plus 15 ° according to preliminary forecasts , the holiday weekend for all christians will be warm during the day, the air will warm up to 14 °, only in some places across the country there will be short-term rains. at night also plus more information at my colleagues at 15:00. i say goodbye to you on this. all the best. the most current event from the world of sports, the dynamos continue to fight for play-in success, which yes, on the right to compete for the playoffs in the kharlamov cup, hard training and an interesting meeting. perfect shooting, it turns out when you don’t think about anything, when you still can about five years ago i was running around thinking why do i need all this every time it was hard and you try to show yourself more work work, and it seems to me that this is only for the benefit of victory and defeat. everything is stubborn.

everyone works very hard in their clubs. i think that we are definitely not getting worse, but there was such a slight excitement, because yes, as they say, we didn’t play together for a long time, watch sports projects on the belarus 24 tv channel . nikolai evgenievich good evening, we will start with the main first-hand answers, we are sure we will hear on friday for a message. well, after all , the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in our country

makes belarus a nuclear power automatically. definitely not, we are not becoming a nuclear power in order to understand the essence of the issue. you just need to look at what a nuclear power is, in accordance with today's international documents , a nuclear power is recognized on the condition that it develops nuclear weapons, if it produces them, if it still tests them. these are the three components that make a country a nuclear power. of these components does not apply to the republic of belarus when nuclear weapons or tactical nuclear weapons are deployed on its territory well, but i still remember how the last poplars were taken away from belarus yes, for free, as a gesture of goodwill of a country that wants to exist peacefully to its neighbors. we have always emphasized this and have never threatened anyone.

here, help me remember what i promised. the west is grateful to us for the fact that we did this and that the military-political plan has changed globally over this period. well, in this case, you need to go deep from history, probably, after all story. she shows all the nuances and recalls the budapest, in my opinion, imrandum of 1994. it was and a whole generation has already grown up, which, probably, has not even heard of it. in my opinion. in any case , the budapest memorandum. this is a document that many people want to forget today, it is small there, god forbid, if my memory serves me right, only six points. uh-huh and it is made in three languages, of which belarusian english russian from russian belarusian and

english is fine and that's just 6 points, what was in these six points, so the first point is a declarative country. the signatories, and these are the united states , great britain and russia, guarantee the republic of belarus respect for its territorial integrity, independence and constitutional order. the second point was a long time ago, but if i'm not mistaken, it sounded something like this. the signatory countries guarantee that no military means will be used against our country, the republic of belarus, to solve any problems . in addition, there was one more point. so i always emphasized it when i had to this subject to speak will not be used

by their military means to solve our problem. that is , these are tanks and aircraft produced by these states. and the third point is generally an amazing thing, because it has been crossed out for a very long time and, probably, those people who want to hear us simply and simply. they will say this was not, he sounded as follows : strange signatories will refrain from using it. economic pressure on the state in order to achieve any preferences that is, they speak russian those who were not born before 94 year and did not read. this document today will say this was not the other three paragraphs. they are very simple. they say that the un mechanisms will be activated , provided that nuclear weapons are used against our country and the extreme point is strange

, they will be consulted if the previous point is violated, one of the points was studied or the fifth or sixth. this means that nuclear weapons will not be used against any country that has signed this memorandum. just a miracle. magnificent, they said the wording of the sanction against belarus were introduced after 3 years. after signing this memorandum. he is in the ninety-seventh year. so their memory was so short, but saying that they and plus moment. i really like the un reference on what tools it will use. you and i have seen this now, when the issue of investigating the terrorist attack on nord stream was raised. yes, how did the security council react as an organization that, unfortunately, well, let's just say a spade a spade covers terrorist actions in international scale. and i said something wrong, i remembered the story. and

now i propose to see what has changed from that moment to today, even point by point. let's start from the very bottom. as you said , uh-huh, the united nations organization is used to the extent that the mechanisms of the united nations organization are used in the interests of the republic of belarus in any way. on almost all platforms, we are almost a pariah country for those who guaranteed for those who guaranteed us our safety it was they who us artificially they are trying to make a name like that, that is, by doing this they are already violating the agreement here, about which it was discussed. in 1994 and in which in 1996 we all fulfilled our obligations in full. you, as you said, you saw nuclear weapons from your territory. now let's get back a little, with regard to economic sanctions, there is not even any. well, the alternatives have been strangling us with them for

