greetings, friends, i am vitaly bortnikov and we continue our information broadcast on the express television channel. yesterday, the president of the russian federation , vladimir putin, delivered another speech to the deputies of the state duma of the russian federation, and everyone is now trying to understand what putin really meant when he said that russians are not yet began to fight that russia cannot be defeated on the battlefield and that in fact negotiations with russia are possible, but those who refuse these negotiations lose the chance to agree on something with it well, first of all, we must to realize that the russian federation is a country in

which signals are addressed to both international and domestic audiences of vladimir putin. it is quite important that this domestic audience . a few days and another very important point is that all these putin signals should somehow be part of his own picture of the world. here, i would add to these words of the russian president that what does the minister of foreign affairs of the russian federation sergey lavrov say, who, as you could understand, was quite offended by the foreign ministers of the group of seven countries who did not come to a joint dinner with him during their twenties on the indonesian island of bali and even refused to take a picture with lavrov. the minister of foreign affairs of russia says not

only that it is not their decency that they do not respect the protocol, but he says that they do not give ukraine the opportunity to negotiate with by the russian federation, and here we see this russian picture of the world, that in fact, the usual collective west is to blame for everything. the united states, great britain, other countries of the collective west, if it were not for them, ukraine capitulated to russia a long time ago, and they are the russian winners who are in the way. well, what about us we will show that we are ready to fight. since they never dreamed that we would fight on ukrainian territory to the last ukrainian, the most important question is, of course, that everyone evaluates their own intentions differently. ukraine continues to be in a situation where the victory of

the war is considered to be the liberation of all our territories that were occupied by the enemy since 2014 , and this is an absolutely logical approach. of the world to join the european union is possible to join nato, the west would obviously also like exactly such a result, and it is for this that it helps ukraine, but along with this of course, i would like to finish the regional action and that such a result could be achieved in the negotiation process at the negotiating table with russia, so that russia, under the pressure of sanctions, under the pressure of the fact that it itself has to see that it cannot win in

ukraine, agreed to such a negotiation process itself russia itself is engaged in a completely different operation, which propagandists in moscow are talking about and the purpose of which no one hides, the restoration of the soviet union, the restoration of the soviet union , in principle, remains the main political goal vladimir putin and is supported by a huge number of russians themselves, and precisely because this is how russia views negotiations with ukraine exclusively as capitulation, why? because capitulation still allows you to imagine that even if it is not possible to capture the entire territory of ukraine during this campaign, then she will be able to seize it during the next company, in the end vladimir putin is in no

hurry, he can work as the president of russia for many years to come, if for ten years as much as his health allows, then ukraine has recognize all russian territorial gains at the time of the negotiations, russia will annex this territory and ukraine must disarm its army so that when a new company starts from this territory, ukraine will have nothing to fight for. well, of course, refuse cooperation with western countries. by the way, this is not a new russian policy moscow acted like this, we will always remember at least ivan the terrible's occupation of the kazan or astrakhan khanates or the annexation of crimea by catherine ii, the first

annexation was not putin's, the first is possible if you read history textbooks published in moscow believe that ivan the terrible went to war with some unfriendly , hostile states that threatened the national security of the russian state, but this is not the case. ii of st. petersburg and recognized the full sovereignty of the neighboring state, this also applies to kazan and astrakhan during the period of ivan gros, these khanates had already lost the war with russia, forced

were to admit that they pay her tribute and coordinate their policies with her. ivan the terrible did not attack these rudenesses when they lost the war because their island would lead to serious problems for the moscow army. he decided to wait to disarm them and turn them into their own colonies then carry out the next attack, which was also a very important thing, what with the extermination of a large part of the population, which could no longer fight moscow's aggression because it had been disarmed previously under at the time of the previous agreements, the moscow tsar said to nyastrykha that all these crescents under

the cross, this whole cathedral of st. basil the blessed on the red square of moscow, this is not at all about a real victory, this is about a pretended victory, this is about a victory over the defeated, the same applies to the crimean khanate, we must remember that the crimean khanate was a part of the ottoman empire for almost the entire period of its history, its protectorate the crimean khans recognized over themselves with the supremacy of the ottoman sultan, it was the ottoman state that had control over ports in the crimea, and it was such a civilizational symbiosis that allowed the crimean khanate to exist precisely as an independent state under the

