into the fire, for some, conflict is death , and for others, it is an opportunity to sell as many weapons as possible, but this is probably different, you need to understand, yaksenia lebedeva was with you, see you in the next program. every day we feel a mile of emotion, we can be happy, happy, happy, sumavatsy, sometimes our emotions are not pleasant to us, but music, music shows our

emotions. this emanatory force is lethal for our souls and for our souls, and it becomes indestructible puzzles for our lives. the mystery of music is what i know i will express an inexhaustible krynitsa there, where the sound of music is loud, music replaces a thousand words.

it already turns out that i have been here for half a century in my favorite sport, we are ready to share knowledge, my name is sergey morozov, i am the senior coach of the national sailing team, now i am athletes taking similar courses, it is called fordevent to show one day in my life, an important element of work the museum declares not only the capture of the material culture of artakta, but also the non-material culture, but also the creation of folk sayings, abrada, and

we can watch it exactly today, yes. radial out of the wind, eight segments of 2 minutes each. watch on the tv channel belarus 24. i decided to study in belarus because it is known all over the world that belarus has high-quality, good, cheap education. the first time i visited brest and the brest fortress, in fact, i was simply impressed and amazed by the spirit of the belarusian. who was not broken during all the difficult trials that befell him . there is such patriotism here, just like we are in venezuela and this is what makes me feel comfortable here in belarus , both in venice and belarusians value their culture, we are united in this, in the fact that every people through their culture wants to show what they are, but at the same time time, culture unites peoples. i really like potato pancakes, the children simply adore cheesecakes, i have to cook them every day, i’m already just an expert. for

making cheesecakes. belarus is a very beautiful country, very calm, so i really liked it. i really would like to be like that too, your order, yours composure in everything, you bring everything to the ideal. belarus, this is my second home. watch the project, a look at belarus, today only on our tv channel. hello viewer, my name is igor tur, this is my propaganda. let's begin. we all genetically need a king - he said at a historical forum in the national library of propaganda in mid-october, after which the fugitive opposition, and so three inside, as well as those who did not try to understand the content of the thought, assessed only the form, began to build conspiracy

theories, they say it’s propaganda started talking about tsarism, then almost by inheritance they are going to transfer power to lukashenko and in general, if this is so, then they are going to abolish parliament... vns and other democratic institutions of the karau are robbing human rights and freedom of opinion. alas, sometimes you have to chew things out, although i am personally convinced that the bulk of the criticism came from people who were not stupid, who understood everything perfectly. whether they agree or not is a second question, but for critics of the current government, only the reason is important. and then criticism gravitates like that owl on that globe. in 2020 i’ll tell you one trick, i this is how i filtered ideological opponents into those who were idiots. the rest, with whom it is theoretically possible to conduct some kind of dialogue. i asked opponents of the current president to name at least three clear advantages of belarus under lukashenko, and preferably not from history, but at the current moment, because it is impossible under any circumstances for any government in any country in the world

to be strictly negative, this is impossible from a logical point of view, and if necessary, you can even name the advantages of the power of macron with scholz, dudy with morawiecki, nausedy with biden, despite the fact that power is destructive for one’s own countries, and if i see the advantages of biden’s power, this does not mean at all that i love america and biden, although still part of the audience has already spat on the screen, so if a representative of the opposition in belarus, if he cannot or refuses to name the advantages of lukashenko’s power, then he is either an idiot or a controlled manipulator, who still cannot be argued with, and continuing a dialogue with either the first category of opponents or the second is inappropriate, because it is completely... useless. and here comes the past week, which was marked, among other things, by the anniversary of the first all-belarusian people's assembly. it took place on october 19 , 1990, when i was 7 years old, and today’s political observer tur is very useful and interesting in that chronicle, because many of the answers are contained in history. so,

why did lukashenko today come up with strengthening the role of the supreme national assembly in the political life of the country? the most popular version of his opponents is the following. when lukashenko leaves the presidency, he will piss someone. in this chair instead of yourself, and he himself will become the head of the supreme national assembly, it is he who will actually be the main one in the country, that is, supposedly the supreme national assembly is strengthening so that the ex-president retains power, since the former leader of the country, by law, is automatically a delegate of the all-belarusian people's assembly, the version sounds harmonious and beautiful , if not for historical contradictions, the ninety-sixth year, the first supreme council in the history of the country, the young president lukashenko lists the delegates of the meeting, senior officials, the government of the presidential administration of the security council, the constitutional court, supreme council, supreme court, former leaders of the belarusian state, to the very first all-belarusian people's assembly, 27 years ago, when

