donald trump, who, according to the sources of the publication, with any decision of the company, the absence of ex-presidents will remain disqualified. the tweet raised questions from her new user, hungarian prime minister viktor orban. he got himself an account and after the first day on the network he wrote. where is my good friend donald trump, let me remind you, trump's account was frozen on january 8, 2021. 2 days after his supporters came out and protest the rigged elections. an unpleasant surprise was the latvian hospitality for ukrainian refugees, difficulties with paperwork, indifference of officials, problems with the device, all this is detailed. described in tiktok by one of the settlers. he is now on the screen. according to him, it is not easy to find a job in latvia, and if you can still try to get a job in riga, then in other cities it is very difficult to find a job in latvia.

it is not easy to find a job, especially for refugees. if you are in the center of latvia in the city of riga, you can become a courier, a laborer, a loader, or something like that without education. the average salary you will be 800 euros to 1200 for about a month. if you move further from the river , for example, there is only one job. these are sawmills, some small private enterprises for the manufacture of something there. as for salaries. there are many locals in latvia . they even clarified that real salaries differ from the videos mentioned in the comments, the authors managed, adding that these figures are without tax deductions and other payments. how do you say dirty? a refugee himself, he decided to leave, many commentators supported him.

on this i have all the new information at 15:00. good luck to you. the program is authorized to announce that i am the leading nadezhda sad program for those who want to better understand what is happening in the world and understand how these processes, events, people will affect the life of everyone and the life of the country, and the main events of world politics this week. i will tell you right now. north korea for the first time in 5 years made a test launch of a ballistic missile over the territory of japan, a potential carrier of nuclear weapons, flew 5,000 km and fell into the

pacific ocean in response to the united states and south korea carried out test launches of missiles at sea off the coast of china in the elections of vlad in latvia , the party of the country's incumbent prime minister, new unity, won, while parties representing the russian-speaking minority could not overcome the five percent barrier. there is a suspicion that this was a manifestation of the radically anti-russian course of the current government. the economic crisis continues to wear the government in europe, early elections are scheduled in denmark for november 1, as in neighboring sweden, the centre-right coalition has every chance to change at the helm of the social democrats, it was enough for the entrepreneur ilon to address the leadership of ukraine in a series of tweets with a call to strive for an early conclusion of peace and

respect for the right of the inhabitants of donbass and crimea to determine their future, like millions of yesterday's ukrainian fans. they anathematized him. and this despite the fact that the complexes provided to the masks for free, starling provide the ukrainian army with access to the internet and play a huge role in coordinating its actions, the unexpected peacekeeping activity of the billionaire. observers bind with a desire to outshine trump recently, who offered to become an intermediary between kiev and moscow yes, fear of mutually assured destruction turned the cold war period into one of the longest in the history of mankind without big hot wars and many are used to thinking that this will always be this gave rise to the so-called strategic frivolity when, when making key foreign political decisions, the factor of nuclear weapons began to be completely ignored, but this is a mistake and worth it. she

may be too expensive. actually about how we all avoid such a spectacle around the world and how great the risks of such a scenario are, we will talk today in our program and andrei vladimirovich savinykh, chairman of the standing committee on international affairs, house of representatives of the national assembly of belarus, will help me in this good evening good evening and sergey borisovich stankevich political figure candidate of historical sciences. thank you very much for being with us today hello and indeed. i would like to start with a fairly direct and tough question, personally you are afraid of nuclear war. naturally, i am afraid, and moreover, as an expert,

i am sure that a nuclear war is now very likely. and this probability increases over time, well, do not be afraid of a nuclear war. maybe just an irresponsible person, so oh, this prospect can not please anyone, but i argue that the whole talk about nuclear war, this is, in fact, the western information agenda. they are trying to impose this discourse on the whole world, and the possibility of a nuclear war. she, of course, may have risen, but not so much. to blindly follow their narrative. yes, people do not like to talk about big troubles, so as not to be a sticker. the elites, after all, can afford to do this about the worst thing that can and should be said, what to prevent about why the terrible topic of the nuclear apocalypse has returned to the world agenda in our story