protection of constantinople, russia's war with turkey led to the fact that the ottoman empire lost the opportunity to defend crimea, crimea itself lost large territories on the future ukrainian mainland, but it was formally declared an independent state with, of course, greater capabilities than the dpr or lpr, but in fact completely subordinated to moscow and, of course, a state that did not have such military capabilities as in of the russian empire, catherine ii essentially occupied a protectorate. for the same reason as ivan the

terrible, because when you agree on something with a protectorate, the local government leaves behind huge internal possibilities and, first of all, there is a population in place that has a state memory, if you will, our state lost in moscow, but it exists and the population itself is the bearer of historical memory about these principles of statehood that we have. the occupation of moscow is always about the territory, never about the population, let's

look at the topic, graphic summaries of these three occupations in order to clearly understand what awaits us in the event of a russian victory or the capitulation of ukraine to russia, in place of the kazan khanate there is a republic of tatarstan, the resistance of the local population here was quite strong, there was always, i would say, such a hidden national struggle that almost did not end in complete triumph when tatarstan in 1991 year almost did not become a union republic as part of the soviet union, and before that there was a half-step to real independence, until tatarstan would finally get rid of russian shackles. but even in in such a situation , only half of the tatar population remains on the territory of the republic of tatarstan. yes, this is the majority with the turkic peoples, but

ethnic russians, together with other slavic populations, in fact, with the same ukrainians of tatarstan, also constitute a huge number, and you and i perfectly understand that this is the population of which the territory of tatarstan did not exist at the time of its occupation by the troops of ivan gros. and the zastrakhan khanate is an even more complicated situation, it is simply the astrakhan region within the russian federation the turkic peoples who were the ancient carriers of civilization there, when there were no russians, who at all no one knew that they existed in the territory of the stakhan region, the capital of the ancient khazar khaganate, whose fortress was still in kyiv

, there remained of course the local tatar population, but it does not make up any serious numbers to compete there was an ethnographic blurring with the colonists and the russians, and with the crimea it was a difficult situation, although the crimea was already bought after the practice of ivan the terrible with his banditry and in fact violent extermination and the fulfillment of the people retreated in the past, but together with these, the annexation of crimea is a time when emigration became a common practice for peoples who could not find their place in their homeland at the time of the annexation of crimea, the crimean tatar people, the turkic population, in principle, made up mainly the majority of the population of the state of russia did everything

possible to oust the ruling population from the peninsula, since the inhabitants of the crimea throughout almost the entire history of the khanate, with the exception of the last few years there, which were not even a generation long did not create felt part of ottoman education, the vast majority of crimean tatars left for the ottoman empire and became an organic part of ottoman education, and crimea and crimea remained a colonist for the russians, the occupiers who did everything possible to erase the memory of crimean statehood, compromise, and russian soldiers of bakhchisarai burned the library of the khanate palace as always in the history of this criminal maritime state, they burned books, they killed people, and then the state policy was connected with the displacement of the indigenous population, those

who remained on the territory of crimea and wanted to preserve it as their homeland were expelled by stalin during the second world war, including veterans of the second world war who served in the ranks of the red army, this is how they had a victorious patriotic war, and this is also a very important point that needs to be said when we discuss with you the situation surrounding putin's intentions regarding ukraine we saw the price quite

seriously when russian troops as you remember were on the territory of kyiv in all these crimes buchi in the bombing of mariupol in everything because it seems absolutely obvious to everyone who is currently following the russian-ukrainian war and we say what a terrible atrocity what a horror how can it be in the middle ages this is how it can be how we talk about it with you this is the real policy of

russia. the first is what moscow does with its actions when it bombards ukrainian cities. there are many more occupied territories, and in my

administration, of course, also in our administration, people are expelled from the territory of which the russian troops are trying to occupy, of course , on the assumption that the people will not return, but all this territory now looks like such a wild field, the russians simply they are destroying the cities and why is this a war to the last ukrainian that vladimir putin is talking about, it is obvious absolutely why because he needs the territory that he wants to seize the population's territory, it will either be found or it will not be found