there was no mention of today's realities and issues with the transfer of power, alexander grigorievich already invited former leaders of the country to the all-belarusian people's assembly, that is, the experience of former leaders lukashenko considered the state to develop a strategy important both three decades ago and today, nothing has changed in the position of the president during this time, he is honest both to himself and to the electorate, i consider this for myself talk about the fact that the vns is supposedly being closed under lukashenko. what else did young lukashenko say in 1996? he spoke about western democratic values. and yes, in this regard , nothing has changed for alexander grigorievich either. we do not question the significance of the system of western parliamentarism, but we believe that the implementation of general democratic values ​​in each specific country must correspond to its historical experience and

the age-old way of life of the people. the question is not at all whether democracy is bad or good, just like in general any system of government cannot be called good or bad. because, i repeat, what was said in the same program a year ago is just form, not content, there is good democracy, there are bad ones, there are good dictatorships, there are bad ones, there are good authoritarian regimes, there are bad ones, when you are asked to evaluate the form power, and not its essence, then most likely they are simply trying to manipulate you, i don’t think that democracy is bad, just as i wouldn’t call all democratic institutions and principles bad, something sensible, but something, like the second one... in any election, when power is gained not by a representative of the majority of the electorate, but by one of the representatives of some electoral minority, this is absolutely bad, but you can’t take something characteristic of one society with its own cultural and historical characteristics and transfer it to another society,

where the cultural, historical and genetic prerequisites are completely different. a little bit of boring history: democracy appeared in ancient greece, because the word... formed from the ancient greek demos, in direct translation, this is the people, but there are nuances , even in this beloved wikipedia of yours you can read that at first the term demos meant: free citizens are only men who have civil rights, in contrast to slaves and other categories of the disadvantaged population , then demos was the name given to the common people, mostly the rural population, in contrast to the tribal aristocracy. then part of the urban population, artisans and traders were also included in demos, after which the term demos began to be used for the first time turn to the poor. in modern times, demos refers to the unprivileged sections of the population in a class society, that is, the common people opposed to the elite. if you noticed, never in history has demos

meant the totality of all people living in a state. the demos has always been some part, a larger or smaller part of society. and this is the semantic feature of the term demos and its derivative democracy, if you look at it, comes into conflict with the universal electoral right coming for person upon reaching. of a certain age, but let’s say democracy in greece or somewhere else has been brought up over centuries historically in the modern understanding of democracy - this is the collegial participation of all citizens in making the most important decisions in the life of the state through various institutions , primarily the election of representatives of the people to parliament or the election president. hence , there is a stable narrative that in democracy the people have power, and where there is no democracy, anyone has power, but not the people. entirely and it is presented as something

negative, but in order for democratic institutions to work effectively, the demos, that is, the people, must have at least two most important properties: first, the ability to make collective decisions; second, more importantly, the ability to obey a collectively made decision: when in minsk they gave heating, in one of the high-rise buildings a pipe burst and the entire entrance was left with cold radiators, with a dictatorial model of management of the entrance, the dictator would have assigned tasks to everyone, what to do? to eliminate or minimize the problem, all they would have obeyed with more. but in the entrance, or rather in the entrance chat, there is no dictatorship, there is democracy there. and when, using a completely legal democratic procedure, the demos of the entrance determined what everyone needed to do to solve the problem, part of the demos of the entrance refused to submit to the democratically made decision, because they formed their own electoral minority, which had its own view on solving the same problem. as a result, 70% of the demos entrance. solved the problem one way, 30% another, and this difference in approaches to solution not only did not eliminate

the problem, but it was aggravated by the cdp of the democratic choice, which turned out to be not even zero, but negative. the most interesting thing is that there were about fifty people in this chat, all wonderful citizens, but the funny thing is that 49 of them, specialists in different fields , had an opinion on how to solve the problem, and one of them was a former specialist in the housing and communal services system, who absolutely knew what and how to do , but in a chat during a democratic discussion of a problem, he is not the most verbose, and he couldn’t shout to the others either, who were shouting his opinion, but he wanted to say the following, neither the option for solving the problem that won the vote, nor the second one, which was adopted by the electoral minority of the entrance, are not correct, the entrance in this democracy was initially doomed to failure, because in the vote to solve the problem , the votes of those who have.. ... the opinion of what needs to be done and the voices of those who know exactly what needs to be done, they are equivalent, equal to one.