, we look together. for the first time since the cold war, the world has again started talking about the threat of nuclear war, because the risks of such a development of events have indeed increased. the bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki by the americans showed the reality and, most importantly, the consequences use of nuclear weapons from the united states as the only country in the world. she used it, created a precedent by this and now actively uses it to intimidate and achieve her goals. the entrance has gone and the nuclear blackmail is not only about the shelling of the zaporozhye nuclear power plant encouraged by the west. what threatens a nuclear catastrophe, but also about the statement of some high-ranking representatives, leading nato state capabilities and the admissibility of using nuclear weapons of mass destruction against russia about the threat nuclear war and said the foreign ministers of belarus vladimir makeinyi

high-level meeting of the general assembly. he is in new unprecedented levels of tension and distrust, entailing increased risks of military confrontation to make nuclear weapons and the threat of their use almost as real as they were 70+ years ago , dialogue should be intensified among countries possessing nuclear weapons in order to commit to the process of nuclear disarmament multilateral and irreversible, but it is unlikely such a scenario will suit the west from the usa america has long made it clear that it is interested in the world only according to its rules and with its orders. and if this requires unleashing a nuclear war, then the end justifies the means. we feel that right now we have the capacity, the effectiveness, to contain and respond to any contingency, and to deliver on what president biden has emphatically stressed today, that we will defend every inch of nato territory as history shows, it is rarely a question of defense.

their territories to take colonization. the indians or the endless wars yugoslavia olivia syria syria afghanistan every time the us has fabricated scandals and conspiracies for political reasons and for their own benefit the states have always used force to intimidate and impose certain thinking on other countries, nothing has changed. and now they just changed their goal, alexander lukashenko noted to her, we know about the systematic deliveries of weapons and military equipment to the united states and other nato countries through the polish airfield technology. about a dozen sometimes more american transport planes arrive there every day. the united states wants to weaken and remove everything from the international arena of russia and its allies to get closer to its main competitor china at the same time to increase the dependence of the european

union on the united states. b linkin washington has already begun to work out preliminary steps in the event that russia might use nuclear weapons. what is this steps? of course, they kept silent, but one point from the nuclear doctrine of the states can put everything in its place. the document says that the united states needs to make sure that potential adversaries are fully aware of the consequences of the first use of nuclear weapons. but there is also an internal reason for the failure of the economic crisis in afghanistan and the unsuccessful middle east tour in this situation. all this made canoes on a weak political figure, not only among the population and the opposition, but also among the allies of the democrats, who are most likely to lose the upcoming congressional elections, so biden decided to

play a new cuban missile crisis, but with the exception that he should emerge victorious from it, this would be a convincing argument for his voters. however, the american government does not take into account one game with fire most often lead to fire with fire most often lead to fire and it is important to note. and that the fear that accompanied the final phase of the cold war disappeared from public space andrey vladimirovich what do you think, is it likely today the exchange of nuclear strikes is on the rise, because sometimes you open the media with apprehension in the morning and are afraid to read something there, because the stakes. now it is so high that you need to be very careful not to let the worst happen. you are asking a very difficult question that is not easy to answer. and on the one hand, i can

say with confidence that this is it. threat the united states of america uses e as a means of psychological pressure, as a serious tool or weapon of mental wars against their opponents in this case, er, the peoples of russia and belarus, and this is the discourse that they throw into this space. after all, it was originally built on the assumption that supposedly someone would use nuclear weapons and the united states would then definitely answer. it's already a construct. this is already a definite turnaround. and this is where you need to look. e truth, the second point, i support the opinion that the most sane part of the american establishment. this is, uh, the army leadership, and they understand very well what

nuclear war means. and who then is on your his team does not understand the look either. i think everyone understands. it's another matter how this argument is used. this argument is also used as a cover for this. this element must also be taken into account. an act was committed, uh, international terrorism destroyed, uh, two or three threads of the nord stream, in fact. nobody doubts that it was in the interests of the united states of america, but the fact itself. uh, this terrorism needs to be covered up, attention must be diverted from it as a result of public attention switches to the threat of nuclear war. yes, just because of the simple discussion of this topic, the likelihood of a nuclear war. rather, the possibility of it

increases, but still i believe that it does not exceed 2-3%. yes thank you. eh, here. i would also like to point out that there is a paradox, and it is that the best way to control the escalation. it doesn't allow it. now you see sergei borisovich as an opportunity for this because, unlike the caribbean crisis, when it was very difficult to build a dialogue, now there are all public methods. yes, provide it, but this is not going opportunities for diplomatic dialogue. just no, unfortunately, not on the line, moscow washington is not on the line. moscow kiev, uh, though fortunately, uh, closed channels of special communication have been preserved, both between political centers and moscow washington and between military departments. e russia and america, these channels work, but they work mainly so that the parties can

