painting depicting the curves of the state russian, and the staff of the historical museum, by the way, they we always remembered the tulle played by alexander ii. because he not only opened the museum, it was he who conveyed to the emperor the idea of ​​​​creating this museum to his father, he patronized it and he was its first chairman, there was a position that was defined precisely as the head of the museum, he determined its essence, he reported ... to my father about choosing a place on red square, that is, his role

is of course outstanding, as for how we reflect him, we try, as i already said, to fulfill the covenants that were laid down founding fathers, that is, we represent those complexes that represent different eras, eras of the actions of certain figures and eras of the actions of the russian people in their reign, we represent the era of peter, we represent the era - centuries, including our represented era alexandra ii. by the way, just recently we held an exhibition dedicated to him, it was very successful. but he was a very interesting , complex monarch, and many, it seems to me, especially among the liberal intelligentsia, saw him was underestimated when he was king, but it seems to me that now a lot of what he talked about, and a lot of... what he believed in, in general, is becoming

relevant today, well, you see, this is our attitude , to history, i, if they ask me what i think about history, i would always say that history is the most exact science, for the very reason that everything has already happened and you cannot change it, yes , not a single event that happened and which was reflected in the history of our country, but on the other hand, uh, itself... an assessment of history, no matter how objective the researcher is, it still has a certain , subjective nature, yes, and we see that very often in the assessments of researchers that share of ideology, that share, so to speak, of a political attitude to this or that event, this will always be felt, it will never be perfectly pure, and naturally, the attitude towards people changes, well, remember the famous answer that, so to speak, since... the french revolution, too little time has passed

to, so to speak, evaluate the influence which he had on the development of mankind, as far as i remember, i think deng saoping said, well, it is inevitable that history is written by the victors, not completely, the victors also change, and good history cannot be rewritten so easily, but history nonetheless has to do with politics, that’s what you said not so long ago on this issue. history is a scary science, yes, it often acts as an ideological weapon; in addition to the karabakh issue, i remember ukraine, the baltic states, conflict situations in the post-soviet and not only post-soviet space. but this is for it is an indisputable fact that, firstly, history is used for political purposes, and secondly, sometimes it is used for very destructive purposes that are not

directly related to history. finally, that today we live in a period when many have their own versions of history, i will give you two examples and ask you to comment on them, please, for example, when the war began over ukraine, according to kiev and the american patronage, all this began with the speciation that began. in february '22, according to the president putin, who seems to me to have reliable facts on his side, it all started even earlier , in 2013 and 2014, when the west organized and financed the maidan, and this then led to a bloody coup d’etat, and the current ukrainian government exists as a result of this..

.. this is how you see, i mean not only you, all of us, how you see the historical roots of this conflict, this affects your perception of what happened, and another example, this is of course, the history of ukraine, the history of ukraine is plan, that ukraine, according to one version, is the heir to kievan rus, which it had. culture is the most glorious history, and that today, as it were, how can they not even be a sovereign state and how and now, as i understand it, in the historical museum, you have an exhibition about the history of novorossiya, tell us about it, how do you see this conflict between

russia and ukraine from a historical point of view, you know, i would say from a point of view. to the first question, of course, the answer is unequivocal, it is very difficult to argue with vladimir vladimovich, who gives a fairly accurate historical assessment of the events that took place, by the way, starting with your question, i will say, of course , falsification is terrible, but you know, another thing that happened in ukraine is also terrible, i once heard this phrase, it’s called resetting history, when history disappears, instead of history, some kind of myth is created... this is a kind of myth , and uh, if we talk about the continuation of your question, about the second question, who objects that we are all heirs of kievan rus, and vladimir vladimirovich repeatedly declares

the fact that we are all heirs of ancient kievan rus, we are all heirs of the same culture, we are all heirs of the same history that we created together, simply because of the desire of certain political forces, so to speak, yes, which are on ukraine, and of which there are most of them, beyond the borders of ukraine, this is the heritage and this history was simply destroyed, our exhibition tells a little about something else, it tells even more about the history of ukraine, it tells about the history novorossia, it talks about the vector of russian politics that... arises around the 16th century, movement to the south, resolving several issues, resolving the security of its borders, its ukraine, i repeat, ukraine, because my ancestors lived in russian ukraine, they defended the border, the concept of ukraine is the border, this movement to the south, which continued