decades, spitting on the signing, yes, that i would like to turn to one more point. there it was said without trying to create themselves or any economic preferences, that is, these countries are our most leading enterprises. all are destroyed , blocked, banned, and in full, as soon as we have growth somewhere in any area, it immediately destroys it. this applies in its entirety. and, probably, the most beautiful and good point is respect for our independence and territorial integrity. that is, we went from the contrary and uvi delhi that everything that was written in this document to date is completely ignored is already being ignored not the first year, but i would say a decade already. that's true, before moving on to the next question, i want to make the last remark. here, negotiate with them. after that , you can move on to the next one. fine. here let's call. and how does tactical nuclear

weapons differ from strategic ones? the question is very deep. well, at least this way, but the lungs on top, so let's make it so easy for the viewers, for the layman, just to make it clear, if, in a general sense, then the next tactical nuclear weapon involves low ranges of destruction, that is, on the area of ​​operational use, so to speak. uh-huh and not big uh, tens of kiloton charges, a kiloton, no more, that is, roughly speaking, for solving local military tasks. here you correctly formulated, probably, local or operational-tactical tasks of the military point of view. what about strategic nuclear weapons? a simple formulation that uses almost all of this, the kind of weapon that can be used by intercontinental means or between

continents russia united states russia australia is a powerful weapon with practically unlimited range, well 10 12.000 km. for the earth. this is enough and plus a power comparable to megatons. the total amount of funds that can be carried by one rocket from 6 to 12 warheads, so to speak , is one at a time, but this, as a rule, is no longer used. allows you to wipe more than one city from the face of the earth. and it’s even strange, that is , theoretically, to warsaw, we can get tactical weapons, but there is an exclusively strategic dubaiden for this, which needs to be addressed somehow.

oksimiron, but the deployment of such weapons is not a threat, but security for belarus imho. in this regard, what does the term threshold country mean and how real is aggression against a country that has nuclear weapons or a threshold country on whose territory nuclear weapons are stored, for example, well, let's try a threshold country the term appeared not so long ago. in general, this is the end of the last century. somewhere, maybe in the eighties. so, when many states tried to, uh, get a nuclear weapons to achieve its development and fulfill these criteria to develop, have the opportunity and maybe even test by and large, the threshold country is any state that has a highly developed industry. e, including nuclear energy and the ability, if

necessary, to create these weapons, that is, it has technological capabilities. this is a threshold country and there are quite a lot of them in today's world. well, you can definitely talk about germany, this is a country that japan thresholded which can definitely be called threshold country. i would call such a country, iran agrees so. she has such opportunities. north korea is already a nuclear country. she needs the south has such opportunities. they also had information at one time, the americans placed it. there are different things on its territory and today there is such information. it is not confirmed, but there are nuclear weapons on the territory of south korea, the united states of the states hmm, so brazil can be such a country, and in europe in europe

well, the frg and, in principle, no one needs it anymore, because five european states today have nuclear weapons deployed, the united states of france and great britain are nuclear powers. spain has the potential to develop nuclear italy has that capability. that is, in principle, yes, for example, in belgium, as such, it may be and there is no need for his appearance. well, clearly, intelligibly. well, look old friend of belarus grandfather barrel yes, he said that nuclear weapons. for us, this is a threat to the security of europe. nuclear weapons in europe are not a threat to belarus, so how would you comment on this? there is such a level of nonsense, you know, in general, barrel is such an interesting character who sometimes says something that he doesn’t understand himself, and

sometimes, on the contrary, broadcast those ideas that there is no need to bring to the public, but they boil inside him, but a particularly beautiful expression about the european garden. well, yes, yes, and the jungle is a great option, which showed its inner essence and, in general, the inner essence of european. well europeans. i have it with him splashed out. he might not want to, yes, well, that's the point. understand correctly what a weapon located on the territory of one state means. this is not a problem, but on the territory of another - this is a problem. well, in terms of logic. this is generally incomprehensible from a point. not politics, well, as politics, maybe i'll understand it, but common sense. there is no. you know