warn each other. uh, that's it, that is, there is no dialogue. well, there are no conditions for effective dialogue. that is, where we could not exchange accusations and threats to reach some result of diplomatic nothing. this is not in this connection, uh, the conflict is a military conflict on the territory of ukraine. and now not only, but the territory of ukraine is on the rise. i believe that the likelihood of using tactical nuclear weapons. in this conflict has exceeded 70% and will be above 80% during the coming winter. yes, i would like to add alexei anatolyevich gromyk, director of the institute of europe of the russian academy of sciences, chairman of the association of foreign policy research named after andrey andreevich gromyko alexander hello, i am glad to welcome you. hello, thank you for the invitation, i have repeatedly come across the

opinion that although the threat of the use of nuclear weapons is prohibited by the un charter, a clear articulation by the relevant powers of the conditions and scope of the use of nuclear weapons, on the contrary, can serve the cause of peace, forcing international acts, nevertheless, to be more careful and right through this prism to interpret the recent statements of vladimir putin. firstly, i would say that in there is no such ban on the use of this or that offensive system in international law . there are nuclear doctrines of all countries five countries on the official so-called nuclear club nuclear doctrine publicly or not publicly uh, nine, but countries that

possess today, uh, nuclear systems. and we know that in history, and nuclear weapons were used for military purposes, it was yesterday of the nagasaki family in august of the forty- fifth year. since then, there is no official nuclear club in the doctrines it is not written anywhere that uh is a strategic nuclear weapon, but is aimed at winning uh in a conflict, uh, everywhere the philosophy of this hmm means. the e of the military is to keep the enemy from attacking e, his side. we should not forget that in the arsenal of many e-e countries, russia is

no exception here. uh, there are a large number of tactical nuclear weapons. and here it must be said that today the situation is in some ways directly opposite to what existed during the years of the cold war, yes, on a confidential basis, the advantages of the soviet union in europe were on the dates, but now we have the opposite picture. when in conventional weapons nato in europe has a multiple superiority over the conventional armed forces of our country, and it is not by chance that the largest and largest tactical nuclear weapons arsenal of the

nine countries is located in the folds in the central storage in russia, and in this regard, of course, on our map yes and alexey anatolyevich, here we would like to demonstrate with our viewers, so that they understood the scale of the disposition of forces, the number of nuclear weapons in countries, and, in fact , how many and where, it will be possible to deploy in states that border on one or another enemy state, and the situation that will be for us will depend. to ensure peace or war, sergei borisovich how can you characterize the current situation that is developing, colleague alexei gromyko correctly pointed out the difference, firstly, in conventional weapons, nato's multiple superiority over in conventional weapons and armed forces over e russia in europe and besides, there is also the difference between strategic nuclear weapons

and tactical nuclear weapons, of course. now we can talk about the use of tactical nuclear weapons. i would even single out another such subspecies of a weapon on the battlefield. such field nuclear weapons, that is, these are, uh, mines and artillery shells. in nuclear version, they fly up to 50 km. the distance is applied directly on the front line or in the middle rear of this kind, huh? funds have been accumulated since soviet times. uh, firing their delivery is e howitzers and e, large-caliber mortars underwent serious modernization in russia from the seventeenth to the twentieth year after at the training grounds. they have been tested multiple times enough. successfully, however, nuclear charges were not used. and this argument can become the last, decisive argument

if, in the course of an ordinary military conflict , a threat really emerges, such a serious defeat that will threaten the existence of the state or other vital interest, and i assume. this is not my recommendation. this is not my desire. i at all a pacifist by nature, but i predict that it can come to such arguments as tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield, and if we turn to the topic of signals, the resumption of nuclear tests, andrey vladimirovich, can be perceived, but i must comment on this statement by sergei borisovich because you are not a pacifist you are a loser. i completely rule out the possibility of russia using tactical nuclear weapons. it is not possible where, relatively speaking, russia will use such a tactical grain of weapons, in

fact, on its territory and on people, which the president of russia called the fraternal people. this is a typical american substitution. here is an american propaganda argument that unfortunately is being replicated by certain circles in russia, i can say with confidence that russia is never the first to use nuclear weapons to gain tactical superiority. on the battlefield. i am well aware that russia is confronted with the potential of nato and that in ukraine the main conflict is carried out with the support of e nato states and they share and intelligence information and supply weapons, however. even nato is trying not to escalate this conflict, because they are well aware that this is a road to