i said something similar, but at that historical forum the audience, the audience, i admit, didn’t like it very much. if now ask our audience where you will all go for lunch and suggest, let’s choose ourselves and collectively decide, firstly, everyone will quarrel, because everyone wants something different, no one will go anywhere, and secondly, even if it is democratic the chosen decision, we are going to the dining room here... this option was voted for by 40% of the audience, the remaining 60% of the audience are not able to accept democratically elected decisions will begin to sabotage this decision, somewhere democracy is good today, where the desire for collegiality has been historically formed decision-making and subordination to a collectively made decision: everything that is good next to ancient greece, or the cradle of democratic values, naturally, the united states of america, a country without a name, because its name... suggests that on the territory of the continent of america they united states, that is, administrative-territorial units

, could just as well exist some united cantons of europe or cooperation of districts of asia, but please do not compare with the ussr, our union is different, because in the soviet union there was centralized power to govern the country, in the usa every governor is his own locomotive. so, when on a giant continent you have fifty huge independent administrative units with different geography, different population structures that are very different, you want it, you don’t want it, but you are forced to make a common decision, gather all the leaders of these fifty states, try to adopt some kind of collegial decision, but it is impossible to gather like this on any issue, because this will lead the process of solving the problem for a long time, then a parliament is introduced into this system, the function of which is to differentiate what needs to be decided collectively on the territory of the united states, and on what issues each state can act independently, but all these fifty states still participate in international

politics and economics and in order to speak for all fifty states , someone needs to be appointed, so the figure of the us president appears, who voices something that fifty states and parliament have decided, but who is actually not involved in decision-making participates because he does not represent anyone, neither the population of any of the states, because each state has its own representative, not parliament, because it also has its own representative, nor the population of the united states, because for the actual elections even this talking head washington doesn’t let its demos come within reach of a cannon shot, this is not... it’s not a bad model of government, but this model is effective only for one state structure, only for the usa. for us slavs, we need something else, what do we need? now let's move on to the sharpest part. us everyone genetically needs a king, a specific person who makes the final, irrevocable decision. but here at the junction, i will show another fragment of

alexander lukashenko’s speech at the very first all-belarusian people’s assembly, and you will do it yourself. draw conclusions about what the president is thinking today. for belarusians, this is, first of all, a great tradition of a nationwide evening, at which the most difficult issues were resolved. it seems that a logical conflict is brewing between the statements “we need a king” in our tradition of the national assembly. but no, the tsar and the veche historically exist in our unified system of government. long story: there is a king who accepts the main ones. decision, and non- binding ones, first of all, this is a decision regarding international politics, as well as cornerstone issues on taxes, laws, and so on. the tsar has boyars, his inner circle, people who know how to think and decide, offer something to the tsar, advise something, and are also able to independently resolve important issues within the framework of their competence. there is a veche a broad meeting of the population in cases where

the decision is categorically strategic, where the support of the majority of people in the state is a priori needed. and more importantly, the implementation of this decision made. historically, the meeting met very rarely, mainly on three occasions. the conclusion of a series, that is, an agreement with the prince, is a modern analogue, rather than elections, and the inauguration of the prince. they also gathered in the evening to declare war, or to conclude peace at the end of the war. gathering an evening to declare war, everything seems clear. regarding peace, peace, of course everyone wants it, but after a war peace is achieved through mutual concessions , and the vecha met precisely in order to approve them, because if there are too many concessions, then this is more likely not peace, but capitulation with the corresponding consequences for the state and its citizens, in the territories in the economy. tsar, boyars, veche, this is the traditional form of government for us for centuries, this is the base, and to it we can and should add a superstructure from what

are called democratic institutions, this and the election of a leader, that is, the president, and elections to parliament, in general for... a national referendum, but without this base everything else is not bad, but alien to us: they overthrew the tsar, slaughtered the boyars, what happened? general secretary of the politburo, cpsu congress, tsar of battle, vecho, the soviet union collapsed, what happened, the president, parliament, the supreme national assembly, also a traditional form of government, of course, in life the associations are not always direct, say, boyars can be someone else in their positions , but the very essence of the power structure for the slavs is characterized by just such a strong leader, capable of accepting strong willed decisions. a strong and intelligent boyar, capable of giving sensible advice to the leader and resolving some issues independently, a large collegial body for making strategic decisions, i will say that i think in general this system is the most effective when all three of its components perform their functions, but it worked effectively in belarus a system of authoritarian government, and that’s exactly what you