throughout the entire 16th century, the creation of powerful defensive lines, this movement to the south, which, in the century, was the act of the great catherine ii. and this is the development of that richest region with fertile lands, with powerful metallurgical plants that were created by the hands of our people, yes, of course, this is the story of this exhibition , this is the story of development, this is the story of development, this is the story of use, this is the story of history and we bring this to history up to this day. but this development that you just talked about was somehow carried out by people who could be considered early ukrainian nationalists, they saw novorossiya as part of some kind of community

that would be at least to some extent different from russia, no, absolutely, those people who developed these lands were representatives of one people, in its various manifestations, because my position is unchanged, the russian, ukrainian, belarusian peoples are fraternal peoples, close in language, in their mentality, their culture, their history, of course, they created it all together, this is, so to speak, the act of one state, which was first called the russian empire, and we... talk about the acts that took place in the soviet union, the creation of that powerful industrial bases, which was created then, all this was created by the hands of our people, to the extent that this development , the beginning, initially had the form of military

conquest, this was done by regular russian units, of course, of course, of course, in which russian people, russian officers served , who represented various territories, various lands of our states, these were the people of kiev, these were the people who lived in poltava, these were the people who lived in the vladimir, novgorod lands, in moscow, i understand, the first division, which could be considered, yeah, the predecessors of the ukrainian army appeared during the first world war with the help of germany and austria-hungary, yes, you are absolutely right, these are the units that were in... were in that country, because, like us we know, a fairly significant, definite western part of ukraine, it was not part of the russian state at all, it was part of the austro-hungarian empire. as well as part of poland, for example, so to

speak, and the first these connections and the first movements, they were created there, although i think that on the territory , as malorodosiya was called then , there were certain nationalist groups or nationalist circles, so to speak, well , nationalist circles existed everywhere, absolutely true, but somehow they are not considered, if you want, early manifestations of some new states, of course, it came from outside, this is the idea of ​​this state, it comes from outside, naturally, on the ruins of the russian empire, after the events of february 1917 and like this exhibition visit? you know, the exhibition is a very big success, i won’t talk about the number of people who came, but we expect that this will probably be the case... this will be the most visited project and it is very pleasant that this exhibition is visited by a lot of young people

, schoolchildren, students, we even have special programs at this exhibition, which we developed for gimo students and so to speak, we welcome groups from there, as i already said, the chronology of this exhibition is quite extensive, it covers the period approximately from the first, so to speak, here are the events. century ends with our present day, including where we present objects that were collected by employees of russian museums, the so-called inter-museum group, which works in the donbass, in lugansk, in zaporozhye, which collect evidence of heroism, which collects evidence of crimes, and there these objects are presented, and you know, this... from the first exhibitions where i saw a crying man, it was precisely in the section that was

dedicated to modern history, we worked, by the way, together with the svr foundation during its creation, and as i understand, you will now have an exhibition dedicated to peter i, well, not exactly, because we had an exhibition dedicated to peter i, and now we have a slightly different project, this a brighter, more artistic project , tergof, which also attracts a fairly large number of visitors, but there is a different theme, there is the theme of beauty, the theme of culture, the theme of a very interesting family, also, towards which attitudes have always been ambiguous, this is alexander fedorov and nicholas ii. i wanted you ask a question about peter i, yeah, who is, in general, a very controversial figure, uh, on the one hand.

the great creator, if you like, of the russian state, the first emperor, his merits are incredible and undeniable, on the other hand, i just read the memoirs of general masalov, who, if you remember, was the head of the special office of the ministry of the court, under nicholas ii, and musalov admitted that he had few substantive conversations with the emperor, he had such, well, clerical duties, but one conversation, he remembered, i cannot vouch for the fact that he remembered it correctly, so i will quote, just what was said that nicholas ii, then still a young, relatively young tsar, told him that you know, my least favorite, emperor. this is peter i, because he did not rule in the russian way, because he wanted to subjugate

