on youtube, you can leave your comments there, write your thoughts about something, we will voice something and ask our experts. well, in the right corner there is a link to our telegram channel , join there what usually remains behind the scenes with you, as always, kirill kazakov and alena surova hello good evening. i've been wondering for probably not the first week. look at our informational enemies. there is no other way to call it very seriously they inflate the problem, it seems to me, not completely. uh, this is not a problem, but the presence of nuclear weapons on the territory of belarus is the topic has become the main one for our president, this topic was one of the most important for president putin when he spoke at the st. petersburg economic forum and, in fact , well, people who somehow try to touch belarus are comrades sitting abroad and listing themselves. i am belarusian. positions, including even

the president of america is trying to tell what it is? well, somehow bad absolutely absolutely forgetting uh, the story that 150 warheads are in europe so that's me hmm the question is probably very simple, but at the same time, it seems to me, uh, it arises first of all when they say, for example, the expansion of nato and the introduction of e nuclear weapons on the territory of belarus than the expansion of nato at the expense of finland and sweden differs from the fact that we, for example, cooperate with russia in including singing in the military sphere. here's how to explain it? well, first of all, uh, really for us the appearance of tactical nuclear weapons - it's not a problem. for them problems, well, we must start with this. why because they are in the same geopolitical and military-political bloc of forty-nine, we were in another at the beginning of this, the warsaw pact was now this dkb and therefore the main thing for them is that the main thing is us, as our

competitors, we are in two military-political blocs, what the hell are we competitors we are enemies . including, but competitors for third countries who think where to join, moreover among nato, for example, turkey is also particularly dissatisfied with its status in this alliance to meet the parties, the most important geostrategic direction. moscow berlin smolensk gate, the fastest way is from east to west from west to east. uh, the task of protecting the kaliningrad region. we, as the rear, are defending the moscow direction, of course, they lick their own, as they say, yes , they lick their lips in order to get it and close it. this is the anaconda ring that they so dream of in order to control russia

from all sides in order to , uh , completely close. this is the answer. my measure is to expand nato in our direction, so kirill asks how it differs. they bring in nato troops , they organize a nato base. there is talk that supposedly in finland, sweden, in the first place, they don’t consider that they are good. and we are evil and they directly write it. that is, for them it is valuable. we are strangers. we are evil with us it is necessary to fight, not good. and can they all be allowed, the second moment the second moment. what are they saying? here, why are you expanding who allowed you? we don't give you allowed. here they have racism, this is what they are satans, and we are the jungle for them and what, they

should shoot us like mowgli yes , this is such a certain moment for them, ideologically valuable, which has been living since the 19th century. you know, i noticed this week, when they started. prior to the statement on the tactical introduction of tactical weapons on the territory of belarus, i noticed that both from one side and the other. that is, uh, our uh, opponents and our partners, including hmm , revolve around the same issue. in general, olga skabeeva asked him about the head states. but who, if they make a decision, has the feeling that this is the most fundamental question here, it’s not the territory that plays the role, belarus, but the personality of the president, belarus, because everyone knows that alexander lukashenko is a very and very resolute vadim, does not one get the impression that, namely, the russians and

, on the other side of the people who are on the barricades , this is precisely the person that worries at the moment. i once asked the president this question to me input. well the appropriate weapon of course, this is the most basic question, because the question of application or inexpediency of application is the main issue. this is a matter of our sovereignty. in general. yes, but understand here we will not answer this question. and the military won't even answer you. and so let's say this question, you understand, and everything will be fine, that they should understand that belarus does not need to pronounce everything else. yes, but the question is clear. what is it for what we did it, in general, tactical nuclear weapons. listen with condenser weapons. i 'm telling you, objectively, without any of this bullshit e to fully resist the nato bloc from the dkb is not able to. let's really say that the conventional weapons of the population are several times smaller, the economy is ten times smaller , the army is also an order of magnitude smaller. accordingly,

we have the only parity we have today. it's, uh, a nuclear warhead. putin said more warheads are cheaper. cheaper, you know? let's just say right now that this is the chairman of the security council. so uh, let's put the whole economy on the altar of an arms race and do non-popular economy. and so to speak, there is no better to prepare the armed forces, especially to prepare shells, missiles and so on, but having here, uh, tactical nuclear weapons. we can do it in more. uh, let's say in a way that is convenient for us, uh, progressively and not so let's say, without overloading the entire economy on military flights. you see, because war is always expensive in general, in principle, any military confrontation. that is, this is a war of economies, first of all, no. this is a war of the economy, so you understand what

the questions are. why? i'm talking about it here to all the confrontation that for us in debt a protracted conflict is absolutely not beneficial, because it is necessary to compare economies , economies are compared and they understand that the longer we are here. i want to draw your attention to one more thing about my territory. why did alexander make a decision with vladimir vladimirovich so that he could first deal with his national economy . uh, there's time for some maybe, uh, questions to strengthen our groupings here, including more supplies and so on are not enough. there are some maybe their technological components. we have found special ways of transit and delivery of them here, but also understand this moment, that the most important advantage of our friends is that they do not fight overseas on their territory. and at its borders, europe is constantly in this situation, therefore, we have a belarusian. the main task. this period, despite the opposition to remain a peaceful rear to cover 2,000 borders of the west , and in no case does this conflict fit