didn’t hear in our country, although i’m sure you already heard the president talk about authoritarianism last week. and almost three for decades, one strong leader carried all his functions on himself, and often also the boyars and the evening, for various reasons, there were periods when the boyars advised some kind of nonsense, in other situations, convening a veche meant drowning in the endless process of some kind of discussion, and now, it seems to me, alexander grigorievich is restoring the historical balance of the system, strengthening the role of the all-belarusian people's assembly as a general assembly, but there is a nuance, the king is the boyars... or the president, officials of the supreme national assembly, the system is most effective when the strong, let me remind you that each of its elements is. on friday, alexander lukashenko gathered officials to discuss the creation. center for strategic decisions, i have a suspicion that alexander grigorievich convened a large and public meeting also in order to publicly remind what kind

of government model we have in general and why strong boyars are important in it. considering our authoritarianism, it will be so bad, there will be strict control over the implementation of compliance with those instructions that are given, among other things, they are not only an invention of the president himself, but we are working on many issues together. of course, there are cases when the decision is made personally by alexander grigorievich and he simply cuts down tasks on how we will do it, i will talk about this later, but basically we have a traditional form of decision-making for our history, the president gathers ministers to collectively work out the order that then he will sign, that is, the tsar , it is important for me that you appreciate not the form about the tsar, but the essence of what i am saying, when we , by strengthening the supreme council, return the historical veche to the management system, it does not

contradicts a strong leader, but complements the system, the three authorities must be strong, i will say this again, the king, the boyar veche, is our leader strong, unconditionally and unequivocally, and even our enemies have long understood this, they are forced to reckon with it, he in fact, he single-handedly resolves issues with preventing war from... from home, with restructuring the economy under sanctions, in general with regard to the development of the country, including, single-handedly making decisions about which the boyars may have doubts, and if a veche is assembled, then in general , it is unlikely that anyone will agree, and perhaps the wrong decision will be made, let me say it again as it is, if the meeting had gathered and asked whether to build a nuclear power plant in belarus, then the remaining fears after the chernobyl tragedy would most likely have led to the fact that the meeting would have decided no, everyone would have agreed with a cool head , what is needed, but fear makes my head very hot. in this situation, the leader independently makes a difficult decision , which then, when fears with the launch of the as

dissipated, all the boyars, the evening, and generally everyone in the country recognized everything correctly. yes, chernobyl is difficult for our people, but this is my decision, i will go and make this decision. and on friday, lukashenko talks about strategic projects. let's see how it will function in general. the process of selecting and implementing these projects is secondary, whether the ministry of economy, the government will do this, or a new council or center will be created - this is secondary, as long as the projects are implemented, but on friday alexander lukashenko reminded, since it was public, the whole country that we needed if you have a strong ans, strong the president still has strong officials; if the boyars do not do enough work, then the tsar will again have to take over their functions, in which case there is no particular need for a veche. and when another, most likely weaker, comes to the place of the current leader, then with the weakness of the boyars the entire system of power will crumble and no veche will save from this, we implement it

at the wrong time - this is already the norm, but what worries me most is that our government instead of sometimes not always dealing with a specific matter, it begins to lie and misinform the president in order to show yourself in the best light. i'm afraid that this won't happen. from tradition, looking in the mirror, we will not hold the country, i have been working in the presidential pool since the spring of 2017, for me october 20, 2023 is now the most important political day in the profession, if you evaluate not the form, but the content, my name is igor tur, this was my propaganda, according to various estimates, about one and a half. million belarusians live in different parts of the world, and of course, they remember their homeland, indeed, they

want to come here, and i would say that it’s like such a two-way process, because belarus cares about its compatriots, always remembers, supports them, and belarusians want to come to their homeland, belarus, to show how they preserve belarusianness, develop belarusian culture far beyond the borders of our country. belarus is a multi-confessional, multi-ethnic country. let me remind you that people of 25 confessions and religious associations live on belarusian soil, and there is peace among them. of course, this is not just given, a lot of work is being done for this by the president of our the country, and the government, all... authorities, first of all, our country has taken care to legislatively enshrine the equality of all people, regardless of nationality, regardless of religion.