for russia it is of no great importance because for russians the very model of the state is based on the territory and not on the population, well, look at all this pride that is heard all the time in all these russian state slogans, the krasnoyarsk region is equal to 4 france 4 france can fit in the territory of krasnoyarsk the edge and wreaths are somehow equal to turkey for the territory below. how many people live there? how is the territory developing? there

are no natural reserves. to overcome the problems that exist there with the climate, of course, siberia is not central russia and not ukraine , but precisely because it is not central russia and not ukraine, there is a large amount of minerals that could be used for the development of this region, unfortunately, nothing of this is happening and why is there such an attitude towards russian regions from the side of moscow, if they are interesting only from

the point of view of minerals and they do not think at all about the population that lives there why can't this also happen when it comes to ukraine well, we we see how the occupier treated crimea, all these conversations that it will be a fashionable resort actually ended with the fact that moscow's main goal is to turn crimea into such a large military base , luhansk region and donetsk region will also be turned into large military bases, do russia need them from the point of view of the economy no no necessary regarding the fate of ukrainian e-e mines, it is worth reminding that the conversation

about their closure was going on in moscow at the end of the 80s and the beginning of the 90s, the resolution on such closure had already been prepared by the secretariat of the central committee of the cpsu and was considered by the ministry of coal industry if the ussr had not broken up the soviet union, of course there was no coal basin in the donbass for 30 years, as there is none in the russian part of the donbass, that’s exactly how long it is, but for ukraine it was its own coal, and of course, just like its own coal that serves its own power plants , it was very useful for everyone who is in the country who is a part of their own economy, although we can clearly say that it is

one way or another, this coal was the same in our conditions , it is obviously competitive, this is a long conversation, but the russians definitely do not need it russians are a sausage in which it is much easier and cheaper to extract coal, and therefore all these coal mines will die quickly if russia gains a foothold in the donbass, also precisely with metallurgy, why should anyone show a face and even now, under sanctions pressure, is there any competition with some other enterprises , is it necessary to buy these new enterprises in the conditions that have developed in the russian economy , ukrainian coal will die, the industry will die ukrainian metallurgy in the occupied territory, and then the

question arises: what is the russian for the territory of donbas and for in order to create military bases there in order for this territory to be a springboard for an attack on another part of ukraine. and why attack another part of ukraine in order to become part of the territory with which measures can be threatened, i do not really believe that russia will fight with nato,

although the level of idiocy of the russian political leadership is difficult to predict to the end, but it is absolutely obvious that in such a situation any captured territory is primarily

a bridgehead, namely a bridgehead. understand what you will say here with these intentions , they will be carried out. and that russia will win this war, the only way to stop putin is to win this war with the russian army. and what will happen if we negotiate with putin, he will do

everything possible to transfer our country to the territory of the khanate of kazan's nestrakhansk that's all and this is an absolutely obvious thing that seems to me to be clear to everyone, this is the model by which russia

wanted to negotiate with us so that we recognize the russian status of the territories it occupied in the donetsk region of luhansk of kherson zaporizhzhya and then demilitarized according to patrusheva's recipe so that in a year or two, when russia will again gather a sufficient amount of resources and reserves, it will attack an already unarmed country and

occupy everything that remains, on which i am convinced that such unarmed countries will have a huge influence of the collaborators of which russia will be in such to generously finance the situation, because there will still be great disappointment among the population, disappointment in the own government, disappointment in the west, and in such a situation, of course, the issue of ukrainian statehood will be resolved quite quickly, so that no we need to hope for something that i don't need to

hope for. russia does not want victory by surrender. russia does not want peace. and war. russia does not want a loyal population in the territory from which, in the case of a profile, they will simply evict everyone who can be evicted. perhaps in different regions, the russians will act according to - different, taking into account all the schizophrenic ideas about ukrainian lands there, but this is also of no small importance, i will answer the questions that are good day which country do you think will become more democratic in the future, russia or china are there no such chances at all? every country has a chance to become democratic, but engage in historical predictions. who will become democratic faster, then not faster ?