russia to europe, because he did not have enough respect, sufficient attachment to russian culture and russian traditions, the historical museum somehow shows this versatility, multifaceted, not only if... methods, that this is a very controversial figure , that, so to speak, there was a lot of cruelty in her management, but firstly, i do not agree with emperor nicholas ii, in relation to peter, from his point of view , so to speak, russianness and non-russianness, he was a completely russian man, he was an orthodox man who did a lot to strengthen the russian orthodox church, he was a man who strengthened the country,

and yet solved the problems that faced it stood for many years, well this is not accidental, because we all know very well that the example for nicholas ii was peter’s father, alexei mikhailovich, by the way, he is also a very figure, he is hidden behind such a concept of the quietest, interesting and underestimated, and underestimated, but well, i’m just spent time. alexei mikhailovich, so to speak, according to the calculations of researchers, somewhere more than 120 large and small military campaigns in the country were carried out during his reign, successful , successful, so i think that peter was a good, worthy son of his father and continued what he started, so i don’t agree that he tried to plant

something alien on the territory of russia. well, now in russia there are also big disputes between, i would say, the majority of the people and a certain part of the liberal intelligentsia, who not only do not like the current russian government, who not only do not like the policies of the russian state, but in general they do not like and russian political culture, and i see in what they say: today, well, the continuation of the history of the russian intelligentsia, back at the end of the 19th century and the pre-revolutionary period , berdyaev said a very interesting thing about these people, people with this kind of conviction, who said that these people are called westerners, but he

said it was a mistake, yeah, because western westerners... very respect their countries, yes , of course, they wish them victory, yes, they are proud of their culture, here is a russian westernizer, he is by nature, wrote berdyaev, an asian, and from the colonial period, who has worship and affection for everything foreign, and a feeling, if you like, of your inferiority and even your own inferiority. what do you say to this? well, you know, i can only completely agree with your assessment and , so to speak, from the point of view, well, if we turn to the speeches of our president on the relationship between, say, russia and the west, when he says that, so to speak, we

never fenced themselves off and never built a wall, and, by the way, by the way, if we even turn to the history... of the century, from the point of view that is usually classically presented as russia as a kind of enclave, we will see about the fact that it quite actively interacts with many european countries, absorbing the best, and so, the most correct position is to take away the best that we can take, in culture, in economics and in attitude, but still these are the people which, as you rightly said, call themselves traps. to a greater extent, they don’t think about it, they don’t talk about taking the best, they talk more about, so to speak , changing mentality, changing traditions, changing culture, which they consider the most important thing in this regard, but so to speak , this leads to nowhere, this leads to the same situation that we see in our , so to speak, neighboring, former fraternal country, and

it seems to me, to the same situation that has already happened, you know, for me as a historian has always been important, here is a very specific date, you should know it, this is the date of 1934, which is called the publication of a decree on the study of history in school, it seems to me that this date is a turning point, this is a very precise topis. which arose in relation to history, in relation to its past, forgetting him, a very former turn in the other direction, i always remember such a thing that until 1941 there was only a little time left, only 7 years, but this resolution was adopted, teaching began in the history of the school, when someone turning to his

fellow citizens, said: let you be a great sign... in front of him stood people who watched tv when i saw. people who knew about these victories for only 7 years, with amazing horror i look at the footage , they speak russian perfectly, without an accent, they wear the clothes that are familiar to us names, surnames, but the same 7 years were enough to completely muddle them, so to speak, and turn them in the other direction, alexey konstantinovich, thank you very much for this conversation, we talked about complex things, sometimes, let’s say, directly difficult and even... things, but it seems to me that we both had a feeling that when it comes to history and more specifically the history

museum, that we are on the right direction, thank you very much, thank you and i invite you to all viewers of your history museum program, with enormous it's a pleasure, thank you, we're going out to advertise, we'll be back literally. in a few minutes, pavel andreevich koltsov, adjutant commander, yuri solomin, a man, a legend, a star of our cinema, artistic director of almost the most classic small theater in the country, i don’t consider myself a great artist, just an old one, one of the old small theater artists theater, he just said that he is not a great actor, he is a great russian actor, he has hardly appeared on television for the last few years... all these years we have been waiting for him for an interview, what a miracle, we waited for an invitation to the theater square, rebuilt everything, agreed for about 30 minutes, but the people's artist did not let us go for 3