in the most correct solution. speaking of mirny, uh , you are one of the main threats that, in principle, which we see, yes, this is the penetration of the so-called sabotage groups into the territory of the country, which can commit various kinds of terrorist acts there on the one hand. vadim indeed. uh, he speaks correctly and the head of state orients us to this. hmm, that everyone should do their own thing calmly. yes, there are certain military processes there, the power block, they control them, but at the same time. maybe you already somehow notice it, how when you work with people, it may not be enough. it needs to be emphasized attention so that our people are somehow more attentive. yes, yes, peacefully go about your business, but at the same time, how would you not sleep in a hat, because, well, you know, when certain events then begin to unwind and it turns out that he didn’t notice something, he just didn’t notice . the apartment was rented out, you didn’t accidentally look. if

you don’t know anything else, you open a hotline there and generally notice that people actually work hotlines. uh, how are the military departments like that? uh, we have a hotline in other security departments around the clock. oh, yes, sometimes citizens receive calls, of course, it never hurts to increase vigilance. and here, uh, to the question of, uh, that 's the same thing about tactical nuclear weapons, after all. uh, what of this to make a problem , our westerners are trying to make a problem. uh, let's say neighbors. uh, the commander-in-chief made it very clear that we are not going to attack anyone. the use of tactical nuclear weapons by the commander-in-chief also clearly outlined these boundaries in the event of aggression. so what's the problem? do not meddle with us and the weapon will be

lying in warehouses is no problem. we 're not going to attack anyone. the problem is. what do they suggest? uh our editors yes information that is being prepared later plans. yes, yes, preparations are being made in poland, and groups are training for the possibility of the media recently , uh, they announced, uh, openly, that information is being prepared in cognition, who has several hundred people preparing. this is the so-called free there, what is his garden called, bor or who called it there? they simply quote, but they also do not say that it is bad that militants are being prepared in poland in order to there is no way to undermine the state system, therefore vigilance, of course, will not hurt, and our citizens must understand this, that this is important today, because we see the forms and methods that are used today, which are used by the ukrainian

side, which are used intelligence agencies of the west are terrorist methods of conduct. wars, look. i understand that it is difficult for you to ask this question. it still seems to me that you and petya began to talk about whether these are partners, competitors or enemies. still you reserve the right to call them partners. well, you know, according to the concept of national security. we have no enemies, therefore, well, probably we will not go to the brink and, in contrast, we can say this. i understand perfectly well, unlike them, we will call them western partners. yes, because you can talk about red lines. well, look. look here. why am i asking this, because the conditional ukrainian figure is absolutely calmly labeling. the president says that the information war. she went out let's say so. well, uh, in such an attack situation,

when you have to repel? that is, you don’t just watch how they wrote something there somewhere, they just attack constantly. and everything arises. everyone says, for a year now , ukraine has been working perfectly, how are we coping with this. we have an analogue of sex, or we have completely different technologies, or simply. we are vile, these are the stories we do not play, therefore, from the point of view of the information war. well, the question was victor again, he did not cross me. i think we have strength means that are worthy, let’s say it counteracts and will pass it further, but it probably makes no sense to disclose them, and well, this answer is enough to understand that we have such a history. i'm not talking about the fact that i was told the address and who is involved? it's just that when we talk about the information war , journalists sometimes think that sometimes they are alone when they are told that people in uniform are behind them. this somewhat calms the situation of journalists. basically. those who

work. e to protect the belarusian states, just the same feels and understand that they are not alone. i didn’t say anything, but at the beginning the main thing is that the measure absolutely agrees with comrade general. it's a preventative measure, because when the enemy knows that unacceptable damage may be done. you do not have to be equal in strength, the enemy must understand that in the event of aggression , unacceptable damage will be inflicted on him, then he refrains from aggression, so the main task here for tactical nuclear weapons is to preserve the peaceful sky. and the second. yet again agree with the general. regarding. what the right audience should not be used. you understand this, you need to be strong and ready, but you don’t have to delay, you understand , call someone all names, we will destroy everyone, we will defeat the enemies around us, we have no enemies. no need to pr in the war, as the ukrainians do , be more listen to the forces you have, look. the stronger the opponent. here in martial arts in the sport, the olympic champion is the least likely to book somewhere.