, the most interesting thing is that it fits very well into the general outline, when georgia is forbidden to copy the us law on enogenous. and canada after 3 days she is allowed to copy the law about energies. in this case, it is not democratic, but here there is full compliance with democracy. well, the logic is hard to understand. here, look , what is interesting, the polish minister for eu affairs , he said that even the deployment of a nuclear potential, yes, tactical nuclear weapons in belarus is an escalation, but a reaction. the west should be calm. this is literally his glory . yes, the reaction of the united states turned out to be relatively calm, although many tried to escalate it on this topic, but, it seems to me, it was rather restrained. that's where this unexpectedly healthy meaning oh, at least in these two countries. as for the united states, they are realists, they clearly understand what it is, they know how to read the laws. even those who do not follow, but they clearly understand.

the main thing is that the nuclear weapons that appeared on the territory of belarus in no way change the overall picture in the european one, provided that five states have warehouses, uh, nuclear weapons, the united states has the same, uh, warehouses in the kaliningrad region. yeah, and in terms of the overall situation for the united states, which is over 1.000 km. from this supposed theater of action , they don’t care, and they clearly understand one of the regions of their interests and nothing more , therefore they are not so calm. as for poland, it is a conductor of interests in the united states in europe , and what is broadcast by the united states, they are very good at keeping their nose in the wind, representatives of the polish establishment, and they are ready

to support the entire rena in a timely manner. after all, by and large they are. and, perhaps, we will add to this general. a small piece of the pie poles some of them are not so stupid people. well, you can’t call that the slavs after all. yes, there are healthy people among them . this is the person we are talking about now. he simply looked at the big picture. if next to you in the kaliningrad region there is this ammunition on your northern flank, so to speak, what difference does it make to you if they appear, even in the western, from the point of view of poland, it doesn’t matter where the rocket comes from. if it comes to that, if you've already decided to go in the wake of the politics of the united states, you cannot get out of this wake and there will be 10 charges, there will be 100 charges, and

still you will do what is intended and prescribed for you by your senior comrade. well, it's a pity that barrel is not a pole, not a belarusian, not a russian spaniard, sort of. look at the bison, not by chance one of the symbols, belarus peaceful but powerful beast, which should not be touched. the president spoke and we are touched. we will answer. now it is clear what we will answer. here then for completeness of a picture, generalize. and what will be placed with us in the end and, in principle, perhaps, we can say again literally the countries that possess nuclear weapons, and which have already hosted these nuclear weapons, yes , or have declared such intentions, if we should also talk about them now. well, it was probably the bison who started it correctly. this is actually a peaceful beast, but if he

doesn't stop him in anger, no one hmm history knows when this hmm good beast destroyed on his way. everything that is possible, and now let's move on to this particular component , look, there is a small enough in belarus average european country and what next in europe do we have? let's look at it this way, germany has a corresponding nuclear storage, they have been around since the time of the warsaw pact, well, mostly air bombs, yes, yes, they mostly have air bombs, and they are stored there, they weren’t taken anywhere, they only improve and update a little belong to america yes, that’s all belongs to america italy has the same approach approximately they say that in italy there are still certain maritime components , i will not argue. it's changing all the time, türkiye hmm, there is the same thing, the corresponding belgium

is the netherlands, five states in which the warehouses of nuclear tactical weapons of the united states are located and they did not interfere with anyone. including nato did not remember them for a long time. well , decades of 70 years have long been marked by nato , well, let's say they are not there at 70 years old. well, not so little. these are those who store in europe who else has in europe we already spoke in the uk france is a nuclear power with strategic strategic means, and now let's leave europe a little further canada there is also a warehouse nuclear weapons warehouses the united states question. why are they needed there, if you can go next to the usa on the other side, now we’ll go a little to the other side japan in japan there are stored nuclear munitions usa south

korea it has warehouses, again, not belonging to this state, that is, by and large, almost eight states today, the us warheads are deployed, let's leave this out of the picture and return again to our european one. theater of possible actions god forbid yes, god forbid, of course. what do we have here, from russia, all nuclear weapons are located on the territory of the russian federation, this triad is known, this is the corresponding maritime component, this is the land component. well, and, probably , the aviation component, which we always say is part of the forces related to the sea, component and ground component, apparently, there is a little bit of the aviation component located in the kaliningrad region. this is part of the territory of the russian federation, so