nowhere . if there is a threat, there will be a threat. eh, so let me remind you what e said, the actual president of the russian federation he said that russia will protect e not only the state of its existence, but also its territory by all and available military means. this is an obvious formula that includes nuclear weapons, and uh territory. russia has grown in recent days and hostilities are taking place in this newly annexed territory. that is, it is not just a threat to this territory. these are already military actions and an attempt to return these territories by force from those that have gone from ukraine to russia, which is not a direct reason that corresponds to the president's statement. and he didn’t say at all that russia was going to swing. e with this, but with weapons for every reason and in

any case, eh, but once again i want to say e without this argument. uh, you can get involved in a conflict of attrition, uh, which in the end will really threaten the existence of the russian state and its integrity. what do you think about the resumption of nuclear testing? it can be taken as a signal whether this demonstrates the determination of any state, because this is also on the agenda. there were enough conversations. yes, i predict that russia is most likely to withdraw from the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty of 1996 , and that tests will be resumed nuclear weapons at the northern test sites. uh , tactical nuclear weapons, because they haven't exploded yet, and, uh, there will be a desire to see how they work. here. eh, this step is already a step of fairly close time from my point

of view. how true. in your opinion, what the current generation of western leaders has lost is that sobering fear that we talked about at the beginning of the program and allows itself strategic frivolity, which at some points even borders on recklessness, we must not forget that the west is primarily a two-loop control system. the outer loop is the government of the presidents who, uh, don't really make life-changing decisions, they carry out the agenda that is brought to them. uh, well, let's say corporate-financial elites, which are the main center of government in these countries. so here's the problem, the biggest problem is that we are now, uh, or coming close to a phase crisis, when the entire global economy, uh, is facing, uh, a very serious stage.

transformations. and alexey anatolyevich i would like you to comment on part of the discussion that you witnessed and answer the question. uh, regarding the fact that during the cold war it was the leaders of european countries who were the first potential victims of a possible clash. they, in turn, play the role of a damper, which, in fact, softened the confrontation between moscow and washington, why don't we see it on the contrary now? we are one of the european leaders who could take on this good cause and vice versa, europeans often act as the main hawks who are ready to aggravate these relations to the utmost. today in europe the situation is very ambiguous, because on the one hand. and as we remember, during trump, the states

withdrew from the treaty banning medium -range and shorter-range missiles in europe and e, tested such e, missiles and them, in principle, now nothing e does not prevent the prospect of two or three years from deploying such missiles in europe and in europe has a number of countries. and for example, poland, which i do not exclude, would not just be against it, but would be different if on their territories such missiles, e appeared. so it seems to me that today it is necessary not to rely on some kind of damper factor in europe, but only in moscow and washington to take steps to ensure that not directly with each other through a closed channel, but through a channel, but to do so that this nuclear genie has by no means escaped from the bottle. uh, because, in general

, it is clear to everyone a to serious specialists, to serious military and politicians, that today there is no mechanism, and which could would e guaranteed e limit the use of weapons of mass destruction, determined by the theater of war to act. and, by the way, about the lessons of history it is interesting that during the caribbean crisis of 1962, it was the revolutionary leaders of cuba who spoke from the most irreconcilable positions and pushed moscow to escalate about the moment when the world was closest to a nuclear catastrophe. our history story. the world was already close to nuclear war during the caribbean crisis in 1962, it was at this time that relations between the ussr and the usa escalated to the limit. began the socialist revolution in cuba led by fidel. castro then

relations between havana and washington escalated due to the nationalization of american enterprises by the cubans. at the same time, in parallel , the country began to establish relations with the ussr, therefore cuba became the next state where moscow deployed its missiles. government set up a naval blockade, which according to international law is considered an act of war, the situation was heated to the limit in order to avoid disaster. khrushchev wrote a letter to kennedy. he offered to dismantle the missiles with a guarantee. regime security in cuba however, the truce did not happen the next day an american reconnaissance aircraft was shot down over cuba. on the same day, a soviet submarine collided with the us navy. then on the night of october 27-28, 1962. kennedy and