hours, the conversation turned out to be confessional, i have no enemies, i did no harm to anyone, the favorite of all the women of the soviet union and such a person, very simple , sweet, charming, our exclusive... footage taken a few days before the emergency hospitalization of yuri solomin exclusive with dmitry borisov premiered on saturday at the first gin сnop product of the stellar group. today our guest is konstantin valerievich malofeev, deputy head of the world russian people's council, thank you for taking the time, i know that

you, a major entrepreneur, are involved in a lot of mass communications, but i assume that you are especially busy now, because monday is tuesday, you have ... the congress of your cathedral is very significant, please tell me, good evening, this is really so, on november 27 on monday and on november 28 on tuesday the cathedral congress of the world russian people's council will be held, this will be the twenty-fifth congress and 30 years since the creation of the cathedral, this is a very important date for us, because the cathedral was created in 1993, when moscow was on the verge of civil war, the president and parliament... uh, did not hear each other, the impeachment of the president was being prepared, and then an execution took place parliament, as we know, during this period - in may of ninety-three, the church acted as a peacemaker,

a unifier of all the healthy and best forces of society in this cathedral, well, in particular , famous writers, valentin rasputin, gannichev, the sculptor klykov, participated in the first congress of the cathedral, the head of the cathedral became his holiness patriarch alexei ii, the initiator and driving force of the cathedral was metropolitan kiril, smolensk, kaliningrad, the current head of the cathedral, and the cathedral all these 30 years did not deviate from its peacekeeping mission, to be the representative of the interests of the deep russian people, in the nineties, when globalization and westernizing tendencies reigned in our country, in fact, it was the only russian voice, such a loud voice, that held the congress. at this council of ours the voice of the head of our state will be heard, there will be a speech by vladimir vladimirovich putin, a speech by the head of the council of his holiness the patriarch, the theme of the council is the present and

future of the russian world, and we all expect that important words will be said at this council about what the world will be like after victory, we understand that now victory is the main goal , this is what our russian world will look like after the victory, we hope that we will find out on... you told you one interesting important thing, which in fact should be self-evident, at least from my point of view, that many things ... the future of russia, at least to a certain extent, in some short-medium term, it depends on victory how this battle will end, not even in ukraine, around ukraine, but i don’t have to tell you that for a significant part, well, so to speak, experts on international politics

in moscow . moreover, such well-known and authoritative ones, in general, this war, but it is difficult for them to identify with it, even more difficult to support it, it’s not like they want the defeat of their state, but they want this to be written as soon as possible passed, and so that we return to a wonderful normality , the former to there are these two directions, one of which you represent, of course, this first defeatist direction that you said still exists, and this is

not surprising. our foreign policy was completely changed, how should i say it, correctly, but before was returned or so to speak, but was replaced by personnel in the nineties, in the nineties the kozarev generation came to our foreign ministry, and which, in general, did not come in connection with the fact that that it loved its homeland, in connection with in that it was ready to follow and in western kelvator, it was ready not to pursue an independent policy. then, instead of the foreign affairs department of the cpsu central committee, the so-called washington regional committee arose, which dictated, our mit obediently followed its will, all the nineties, but the turnaround that took place under putin, unfortunately, has not yet reached all the middle offices involved in our foreign policy , and of course, this westernizing direction is still represented, and i hope that now in

the course of this war, first formally, and then, i hope, and informally, that meade will leave this spirit, the spirit that was born in the nineties, in particular the minister himself, sergei viktorovich lavrov, he is absolutely in this putin spirit, lavrov is probably the most respected foreign minister in the world, the most authoritative, and he is exactly is completely on the agenda of a victorious war, but as i say, the middle level, not only of mid, of all these structures, as you rightly said, fed. for western money, they still unfortunately hold various events at which they tell us about our foreign policy, to us, about ours, and we about ours, about ours, we have our own idea, we have our own opinion, we are the people who have never turned away from the path of patriotism, love for their homeland, and which they understand, that russia is a sovereign civilization with its own path of development, in a multipolar world, these westerners cannot tell us anything about what russia should do, because for 30 years they taught us how to live in a unipolar world

