no one really wanted, except our country with all due respect. and in general, for the chancellor in germany, it's not up to them to decide. uh, the issues and prospects for the development of this ukrainian conflict, the ukrainian conflict, as well as the so-called external ukrainian president, uh, well, just like the previous poroshenko, this force is controlled by completely different forces. well, let's say they are not forces connected from the european union with germany there with france with other guarantors of low agreements for more than two years, belarus provided a platform for the contact group in ukraine, what we received in return for criticism , they say, minsk ignores human rights, but minsk did not snap back and was always open this year. we had a large-scale osce parliamentary assembly. the assembly then gathered 700 out of five representatives. semester for 4 days of work was developed and

adopted the minsk declaration. it included the resolution of political issues , economic interaction at the panel discussion, the president of belarus then said that democracy in belarus is no less than in europe, you just need to talk again and again listened, however reason. no, no, yes tried to find a way. here is what the then osce secretary general thomas grminger said: belarus plays an extremely important role in several aspects of the security sphere at once. of course. the well-known trilateral contact group. this is a real platform for dialogue on the minsk agreements. and even more, belarus has traditionally been and remains the so-called bridgebuilder. it helps build bridges of trust and understanding. this role is very important. since the split between east and west. unfortunately it's getting deeper. this is a fundamental problem, and belarus comes up with initiatives so that the parties come to an agreement in order to overcome challenges.

on general terms, reason was not enough for a long time, if you remember 2020 and everything that follows from western lies, by the way, it was at the osce assembly in minsk that alexander lukashenko announced the need to organize a helsinki-2 new global dialogue on security issues, they are faithful to the initiatives of president lukashenko certainly extremely timely, because eastern europe peace is needed and it is necessary one way or another to come to some kind of decisions on ukrainian soil and russian soil. now an armed conflict is already taking place. and the sooner it happens, the better it will be for everyone, because it is provided, like the sun, president lukashenko, a large number of people are dying. ah. and a lot of people become disabled, get injured, and so on , the civilian population suffers, and in general, this is a big misfortune after 2 years in 2019 , the president will once again confirm at the minsk dialogue. the world is not getting better, the degree is growing,

mistrust to confrontation struggle for resources humanity by leaps and bounds, moving to the line beyond which the abyss is always better than arguing. minsk also actively promoted the idea of ​​integration of integration, that is, dialogue and cooperation between the eu and the eaeu, despite different views and approaches to politics, despite some contradictions between the blocs. we need to work together differently simply. no need in the prospect of such cooperation could become a common economic space from finally made us sober nobody needs peace and stability in the region. we let's talk to us funding, extremists. and militants, support, fugitives and pseudo-politicians to a heap, and also a sanctions strike , moreover, over the past few years

, drones from ukraine have been constantly violating our border belarus is concentrated several divisions of nato only 36.000 american soldiers. it's not about the world. looks like the president of poland andrzej dudas in 2018 publicly asks washington to host nuclear weapons. and when minsk is going to do the same, i emphasize the cries and hysterics about the escalation of justice for the sake of deterrence and defense , and the possible deployment of nuclear weapons in belarus. indeed, lukashenka has been saying for almost a year and a half even before the war in november, 2021, he said that this could be the answer to the deployment of american nuclear weapons. in poland, they actively accused our country, they say they sent troops to ukraine, but the only one we sent outside of belarus was the peacekeepers in kazakhstan in january 22 of the action. including our guys helped stop the armed uprising in almaty and prevent a bloody civil war, that

is, he demonstrated it with the dkb. why does the belarusians exist to maintain peace, but never in their history have they attacked anyone, have they been a source of threat. we have no territorial claims to anyone, and this is spelled out in the constitution we are peaceful people has repeatedly sounded from the lips of lukashenka in various formats belarus has often and loudly called for good neighborliness and equal dialogue to build confidence and localize regional conflicts in response to lies and the imposition of their views. even it seems to have lost the status of an impartial platform, the current situation in the modern global context shows that many un members are demonstrating not only a lack of cooperation, they will call into question the principles of equality and, in general, the fairness of the whole process, a complete lie, disregard for the opinions of other members, fanatical imposing their views. some countries,