the lower the level of training, the more this bravado is not needed, therefore calmly c respect for the enemy is the most important thing. yes, you can not evaluate it, therefore it is unambiguous against any opponent to keep and evaluate strong and weak sides. but with regards to tactical nuclear weapons. here. e questions, of course, are different, but i have, probably, the most simple banal one. after all, it could have been done before. yes, we are talking about the fact that our infrastructure is ready, everything, as it were, why now? i think it’s just that the degree of opposition from russia and nato has reached such a level that now the situation is developing in such a in such a way that not today, tomorrow, nato troops or one of the state troops can enter the territory of ukraine and 20,000 polish soldiers are no longer under the fig leaf of vacationers. they work there on the side of the ukrainians, but in reality , polish troops can enter the territory of ukraine under the guise of peacekeepers, and besides,

they are trying to organize some kind of coalition, even from the giants in poland of the baltic countries. here and this version is ventilated very widely, so i think that's it. well, not fashionable, such terminology is now red line. yes? uh-huh well well, in my opinion, this is already the limit beyond which the enemy should not step, and it is precisely the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in belarus that is. hey, this is our amulet. well , i return to the topic to the question that i asked a little higher a little earlier, what else is there besides. this is the territory itself. it seems to me that the identity of the person making the decision is also fundamental. that is, when it was about red lines, because the president, as it were, very clearly said to foreign experts with polish and ukrainian. this is really a very important issue for them. lukashenka as a decisive person

, as a person who can, as they say , violate all standards and norms in order to, so to speak, ensure the security of his state. it exists in the western world, so this informational review of the placement itself is also connected with the personality of the president, undoubtedly the commander-in-chief , but you understand, there is also a military factor, purely military everyone says, why not from the kaliningrad region? why not from bryansk? the whole point is that both russia and the united states are still observing? rejected precisely there is a kind of gentlemen's agreement not to deploy intermediate-range missiles, but it is also necessary to counteract the strengthening of the troops, it is necessary that the advancement of the iskanders to the belarusian balcony increases the radius of destruction. this is a missile system for 400 kilometers and in the field of action of this complex, it turns out, all the capitals that are completely unfriendly to us, the core is completely vilnius and

warsaw well, also kiev yes, well, and in addition, uh, the means of overcoming about this complex corresponds to the means of overcoming about the topol complex that is it's an annoyance to him along the trajectory. this is a study of electronic warfare and the ejection of false warheads, so to speak, and so on, it is believed that it is not intercepted by the current means and, in addition, it is practically hypersonic speed. this is how the significance of this factor comes from. viktor alexandrovich is a dark weapon. yes, the weapons that we have today. we have enough more under this question. well, a few years ago. we planned, probably, to line up a little differently and the purchase of our weapons relied on some other things. states. meeting with the military in public, what we heard i don’t know, of course, there behind closed doors, but i said that ah, the main thing, the main thing is our plus and what we 100% won is that we didn’t run for

some fancy stuff. yes, but they made a bet. it is well-tested for the fact that it worked for years before, in principle, we retained the competence there for the production, including shells. yes, we saw some things hmm well, it's clear that without some other modern technology, perhaps now not enough. so, at the moment , belarus has enough to protect itself from the fact that we have a moment, that is, we now perceive that one of the main directions in the development of the armed forces is the equipping of weapons for military equipment. but in general, this is close to reality and far away. why? because, uh, the weapons that are simple, that is, they are used by people, here are the people. trained trained crews or trained troops, having their weapons in their hands, they increase the combat potential of these weapons in three times. that is, it is scientifically proven, and at the same time, if, uh, people are still on the defensive, then

their combat potential increases many times over, respectively, uh, this is the principle of sufficiency, since we have a defensive doctrine, the way we we are not going to attack anyone, then the armament and the structure of the armed forces that has now been created, it provides exactly, uh, a measure of strategic deterrence. we see that we have now the present moment the world is here on we are ready, that is, for everything e at the moment and e, how says we hold? that is, this is the balance, the most important thing, that is, retention. as you say, there is a balance of power. well , i would like to return, that is, to tactical nuclear weapons. to understand what is happening, you need to return to 2022 , because who spoke first. the americans -poles were the first to talk about tactical nuclear weapons, that the russians would use tactical nuclear weapons during a special military operation. although the professional military

did not see the goals, that is, they did not even see the prerequisites for applying this nuclear weapon. well, what did the americans do, they won back in the information field and began to change their nuclear bombs, which are located in five states of europe, why? that is, they were hiding under this screen, that is, their actions, so that there would be no unrest in europe in europe, and so on. and if we see, then our steps are already successive steps towards their actions. andrey ivanovich so why do we work so poorly then from the point of view of this information uh war. here are the comrades create. uh, whole inform occasions on the sly manage to do some kind of body movements, but we don’t or maybe it seems to us that you are asking the same information warrior on this topic, but i probably disagree, but with viktor alexandrovich on one point, and

we were talking about replacing ammunition in american europe a few years ago, when the special operation did not smell, and the third and fourth version of everson was changing , we were 61 by 12, which is remarkable. and, firstly, it is manageable. which increases its efficiency. secondly, there is a variable power, that is, from 0.3 kilotons. e up to 170, as far as i remember, a kiloton. that is, it is the most perfect, which today makes them eat this way. what about? hmm, in general , accommodation in belarus. here at the beginning there was a question. why so, and it expands so you know. in my opinion, nato expansion is much more significant, let's say so. that's what the placement of such let's say on the weapon. here imagine that we have accepted the neutral countries of europe a.