nothing needs to be said here. we are not talking about the fact that the united states have their own huge arsenal, which is located on their territory. these are the states. now, with regard to belarus , the statement is clear, clear, understandable placement. probably all the noise today is from what was not. a clear position of the leadership of our state is indicated. well, i think we will hear it in the next few days and that's it. this is connected precisely with this issue, so that everything is clearly arranged and explained. they publicly say that so far the president has not spoken. he will speak out, but the president has already been talking about this for a year and a half, warning even more than he warned. but i have been working on this issue for the last year and a half very closely in all areas. uh-huh well, i would tell you that in addition to the president, other governing bodies of the republic of belarus dealt with this issue, this is

the security council, because we have adopted a joint, uh, the doctrine of a union state. and there are definite directions. it is our parliament, which also created a legislative framework that allows you to resolve issues of ensuring national security. well. from other departments of defense, of course, joint work. and, probably, a number of others will agree that the president actually made the decision. yes, the father said, the father did. that's when poland announced its wishlist to host nuclear weapons . they declared this publicly , the president said, we must respond to this in a mirror image and we will prepare for this. the deadline is set for july 1. so, anyway, thanks to what this project will be implemented in such a short time? there are two components to talk about here.

first. thank the lord god and history that we have such a leader who keeps his word. and the most important thing is that the potential that belarus had was not squandered. that is, we are economic , let's put it this way, since the times of the soviet union we still have certain opportunities for storing nuclear weapons. there were a lot of such objects in our territory, but we have kept them. we kept this main word, and the second component is the close interaction of our allies and the russian we clearly understand the federation, well, we started right, the dad said, the dad did. agreed on these lines or agreements were reached earlier and the trigger was the actions of the united west of european states and

the events that are taking place in ukraine. well , this is like a trigger. this is true. facts that have been hidden for decades under the heading secret it is only necessary to have a wild imagination to imagine how i went out there , took away children and threw children to shepherd dogs, eyewitness testimony and a miracle, surviving prisoners of concentration camps, we will tell and show dozens of inquisitorial operations there was no water in the concentration camp there was no we took this dirty snow warmed up in our hands and

so we translate the genocide without the right to life , watch on belarus 24 tv channel. at the hay market. we visit belarusian cities to learn more about the cultural origins at the end of the 15th century. there was a large settlement at this place, and ono appeared at the intersection of major trade routes neman and brest vilnius according to legend. first stone, foundation, church. it was founded by the milanese princess and the polish queen known throughout the world for bonosport it happened in 1531 and a little look into the past here is a special energy, but come yes , i recommend it only in the daytime they say at night you can hear chilling blood. groans without attention, let's not

leave the impressive facts of our contribution to the development of the state. she came up with a pattern on the handbrake, which eventually formed the basis. ornament on the flag of belarus city project belarus, watch on our tv channel. well, look, re-experts believe that the west did not foresee such a rapprochement between russia and china once, but against the backdrop of sanctions and threats. well, let's just say stupid about the taiwanese attacks on the voyage of this palace, as she says, although, sour, he always urged not to provoke. this is the rapprochement of the two superpowers. well, the smell. naturally, he did not calculate the possibility of such decisive retaliatory actions on the part of belarus and russia to deploy tactical

nuclear weapons. here in belarus for sure. it wasn't spelled out. how can we say. so the development of events was not thought, in your opinion, what is the loss of this global reality on the part of western politicians, why did they stop listening and hearing even their very smart political scientists, to whom i relate. marat sergeevich, you know, i would not argue so deeply that they were not ready for this issue. i'm almost sure, and there were certain studies of their factories of thought, in which these questions were considered, as an option , i admit, as an option, but here it is the second part of the question is on the main one and it is next. why the west didn't want to see it, but didn't want to. he sees this

because of his arrogance and habit of treating everyone else like a jungle. this is exactly the right word, which for decades, uh, has been cultivated in western politics. they believed in their impunity, they believed in their hmm sublimity or probably, pick up such a word. in its permissiveness i would call it like this and a new iteration of western politicians who have not seen it. e relics the soviet union who have forgotten what is the great patriotic war. they were brought up, disdain for all other states, it was before it was a system. slavery, which was many years ago

, it is at the heart of all this, but these people, forgetting that you can get an answer, as normal people say, decided that everything is permissible for them. and what happened? correct assessments, and i’m almost sure that they were there can’t be such that among the analytical community there is enough, but there is a strong people who look far enough , including jinsuke, what a hater of both russia and belarus and an extremely right person, but he said for many years before that he said that it should not be allowed. uh, let's say the unification of russia and china should be separated , which has been done for many, but here the stakes were raised high and the west was sure that the main component here, it was sure that its sanctions pressure and

the blow to russia could not be sustained. here in my opinion. this is the fundamental error that is, by the twenty -third year russia should have completely stopped in development, as we said, fall apart, as a state, what are you talking about? they tell ma like a mantra that russia should fall apart into components and they broadcast it in all e on the media on all kinds of platforms. this is the mistake that the west made, they could not even imagine that any state could withstand such a powerful blow, and the next step is the reasonable steps of russia , the reasonable steps of belarus, russia, the reasonable steps china who realized that he would be next and, accordingly, the creation of these correct

timely leadership movements. alexander says that lukashenka's trip to china side stump trip to russia is a joint work of russia and belarus, and we are slowly getting out of this tailspin. and what will happen to the west time will show the most interesting thing, what is history? doesn't teach anything. uh, once hitler was absolutely sure that he would ruin the country in the twentieth year, whole lecture courses were passed, which promised that to in the twenty-fifth year, russia will turn into 30 independent states. they really went with these lectures with maps and demonstrated it, but they forgot both the tanks in berlin and the cossacks in paris. yes, i really like it. here is an anecdote. yes, but still an information war. we lost. yes, when two cossacks argue somewhere there in a wagon. well, never evgenievich nato , it’s the same, in the meantime, it’s also not shy

, and it will come like a tank without brakes. let's talk directly about the possible entry of sweden and it is already in finland already, as it were, even a statement has been written, and they create direct threats to the northern borders of the union state. this greatly changes the configuration of forces in the region in the northern region. here is the deployment of nuclear weapons on our territory. in belarus , the balance of power is also changing to a certain extent. well, let's say that. we are voicing not only that we will store nuclear warheads on our territory. well, in our country , iskanders also have a place to be kilometers. yes, and there i really like 500 km. this is what, what the russians say. yes, for some reason, the americans write in separate articles that the range is possibly up to 2,000 km. well, it’s just that it’s not publicly voiced, the rocket is different. yes, and warheads may be other good joint moves. here is belarus, russia, if

you look like this globally, it is more than justified, right? but where is the check here, where is the checkmate, and where is the zuntzwang, if chess rhetoric, in order to predict development options, you need to have the maximum amount of information? i repeatedly. ah, i remember moments like this in my life when hasty forecasts. nothing good was brought about in our situation. well, we started with what, uh, there are two new members of nato yes. but all these years they were considered as potential opponents. well, if not the republic and belarus that the russian federation is definitely my experience of communicating with russian colleagues, it clearly speaks of this they considered. uh , the need to take into account the potential of these states in the face of god forbid, let's say a confrontation in this region. and everything that

these states did. in general, it was support for nato and their aspirations, therefore , to say that this is a new step. this is not a knife, they were ready to use their real potential in their interests. i am far from thinking that our russian colleagues do not take this into account, so it is impossible to talk about it as something new. further the entire infrastructure of these northern european states, it has long been adapted to the interests of the above for the transfer of forces and means for storage to solve problems. well, let's go back to the history of the great patriotic war. how many kilometers did they travel side of russia, and we’ll stop there for now, that’s all, the question is how ready and willing they are to fight. maybe today they have

a certain wariness that their political elites use to frighten russia once again and solve their problems for the people. it doesn't matter how the finns traveled, how they went to st. petersburg for shopping and other issues, so they will continue. if they have such an opportunity, if the border is closed, then another is simple, but these countries are unlikely to want to fight a little suggests that it’s one thing when there are a pistol, but another thing is when you take it out and start demonstrating it in front of your nose, waving it to another. uh, let's say that the opponent had a finnish war in his time. she started strongly in order to push the threat away, even a little further away from the same leningrad, despite, let's say, rather ambiguous results of this finnish winter company, but this task was solved. here i would probably add the following and we have taken into account

the historical lessons. and this step, which has been taken today, including the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons on the territory of the republic of belarus is the real answer to the data. unfriendly steps in relation to the union state, i will say frankly provocative, here it is impossible not to touch on this topic. uh, all the more so with the doctor on the closest supporters of zelensky rahami, yes, who participated in the negotiations initially once peaceful, he said that the mobilization of men was in full force. now it will be accelerated for the acquisition of units that will be deployed on the border with belarus, as a response to the deployment of nuclear weapons. i don’t really see the logic, but in your opinion, to whom these statements are calculated. and what’s real, maybe we can stand behind them, let’s start with the first one for whom these statements are intended for european