contrary to the opinion of others, have arrogated to themselves the right to evaluate condemn, imposing their own rules of behavior. the west is really paradoxical and has not been covered for a long time. at least the mantle of diplomacy, just creation and respectful dialogue in the garden of eden have long been forgotten, it seems that the sanctions will not remember the harsh pressure of closing the borders, the ban on flights. athletes and other restriction injections are now in vogue such methods. if we talk about pressure on belarus , then here, as i see it in my head. firstly, this is a continuation of the everyday old vector of attempting to organize a coup d'état, and on the other hand, this is revenge for let's say so closely and the interaction of belarus and russia in various economic areas, and industry. there's trade in agriculture and so on. if you look at it not even closely, but for starters, a little more attentively for a person in politics, the next one will not become very special. it is clear that the west is rocking the planet, ignoring the security system, tearing and depreciating

important international agreements carelessly shaking the already fragile system of checks and balances, which was so difficult to create after the collapse of the union, and that's all. this is against the background of the intention to escalate the military-political situation in our region militarization of lithuania does not stop. one can see constant provocations in the statements, decisions and actions of the official authorities. not to mention the pumping of weapons, blazing ukraine and it turns out that the world is really for the west. like a disaster. this means that countries will be able to develop calmly and without bondage. that means your greedy dream ambitions dominate the planet. i'll have to hawk to put it somewhere in a drawer. this means that billions of greenbacks have been wasted, but inciting hatred and undermining unwanted regimes. we live no worse than others, especially with cedi, but no. it doesn't need what

part, what we don't like, we know today. but it was a very important moment in our history, and thank god that it was and thank god that he ended it, and after that i constantly draw your attention not to relax. do not relax, repeat it all. is that all i was heard, to be honest, not all, but i have to. and most importantly, then in the twentieth we are on the tooth. what is called tried their democracy and human rights? we have learned from our bitter experience to live in peace to us, unfortunately, a big geopolitics thing, changeable conventions of the norms of decency are quickly forgotten. it would turn out that the general rule and morality yes work for some, but for others it becomes completely unimportant in the twenty- first century. it is not enough just to want and be a peaceful country, restless predatory time, where

it is more difficult to keep your world in every sense of this super-important word, happily.

the information struggle and the clash of ideology on journalists is a huge layer of responsibility; they fix the reality of a new format of international relations, where every step has diplomatic significance; these exits should make us not weaker, but stronger. everyone should know this so that people of different points of view can hear each other's natural resources. there's something else enrichment of some units. yes, and what , simply put, you did for the motherland as you you develop your native country club editor, watch on belarus 24 tv channel

. good evening. hello firsthand. we will surely hear on friday belarus as 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. here are the three components which make the country a nuclear power is not alone. of these components, it does not apply to the republic of belarus when nuclear weapons or tactical nuclear weapons are deployed on its territory, but i still remember how the last poplars were taken away from belarus yes, for free, as a gesture of goodwill of the country that

neighbors want to exist peacefully. we have always emphasized this and have never threatened anyone. here, help me remember what the west promised to thank for the fact that we did it and that the global military-political plan has changed over this period. well in this case, you need to go deep into history, probably, after all, history. she shows all the nuances and recalls the budapest , in my opinion, memorandum 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 is the kind of document that many want to forget today, it is small there, god forbid, if my memory serves me right, only six points. uh-huh and it's made in three languages, of which belarusian english russian

belarusian is fine and that's just six points, what was in these six points, then the first point is a declarative strange signatories, and it is the united states, great britain and russia that guarantee the republic of belarus the second point. it 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, and in addition, there was one more point. so i always emphasized it, when i had to talk about this topic, i won’t to use their military means to

solve our problem. that is, these are tanks , aircraft, produced by these states , those people who want to hear us will simply say this was not, it sounded like this: strange signatories will refrain from using it. economic economic pressure is precisely on the state to achieve any preferences that is , they speak russian those who were not born before 94 and have not read it. this document today will say this was not the other three paragraphs. they are very simple. they talk about what un mechanisms will be activated, provided. if it will be against our country. ue used nuclear weapons and the extreme clause strange will be consulted in the event that e is violated the previous paragraph by one of the train countries that signed this