of american hegemony, so only we patriots understand, because what we talked about this, even when it was not fashionable, now, when russia is waging a war for its existence, for its freedom, it is the voices of patriots in foreign policy that now sound everywhere, from all screens, from all stands, because when there is a war, liberals are not needed when there is a war, you need patriots, you know, i’m with you here... i don’t agree , of course, there are defeatists, there are people who, in general, do not want victory for their country, i think there are relatively few such people, i think there are more people who would be offended if someone called them natives, but who objectively think

that russia is part of europe. that the future of russia is with europe, but also naturally with the united states, and that everything that happened , no, it’s not that they want russia to be defeated, but it seems to them that some kind of misunderstanding, misunderstanding happened, or that they believe that the west was right in everything, no, they are offended that they are no longer allowed to attend the conference, and how would they still be experienced and educated enough people to understand that much of the western position, in western interpretation events, does not stand up to criticism, but they are not ready to go beyond this understanding of the imperfection of the western position and they really want to find some common denominator, and as for the patriotic westerners, i’ll tell you what, i don’t know if you agree with

me , i took part in the dialogue between russia and the united states for many years, and came several times with american delegations, and with..." russian delegations in washington, and i was always very worried about people who came from moscow with such with a pleasant smile, and they told, speaking about russian-american relations, how everything is fine, the beautiful marquise, with the exception of postyak, and disagreements can be overcome, disputes about missile defense, that in general there is a difference in technical details, and that in general well, well, you have to look forward, then everything will be endured, you will fall in love, and it seems to me that as a result , the west has lost a very important opportunity to hear the true story about russia and its

foreign policy, that russia cannot be driven into a corner, that it cannot be endlessly disregard russian prospects, that at some stage... at some stage russia will say enough is enough, and not just say it, but will do something very seriously about this, so it seems to me that this is an insecure position, not pro-women , it was precisely the insecure position that representatives of this part of the russian foreign policy elite occupied, that it created, well, if you like, illusions, contributed to illusions in the west. the main problem in relations between russia and the west is certainly not in russia, in the west, in the west was too eager to imagine that they

had won the cold war, and russia was ready to recognize its regional status. remember the famous expression of barack obama, and he called russia regional. this and which were simply absolutely many of them willingly recognized willingly as guides and here they talked about the fact that we must follow completely along with western globalist trends, create international financial centers here, integrate ourselves accordingly into this global market, a global trend, in the west it began to seem , that everything that everything had already happened, so when they met with another russia , the one that was seen less at these most wonderful conferences that you talk about, this was amazing for them, they

were not ready to see the real russia, and when it nevertheless appeared, we must understand that russia always appears, at the moment of any of its humiliation, the greatest, for example, the greatest humiliation in our history can probably be considered 1613, when the poles were sitting in the kremlin and russia, strictly speaking, how there wasn’t such a thing, it would seem, well, where else is the whole state gone, it was supposed to become part of catholic poland, but no, the people’s militia gathered, they answered the calls of the holy patriarch hermogenes, they came on the day of national unity, november 4, the day of the kazan icon god's matter liberated the kremlin from the western occupiers, and from the kremlin, during the reign of tsar mikhail fedorov, they expanded to the pacific ocean. always comes back because it’s too big a mission, it’s not even about the big people, it’s about great mission, we feel a mission for the last 500 years, from the moment when russia became the third rome and the only orthodox kingdom, even when it did not call itself orthodox in soviet times, it still felt a global

mission, americans or westerners who consider that the russian federation , which consisted of businessmen or some oligarchs at the final forum, is another russia, they are russia, which they considered russia, the remaining 150 million people remained, which they strangers, we need to start a completely different dialogue with them, as with equals, we will never talk from a kneeling position , we cannot be brought to our knees, as soon as the administration comes to power in america, or so to speak, those people in the outside world. .. the political department of the united states or the state department , which will talk with russia on an equal footing, building a dialogue about a multipolar world, then things will start to work out for us, that is, if i