the us attorney general met as if ussr anatoly dobrynin and then sent a message to the kremlin. he gave guarantees not to attack cuba and promised to lift the naval blockade on the condition that the ussr withdraw its ballistic missiles sparingly. as a result, both parties we managed to find a compromise. experts note the merit of andrei gromyko in this at that time he was the minister of foreign affairs of the ussr diplomat. i found a worthy way out of the situation at a time when the world literally hung in the balance. his manner, communication and ability to achieve assigned tasks received world fame after the caribbean crisis between moscow and washington began. yes, the ranks of opponents of the war began to grow rapidly in the world, after which a number of international laws were adopted to limit the use and storage of nuclear weapons , and international politics became more careful not to provoke

another similar incident in the future. however, today the world is experiencing another period of confrontation . soviet missiles that were deployed in cuba and their range situation in 2022 a completely different caribbean crisis arose solely due to the deployment of a medium range in turkey and, in fact, the creation of a strategic threat to the soviet union if this step were not taken. you didn't happen you hosting in cuba no one wants. and you know to be in my place. now no one wants to understand the concern of the russian federation; everyone forgot about it; we must take into account equally the interests of all states and respect the principle that underlies e. security policy and belarus russia

literally ever since the cuban missile crisis, namely , that one cannot ensure one's own security at the expense of the security of others. but tell me very indicatively, that now russia's main ally in europe is belarus, and here it is consistently in favor of détente. actually, what we will not say, but about the period when the cuban leaders, on the contrary, urged on. yes, here are some such decisive actions and peace negotiations, which the president of the republic of belarus is talking about and, a-a, she was the first to provide them with platform. how do you see the role of official minsk in the current conditions, because everyone understands that the role of officially minsk i first of all see as an ally of russia why because this is a serious confrontation and either we will all enter into a rational dialogue together

that will allow us to make a mutually acceptable decision, or we all together, including the united states of america, will find ourselves in a very difficult situation. i naturally have the hope that we will find a constructive solution, since it was e in the period caribbean crisis, but without a doubt. it should be on mutually acceptable principles to study, taking into account the interest of all participants. listen, it's very important that everyone refers to the cuban missile crisis as a positive example. what was the cuban missile model ? yes, to the soviet union one morning i woke up in turkey and saw missiles aimed at moscow 10 minutes to fly to moscow and against missile defense. no, what was done? the soviet union, he creates a response. the threat of placing a missile in cuba, that is, is coming to escalate. you consider that de

-escalation has been clogged, that is, you have achieved the removal of the threat. uh, that moment is a model. this is a model and a precedent, and a positive precedent at that. as my colleague says, when you go for an escalation, you raise the stakes, you create a retaliatory threat and, thanks to this, you come to a compromise. i do not rule out that such a model may arise in the current military-political conflict. here let 's literally turnip here. i think that is just the solution to these problems. that's how you say yes escalation, or rather escalation situation. it is just not connected with the use of e-nuclear weapons for russia, it is primarily connected with mobilization, and not with mobilization into the army, but with the stabilization of the economy. with the development of the military-industrial complex and, to a large extent, it is connected with the nationalization of the elites who govern the russian federation, and this, in my

opinion, if this set of measures is carried out , this will become the solution that will allow not only not to lose. well, relatively speaking, stand your ground how many years is your competing plan calculated? if you are contacting i, as a citizen of the union state of russia and belarus, i think that , unfortunately, we in the union state will have to resolve these issues very quickly, no more than a year, a maximum of two, and i can assure you that such a thing as mobilization in the republic belarus implemented already under mobilization. i understand the ability of the state bodies of the republic of belarus of law enforcement agencies to ensure unconditional protection of their own territory by inflicting any enemy who

encroaches on our land on our world irreparable damage. well, then we will prove once again that both russians and belarusians. they take a long time, but they go fast. let's go, yes, colleagues, indeed, there is a lot of speculation in the western press about what real actions moscow can take, and moreover, to reassure the public, all the scenarios discussed concern exclusively the territory of ukraine . although in their statements, representatives of the russian leadership. nowhere was it said that their warning concerned exclusively low-yield tactical nuclear weapons or directly on the front line. but before we discuss other scenarios. please display excerpts from the nuclear doctrine of the russian federation on the principles of its application. four conditions for the use of nuclear weapons by russia, the first, if there is reliable

information about the launch of ballistic missiles attacking the territories of russia or its allies. the second, if nuclear weapons and other types of weapons of mass destruction were used on the territory of russia or its allies, the third, in the event of an enemy impact on critical state or military facilities russia's disabling of which will lead to the disruption of the response of nuclear forces and the fourth in aggression against russia with the use of conventional weapons, when the very existence of the state is threatened. and that's why it's always here if yes, here the western press says that russia is determined to have a nuclear war. or , for example, how to use it? yes, but nuclear weapons are always meant taking into account the current international situation. its application on the territory of ukraine why are we talking exclusively about this, if

the range of missiles is completely different; this may not affect ukraine, but other participants in the conflict that support ukraine. really. i agree that it is not necessary to reduce. uh, the hypothetical possibilities of using nuclear systems on the territory of ukraine and experts are just talking about what is hypothetical. uh, scenarios are first and foremost. uh, the use of such systems is not in ukraine , but if this conflict develops into a military clash into a direct military clash between, uh, russia and countries on nato members and then, uh, one side or another can blame such uh systems, not not on

the territory of uh ukraine, but practically anywhere in the world, depending on which scenario is involved. i would also like to say that russia has been in the west for many years. uh, they are often accused of allegedly adhering to the doctrine of escalation for the sake of d escalation, that is, russia is ready to increase the stakes, including the use of e nuclear e systems in order to put pressure on the enemy and force him to do it there step back and defuse this or that situation, but it seems to me that the niubin crisis, not what is happening now, does not indicate that russia, in its strategic thinking there, has this idea of ​​escalation, for the sake of escalation. let me remind you that in

the 1962 e, it was not the soviet side that escalated the situation in europe, this step was taken not by russia but by the united states, what the soviet union planned to do here in cuba is to equalize these nuclear, and the potentials of their threat and reminded of what really nuclear uh, weapons after 1945 doctrinal in terms of uh, everywhere uh, it was supposed only as a deterrent system , this deterrent. this is the threat of a nuclear retaliation. uh, the strike is supposed to be a credibility threat, and so we're seeing one side and the other send signals that they're serious? refers to the possibility of using doomsday weapons, but

every time everyone emphasizes that this will be done only if the fundamental interests and issues of life and death for this or that country are raised uh edge. i want you to sum up today's, and the emotional one is even difficult in some ways. here the discussion is complicated. consent, but i want to once again alexei anatolyevich let me down well. uh, by and large, the result emphasized one very interesting thing, that in general a conflict between the united states and russia as the two main nuclear powers is still quite unlikely, on the other hand. we see a huge amount of talk about the use of nuclear weapons, including more tactical ones. in very often, instead of arguments, we use the assumption most likely to be expected, and so on.

this is a very, very dangerous path. thanks andrey sergeevich, please, the final word is that it was impossible. last year. unfortunately, what seems impossible this year has become possible this year. unfortunately it may become possible next year, because therefore the responsible analyst and expert is obliged. e, looking at the current situation , extend the line from the past through the present to the future and draw conclusions not according to the principle. e hmm to calm down everyone in everything and say that everything will be fine. this is a classic principle. yes, u speeches by such public u active politicians. but still, to warn about real risks and threats, but not to disorganize and intimidate anyone, but exactly the opposite, to organize and prevent these threats, which we clearly

understand. thank you very much to all the participants of today's program. that was incredible. interesting and something to think about about to finish i would like to quote from one very strong and worthy to be reviewed now a film about konstantin lapushan letter of a dead person. it's time to finally admit that the whole history of mankind is a history of protracted suicide. living matter, which cosmic chance endowed with the ability to think and which did not know what to do with this random fatal ability, period and did not find a better use for it, as the creation of the most effective methods of total suicide. sas is authorized to declare. threats of full-scale nuclear war between the great powers no, not yet. guys whose

erudition would be the envy of any adult we read in a textbook that the greeks called barbarians those who spoke a different language, people are surprised, she is very well-read and prefers reading to physical education. lermontov said that he scored a charge. i thought hard in the cannon i’ll treat a friend, it seems to be so. well, i thought so, i'll treat you. i am such a perky friend, uncle was, apparently. and they are not afraid of not knowing something. after all, it's not at all embarrassing to tell us about it, and also excluded e dense, since i don't remember who it is to shave, too, can be excluded.

everything is fine with the teeth. she who such a tutor teacher? thank you, watch on belarus 24 tv channel. we will spend one day with incredible people. i like to watch when the harvester goes into the field, grinds the bunker and pours it out into the car, you will see somewhere it will be interesting in 3 years. maybe a duck with ducklings comes to the city center and this is unexpected. let's get to know them with their hobbies and favorite work. we don’t have a problem, let’s say it works around the clock i take care of him every day in