memorandum. just a wonderful miracle. they said the wording of the sanctions against belarus was first introduced after 3 years. after the signing of this memorandum in the ninety- seventh year, because their memory was so short, but saying that they and plus moment. i really like the link to the un on what tools he will use. you and i have seen this now, when the issue of the investigation of the terrorist attack in the north was raised , they call things their own. covers terrorist acts on an 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. we

on almost all platforms we are almost a country, an outcast for those who guaranteed for those who guaranteed us our security it is they who artificially try to make us exactly like that, that is, by doing this they violate the agreement that was discussed in 1994 them, in which in 1996 we will turn around in full, with regard to economic sanctions. uh-huh there 's not even any. well, the alternatives have been strangling us with them for decades, spitting on the fact that i would like to turn to one more paragraph. it was said there, not trying to create for 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. well, and, probably, the most beautiful and

good point is respect for our independence and territorial integrity. that is, we went from the opposite and saw that everything that was written in this document today is completely ignored has been ignored for over a year now. and i would say for a decade. you know, it's true, before moving on to the next question , i would like to make one last remark. here, negotiate with them. after that, you can move on to the next well. here let's call. about something tactical nuclear weapons are different 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, in the general sense, 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 caressing. so you correctly formulated, probably, local or operational-tactical tasks with regard to strategic nuclear weapons? a simple formulation that uses almost all of this, that 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 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.

it allows you to wipe more than one city from the face of the earth, and even a country, that is, theoretically up to warsaw, we can get tactical weapons, and there are exclusively strategic weapons for this, which must be addressed somehow. oksimiron, but the deployment of such weapons is not a threat, but security for belarus imho here 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 in whose territory nuclear weapons are stored, for example, ok let's try threshold country appeared not so long ago the term. in general, this is the end of the last century. somewhere, maybe in the eighties. so, when many states tried to, uh, get nuclear

weapons, achieve their development and fulfill these criteria, develop, have the ability and maybe even test on by and large, a 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, one can definitely talk about germany, this is a country that is on the threshold of japan, which can be unambiguously called a threshold country. i would name such a country. iran agrees. she has such opportunities. well north korea is already nuclear country south has such

capabilities. 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 on the territory of south korea there are nuclear weapons and charges of the united states. hmm, therefore, brazil can be such a country, and in europe, in europe, but the frg was denied . and, in principle, no one needs it anymore, because five states have european countries today have nuclear power facilities deployed, the united states of france and great britain are nuclear powers. spain has the potential to develop a nuclear so further 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 yes, he said

that nuclear weapons. for us it is a threat to the security of europe but nuclear weapons in europe are not a threat to belarus, how would you comment on this? there is such a level of nonsense , you know, in general, barrel is so interesting a character who sometimes speaks about what he himself does not understand, 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 spilled it on me. he might not want to hold back. yes, that's exactly what makes sense. here

, understand correctly what the weapon located on territory of one state. 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 enogenes. and canada after 3 days she is allowed to copy the laws of agents. in this case, it is not democratic, but here there is full compliance with democracy. well, the logic is hard to understand. here, look interestingly, the polish minister for eu affairs , he said that although the deployment of nuclear weapons, yes, tactical nuclear weapons in belarus is an escalation, but a reaction. the west should be calm. this is literally slava . 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 unexpected common sense comes from. oh, at least in these two countries. as for the united states, they are realists, they clearly understand what it is they can read the laws. even those who do not follow, but they clearly understand. the main thing is that the nuclear weapons that have appeared on the territory of belarus in no way change the overall picture in the european one, provided that in five states there are warehouses of the united states nuclear weapons, such as they have in the kaliningrad region. yeah, and from the point of view of the general situation for the united states, which are thousands of kilometers from this alleged theater of action, they don’t care and they clearly understand something one of the regions of their interests and nothing more