understand you correctly, you don’t mind at all dialogue with the united states, you just want this dialogue to be, well, mutually respectful, but in addition, for russia to act, like the united states, from a position of strength, without intimidation, without blackmail, but making it clear that any dialogue is about about how to find common... interests, and not about how to convince russia to go along with america's foreign policy. exactly so, i would simply say, complementing your image, about those people whom i call born-born, and you called doubters, for whom something went wrong so, so i would add that without victory , no one will talk to us on equal terms anyway, we really lost in the cold war, even if it was not hot, and without victory, without a return to respect, the respect that forced the post-war

europe, treat the soviet union as their winner, liberator , as we called them, or winner, as western europe believed, there will be no equal dialogue, they will deceive us again, and if they now tell us that they are ready to talk in equal, it will be a lie, it will only be to stop the situation at the front , which will begin to tilt in our favor by the time of negotiations, as soon as everything at the front begins to be in our favor, right there on... because there is no victory yet we are not equal in reality, we must win then we will be a superpower, with which you cannot talk from top to bottom, well, i hope that there will be no more minsk 3, because after all, we have all learned something, i don’t know regarding you, maybe you saw everything and understood much earlier, i will tell you that i opposed russophobia in the united states

for 50 years, i can tell you that i was against nato expansion and was very skeptical of american attempts to interfere in russian internal affairs, and when i i say that i did, i don’t mean that i did in my kitchen, i did on the pages of the new york times on leading american television channels. at the same time , i must admit that i absolutely did not expect that crusade against russia, that we have received in recent years, but i didn’t expect this, because it seemed to me that yes, of course, in america there are ideologists, non-conservatives, russophobes, but still it seemed to me that there is what is called traditional yankee pragmatism , and that at the end of the day, businessmen who play such a large role as a large corporation

in shaping american foreign policy, that at the end of the day they will have their say, and that they will not go to extremes, that somewhere they are trying to push russia out, where - ignore russian concerns, but so they won’t lead to the total confrontation that is taking place now, for me this is what happened. this, i don’t want to say, was a revelation, but it was, of course , a rather unexpected, very alarming result, or do you think that from the very beginning everything was clear, everything was predetermined, i mean, the american western policy towards russia, it seems to me that nothing is ever predetermined, you and i know very well that we never have plans. but it seems to me that uh, our view of

the west as countries in which or the center forces, where there is always a plan, is also somewhat exaggerated, so it seems to me that nothing was predetermined, in the case of, uh, such a kissinger policy towards russia, it would have been so, as you say, because it was kissinger in those very famous negotiations with pryamakov stopped the war in 1914, and it was there that the agreements that later led to minsk took place. and kisinger, in fact, his position was very simple, that why are you now in moscow destroying our pro-american lobby, our westernizers-liberals, whom we raised so much, and accordingly you give food and a place for patriots, because a direct confrontation with the west begins, patriotic voices are growing, and you are in moscow, in which we were going to cook like that frog in boiling water, slowly make it ours, like eastern europe, you in moscow... whom we have made marginalized in recent years, the same was

the position of this smart party and this smart party would not have gone on this crusade to which you are rightly saying, because they now they have a worldwide russian people's council as a mainstream, one could imagine this 10 or 20 years ago, no , they created such a russia, they turned russia to themselves, because russia realized that this is an enemy and this is an existential enemy, as they would say our friend, alexander dugin, is the enemy on whom it depends who will live next , who will exist, us or them, less intelligent people came to power, we will call them non-cons, accordingly they considered that we are strong enough to inflict russia has another direct defeat, we are too strong economically, we are too strong militarily, we have a large agent base, there are many traitors inside respectively moscow, and we will sort it out now, it turned out they were mistaken, they didn’t figure it out, so it seems to me that it was not a foregone conclusion, it’s just that at some point, more aggressive and less intelligent people took over in

the american leadership, they were mistaken, they thought that this pressure on russia would lead to victory, after which the whole world would immediately calm down again under american hegemony for another generation, instead they got an uprising all over the planet, which people all over the earth saw that russia is at war with the west, has not listened to the united states for a year and a half and nothing will happen to it. laure peikrin, chemical weapons of the first world war. russia is once again accused of using chemical weapons. the question is, who applied it where? on the part of the ukrainian armed forces, they were used from the very beginning of the company. who happened to the school in mariupol, which was allegedly flooded, i won’t be surprised if it’s kiev or, when this fake is not rolled out, there will be a next stage, they didn’t paint the walls properly, freedom of speech in the american way, i wanted to show how they really live in russia, but i was detained immediately after returning, anti-fake, premiere, tomorrow on