partners, and the countries supporting ukraine demonstrate loyalty once again, even more we show that we are ready not only to fight with russia, but almost close all of europe with our own breast. this is the first direction the second direction after all. eh, to pay tribute and i emphasized it again. uh, after all, zelensky and his team are very good pr people. and here there is one more calculation, calculation for their own citizens, who it is also necessary to create an image of the enemy, because no matter how we say it, belarus has never had enemies for ukraine, and i am also a person who spent quite a lot of years in ukraine and is clearly connected with this state, that there are sane people there. and today this escalation is an attempt. show that the country is on fire, the country is

surrounded by enemies. and this idea should be hammered into the head of their own people so that they perceive themselves as patriots of the country. they supposedly have to protect their own family. i think, this is a deep meaning aimed precisely at this, as the second component uh-huh, then there is the next war of mobilization. such a powerful base is brought under it, such a truth. yes, why are you going to fight, because the country is surrounded by belarusian enemies, they will soon attack you. although to be honest, from a military point of view. well, no, really, for these statements among themselves cannot be connected from a military point of view. you know, here's a good team of prs. yes, but this pr of his life is already several hundred thousand ukrainians for a second just so that we would not forget about it, yes, more and more often, however , i get the impression that the western world against the backdrop of the war in ukraine yes, it has already gone rogue here, although

these people show loyalty, but this is not only about the transition to the red lines, which is constantly talked about. well, let's try then with a simulation. and what will happen to this unfortunate country, which has become a hostage. here are these pr people of the ninety-fifth quart. and what is the ending for her? i am very interested in your view of the view of a military man specialist. what final will be successful for russia, what final can be successful or acceptable for the west and what fate awaits? well , let's just say the rest of ukraine, taking into account already 200 billion, debts that must be paid and the ruin of the economy. you see, you have raised such a profound issue that the military component here is both the economy and politics. well, let 's try to answer this question. i would

return to the words of the president of russia, which he said at the beginning of the operation, the purpose of the operation was denocification. remember this phrase. and two militarization of this area, this is the first or given area of ​​the second protection, the third protection of the russians, and the people living in the country, in my opinion, in my opinion. i do not claim to be the truth in the latest stations and do not want to be a person who will quote in this area. russia ukraine will lose the four regions that it has already lost today. she will lose odessa in all likelihood with nikolaev. she will lose these areas. and this would be perfect for her . from the point of completion of this

confrontation. yes, for her. it would be perfect option. in this case, it would have retained its statehood. it would have retained its ethnicity to some extent. and in my opinion. still , sane people should come to power in this country. this is the option that one of the options is possible, the other option is the continuation of the escalation, the development to a higher phase , the destruction of many cities in ukraine , including as an option of all this confrontation to the european territory. maybe, as an option, if you don’t sit down at the negotiating table in time? concerning

for the west, it would be ideal for her to destroy russia, the most important option, so that russia would not be able to fulfill its task and , as a result, the loss would sing a military defeat, and its economy simply could not stand it . this is an ideal option for the west , the minimum option for the west . areas that are left as part of russia as it was? stop fighting . regroup ukraine for the time being according to preliminary agreements and continue the uh conflict over time, but in a different put it ready, yes, feathers hmm, so to speak, after reformatting everything that

is there. as for the money that has been invested here, the west will not demand it for one simple reason, that today it is actually waging a war in ukraine for the redistribution of the world by the hands of ukrainians and its resources, therefore, to believe that it will ever be able to give ukraine away to the improbability of an attempt will be provided that all this territory becomes part of russia or in some other way becomes a separate state, not about the west, then money will try to be other options , they are unlikely to be good, well, given the limitations of our format, the last one is about a philosophical question, traditionally everything we remember, chekhov , if a gun hangs on the wall, then in the third act. it will definitely shoot, well, we will never be belarusians. they emphasized that they never

intended to shoot at anyone. here is the big bang theory - this is not our american cinema. we have our mirny without hiding it. can nuclear weapons? become in belarus rather a peacekeeping gap on a deadly one. we we love breaking patterns. here, let's summarize. but it must be clearly stated. i will probably take this position in our situation. decision taken. with regard to the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons on our territory, it is timely correct and thoughtful, and in my opinion.