, that's why they are so calm. as for poland, it is a conductor of the interests of the united states in europe and what is broadcast by the united states, they are very good at keeping their nose to 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 because the 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're talking about right 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 goes there, if you have already decided to go in the wake of the policy of the united states , you cannot get out of it and there will be 10 charges, there will be 100 charges, and you will still do what is intended and prescribed for you by your senior comrade. okay, sorry that barrel is not a pole, not a belarusian, a spaniard, sort of. look at the bison, it is no coincidence that one of the symbols of belarus peaceful well , a powerful beast that should not be touched here 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 eventually be placed with us and , in principle , we can probably say again literally the countries that have nuclear

weapons, and which have already deployed these nuclear weapons, yes or have declared such intentions, after all, we are talking about them also now should speak. 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. all that is possible, and now let's move on to this component. look, there is belarus , a small enough european average country. and what's next in europe? do we have it? let's look at it this way, germany has a corresponding nuclear storage facility, they 've been around since the warsaw pact, well air bombs mainly, yes, yes, they mainly have air bombs, and they were not stored there

, they are only being improved and updated a little belong to america yes, everything belongs to america italy has the same approach they say that there are still certain marine components in italy i wo n’t argue. it changes all the time, turkey hmm, the same thing exists, the corresponding belgium is the netherlands, five states of which there are warehouses of nuclear tactical weapons of the united states and they did not interfere with anyone, including nato i didn't think about them for a long time. well , decades of 70 years have long marked nato , well, let's say they are not 70 years old. well, not so little. those who store in europe who else has in europe we have already talked about great britain france is nuclear, possessing strategic means, and

now let's leave europe a little further canada there is also a warehouse of nuclear weapons usa question. why are they needed there, if near the usa you can go a little from the other side , now let's go a little to the other side japan in japan there are warehouses us nuclear weapons south korea contains warehouses, again not belonging to these states, that is, by and large , almost eight states today, in which us warheads are deployed, let's leave this out of the picture and return to our european one again. theater of possible actions god forbid yes, god forbid, of course. what we have here on the part of russia is that all nuclear weapons are located on the territory of the russian federation, this is the triad, 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 has its own huge arsenal, which is located on its territory. these are the states. now, with regard to belarus , the statement is clear, clear, 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 that in the coming years we will literally hear this alone and that's it. this is connected precisely with this issue, so that everything is clearly arranged and explained. they publicly say that while the president has not spoken out, apparently he will, well,

the president has been talking about this for a year and a half. the warned said 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 apart from president, this issue was dealt with by other governing bodies of the republic of belarus, this is the security council, because we have adopted a joint, uh, the doctrine of a union state. and there are definite directions. this is our parliament, which also created a legislative framework that allows us to resolve issues to ensure 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 their 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 that need to be discussed first. thank god the story 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 somehow so to speak, since the days of the soviet union , we still have certain possibilities for storing nuclear weapons. there were a lot of such objects in our territory, but we have kept them. this main word was saved, and the second component is the close

interaction of our allies and the russian federation, we clearly understand, well, we started right, the dad said, the dad did. agreement in these areas or an agreement were reached earlier and the trigger was the actions of the united west of european states and those events that take place in ukraine well , yes, it's like a trigger. this is true. hard training and exciting competition, roughly speaking by myself, in training, i look at numbers and analyze. what kind of pharmacy am i now, and i was satisfied with the competitions i passed. the task, the maximum is to drive straight

to the finish line and show your maximum , it will turn out how there is such a buzz. we have guys who are creative, we have guys who can and who can play decent football at a good level, but in order to they did it, it takes time to show the results. well, heart rejoice, fair and interesting matches. meetings rangovich productively held their matches regularly in the nhl championship, this season we have leaders with the regular season. yes , 75 games 75 tigers played for the national teams. the plus is that they have now left the clubs and are playing. that is, they have. there will be somewhere around 80 games, and people and events from the world of sports. look in the projects on the tv channel belarus 24 get along. more expensive postolinsky district of the brest region. well, you've been here more than once

fishing. it means that the chiefs are preparing an ear on a fire at night for a carriage - this is a person at once, with a snake kovalev, we will visit an ethnographic kutka, at the ace house of culture for children, especially a foreigner, the dutch came to us from italy , the germans came. they came. they glued them on themselves, only the courts could come or so that they would still not take such a new release of the project around the face of the people who have lived in this place for more than 30 years of their work on the tv channel belarus 204 look

, the 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 say so stupid about taiwanese attacks on the voyage of this palace, yes pelosi, as she said, 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 on the territory of belarus for sure. it wasn't spelled out. how can we say. so the development of events thought, here, in your opinion. what is the loss

of global reality on the part of western politicians? why did they stop listening and hearing even their very smart political scientists, to whom i belong. marat sergeevich, you know, i would not argue so deeply that they were not ready for this issue. i am almost sure that 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 that is the main one and it is in the following. why the west did not 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 of the soviet union who have forgotten what is the great patriotic war. they had brought up, disregard for all other states, it was before this 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 couldn’t be that far away, including life’s, no matter how hater he was of both russia and belarus and an extremely right person, but he spoke for many years even before that he said, which cannot 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 precisely the cornerstone mistake , that is, russia should have completely stopped developing by the year 23, as we said, fall apart, as a state, after all, what is it about, like a mantra tells that russia should fall apart

component and they broadcast. in all e on the media on all sorts of platforms. this is the mistake that any state was created to endure, and the next step is the reasonable steps of russia , the reasonable steps of belarus, russia, the reasonable steps of china , which realized that it would be next and , accordingly, the creation of these correct timely movement of the leadership alexander grigoryevich lukashenko trip to china seat stump a trip to russia joint work of russia and belarus and we quietly. we leave from this spur. 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, there were more lecture courses that promised that by

the twenty-fifth year russia had turned into tanks in berlin and 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. okay, never evgenievich nato, it’s the same, in the meantime, too because it is not shy, and it rushes like a tank without brakes. well, let's speak directly about the possible entry of sweden and finland, it has already been announced, as if even a statement has been written, and they create direct threats to the northern ones. nice yes union state. this greatly changes the configuration of forces in the region in the northern region. here's the deployment we have with nuclear weapons on our territory. in belarus, the alignment of forces 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 40 km. yes, and there i really like 500 km - this is what the russian claims. 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. yes, but where is here where is the checkmate, and where is the zuntzwang, if chess rhetoric is to predict development options need to have the maximum amount of information? i repeatedly, uh, remember in my life such moments when hasty forecasts did not lead to anything good in our situation. well, we started with what, yes, two new nato members appear , but all these years they were considered as

potential, well, if not the republic and belarus that the russian federation , my experience of communicating with russian colleagues clearly speaks of this they considered. uh, the need to take into account the potential of these states when, god forbid, let's say confrontation in this region. and everything that these states did. in general, it was in support of nato and their aspirations, therefore , to say that this is a new step. this is not a knife, they were really ready to use their 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 on , the entire infrastructure of these northern european states 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 we let's go back to the history of the great patriotic war. how many kilometers they advanced towards russia and let's stop there for now. that's all and the question. how ready and willing are they 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 if they close it, then another question, but these countries are unlikely to want to fight a little suggests that it’s one thing when you have a gun, and another thing when you take it out and start demonstrating it in front of your nose is waving at another. uh, let's say that at the opponent's in due time, the finnish war.

it began precisely in order to move the threat away, even from the same leningrad a little bit further, despite, let's say , rather ambiguous results of this finnish winter campaign. well, the problem was solved. i would be here, probably add the following and we learned the lessons of history. and this step that has been taken today, including the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons on the territory of the republic of belarus, is a real response to the data. unfriendly steps in relation to the union state are directly provocative, you can’t help but touch on this topic here. uh, even more so with the doctor of sciences, the closest supporter of zelensky rahami, yes, who participated in the initial once-peace negotiations, he said that the mobilization of men was in vain. now it will be accelerated for

the acquisition of parts that will be deployed on border with belarus as a response to the deployment of nuclear weapons and i don’t really see the logic. well, in your opinion, who are these statements intended for? and what is 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 strange supporter of ukraine demonstrates loyalty once again, even more we show that we are ready not only to fight with russia, but almost to close all of europe’s property. 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 also need it. to create an image of the enemy, no matter how we

say it, but belarus has never been an enemy for ukraine, and i am also a person who has been for quite a few years.