the first, vanka vstanka syndrome, guy that’s it time is spinning on the bed, this is the right one... oh, and did we have a diagnosis of a nugget, everything , everything, everything, everything, now i’m an ordinary, obedient nurse, ask the nurse, from monday, on the first, there’s a big game on the air, russian people's council, now, as you probably know, in the united states in in europe, there are more and more speeches, more and more articles, where they say that the ukrainian so-called counter-offensive

has failed, that the hopes for a ukrainian victory turned out to be ephemeral, which is necessary. new realities influence ukraine so that it agrees to enter into direct negotiations with russia, but at the same time, they explain what these agreements would look like, from the point of view of people who call themselves supporters of a pragmatic approach, they say that firstly, russia is possible agree, may disagree start this kind of negotiations, but you still need to make an offer, because if russia does not accept it, then it will be possible to prove to the whole world that this russia is unyielding and unreasonable, and then they say that regardless of whether there is a truce or no

truce , ukraine will continue to be armed, stuffed with weapons, which i... if there is no truce, then ukraine still needs to give up the offensive, because ukraine cannot do it, but the united states, europe, will supply ukraine with long-range weapons, which will allow going on a costly offensive to strike far inside russian territory, but if russia agrees, so much the better. will most likely be used, but for now, let’s not formally accept ukraine into nato, but sign

an agreement with it that will provide for immediate action in the event of anyone’s offensive actions against ukraine. the fourth article of the nato charter, which differs very little from the famous fifth article, only the fifth article stipulates that nato will respond militarily, and the fourth article provides for consultations on what to do, given that the fifth article does not say what it will do, in the event of offensive actions against a nato member, maybe they will shoot in the air, then in general the fourth and fifth articles, they are essentially different, they are not very differ from each other, in addition, they propose to accept this stump, which will be ukraine , if a truce is reached taking into account... the state of martial law on earth, then accept this ukraine into the european union in this trimmed form, and provide ukraine with everything

appropriate economic opportunities and all appropriate assistance. now, if such a plan were proposed to you, how would you react to it? well, first of all, i wouldn't be afraid of the nato threat because... this is of course a paper tiger, absolutely , nato has never fought with anyone, i mean an equal enemy, nato is an organization for the purchase of expensive american weapons, at the expense of the budgets of european countries with the corresponding corruption schemes of all participants. nato has nothing but this in its history. did, the bombing of yugoslavia, which could not respond to her in any way, of course, cannot be included , or libya, of course, cannot be included here in the list of successful military campaigns of the north atlantic. nato never fought with a truly equal force in the warsaw pact, and moreover, nato’s plans were to immediately retreat to lisbon and start a guerrilla war,

they didn’t even dream of fighting the warsaw pact, so i wouldn’t be afraid of nato at all, we are fighting right now war with nato, and with the best army, which there could be them, this is an army of the same men, brave, unyielding, enduring hardships, as the soldiers of the armed forces of ukraine are today , sitting on the other side of the front from us, they don’t have such other soldiers, neither the poles nor the french will be close to that living creatures, so we are already at war with the strongest army, which they could oppose to us with their most modern weapons, which they have not yet supplied, long-range missiles, well, we also did not fire at the cities of europe in response, it’s true, so i wouldn't make any threats at all grazed, they are no longer there, we are already at war with them, what... is not called nato does not matter, the second thing is that any negotiations that we will now begin to conduct with them from a situation where we have just,

accordingly we have dawned military successes at the front, but this is madness, we must, of course, achieve completely different victories , the front line must pass in a completely different place, in order for us to start talking, firstly about capitulation with ukraine, secondly, to conduct these negotiations, behind the scenes with the west, in which we will discuss world order. why are these negotiations still needed? we won’t end this war without them, because we understand perfectly well that ukraine won’t fight for even two months without western help, and even if america, for example, doesn’t happen, it won’t give any more consensus between republicans and democrats , but they don’t care, there is still europe, which can be obliged to continue maintaining this ukrainian army. therefore, you will still have to negotiate with europe and america. and here there is a nuance: