[000:00:00;00] i said, like in the other direction, well, the earth, they said, is round, well, you don’t need to fly through russia, you need to fly there, not this way, but that way, and i didn’t understand, in this category, i thought that i should sit down on the plane, in frankfurt and get off in tokyo, they explained to me, no, you cannot fly over the airspace of russia, because you are subject to the introduction of sanctions by the russian federation, yes, and people against whom the introduction of sanctions cannot fly over the russian federation, because god knows what will happen to you if sa. so suddenly sits down in in connection with the emergency landing, you will not fly to any tokyo, you will stay in vladivostok for the rest of your life, and this was such an interesting recommendation for me, and then everything will change in that direction when they fly to the countries of the asia-pacific basin , and then it turned out that now planes don’t fly there at all, it was a huge story, the profit of aeroflot was huge, you can imagine

the tens of millions of dollars that russian airlines received for this, for this opportunity to fly over russia, of course, because kazakhstan became transit country, the transit routes have changed, the transit airports have changed, i recently saw a scoreboard, a photo of the moscow cherimetsev airport scoreboard, where two flights, ugh, belgrade and istanbul, hung like that forlornly, but it is interesting that these two flights were translated into only one language. what, guess, yes, well, russian, thank god, and the translation is definitely not english, i’m sure, why, well, listen, the choice, and, after all, the meeting of xijin pin and biden, expectations, you know, i would say, planes , in which it will take place, both at the public

level and at the preparatory level, as you are you see, i see two points where... the interests of the parties may coincide, the united states is talking about the need to restore the military consultation mechanism, in taiwan, after that the ministry of defense of the people's republic of china, which was headed by this famous minister, who has now disappeared somewhere and nobody does not know where he is, it decided to interrupt, li shanfu was called , interrupt, so that not only the middle name is like that, we can mention in our conversation, now in the united states there is a great desire to restore this mechanism and many in washington generally believes that the resignation of the minister of defense of the people's republic of china is ready to restore such a mechanism, and the united states needs such an information exchange mechanism in order to anticipate the possibility of an attack on taiwan, or to warn the chinese, let's say, realistically in military terms, what the consequences of this attack may be, this once the minister

of foreign affairs of the people's republic of china onei talks about the need to create a mechanism for the regulation of differences, this is the chinese regulation of differences, it is both the same thing and different things, that is, the americans want to exchange confidential military information with the chinese, the chinese want to talk with the americans about these problems that divide them, so as to always find tools for some mitigation of the situation. uh, that's the whole point of this summit, to create this kind of mutual mechanism that would not allow the powers to come to an agreement now, and that's what we're meeting for, because if we think that at some point the relationship between the united states and the people's republic of china may reach some, i would say critical

points then this point must be prevented, that's all, and it means that now it is clear that joseph biden and xi jinping are aware of this for some reasons of their own, there may be economically real opportunities for the coordination of interests, but all such summits, in your opinion, are temporary remedies and delaying the moment, is it a real possibility to systematically and periodically come to some kind of understanding, you know, the dictatorship of the democrats. i myself understood that i understood what an oxymoron she just said, but why could the soviet union, the west, create a model of peaceful coexistence, by and large the soviet union and the united states, back then, when china was a poor country that could not claim the role china claims today, created a mechanism for peaceful coexistence, at least from the time of joseph stalin's death until the emergence

of vladimir putin. ugh. it was a peaceful coexistence, first of the soviet union, and then of russia. certain mechanisms were created to discuss disagreements. solution mechanisms were created. difficult situations, such as, say, the status of west berlin, west berlin looked like this, i would say that the critical point of misunderstanding between the west and the east is how ukraine looks now. west berlin was surrounded from all sides by the soviet army, a wall was created there, there was a blockade, there was an airlift of the western allies, but the soviet union was discussing what the status of the west should be. and eventually came to the situation of a de facto free city from the point of view of international interests, or a federal state as part of the federal republic of germany not recognized by the soviet union. it ended without a war. and imagine that you live in west

berlin and all the time follow these negotiations and think, maybe the soviet army will dare? and they come to you, as president biden came to us, in the west berlin of joseph john kennedy. and ronald reagan, i'm a berliner and mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall, here's a great example of such coexistence, because on the other side stood the secretaries of the berlin district committee of the socialist united party of germany and they said the price is an instrument of internationalism, someone is still stupid there, but the war did not take place around the western, there may be many more such moments, zm was actually completely destroyed. precisely after the attack on ukraine, although, as we remember, the president of the united states, joseph biden, tried to support this mechanism until the last moment, until february 24 of last year, he was already trying to talk to putin all the time, now such

a model of the mechanism is being created, with the people 's republic of china, perhaps with china it may be more relevant, why, because so the politburo committee of the central committee party in china there is a central military council of the communist party of china, all these are collective leadership bodies, of course we realize that sidzempin has enormous power, personal, but the institutions work one way or another, the problem of modern russia is that the soviet institutions have been destroyed, and the post-soviet the institutions look like a mafia-like, inter-dubious, security of the russian federation, but the question arises, so what. the security councils can actually, we saw an open meeting when putin decided to attack the donetsk and luhansk regions of ukraine,

allegedly, when he recognized the independence of the so-called dnpr, he demanded from the members of the security council of the russian federation that they agree , it was naryshkin, it seems, naryshkin then stuttered and was terribly lost, and did not know, knew what to say, he was just the first and immediately moved to the second. naryshkin came out, it was, you know, a famous story, completely soviet, christening , about how standanter furs, otto von stirletz, came to the office of the rector of the sss, heinrich gimbler, to tell that someone was negotiating with, the allies, at that time, for version of this wonderful one the tapes, negotiations were authorized by the fsb redaner in rrysha. came out and instead of saying that i am for the recognition of the independence of the dpr, lpr, i said: i am for the war, no, their acceptance into russia, the war, that was, that was the third point, the first point is the recognition of independence, the second

point is war, and the third point is annexation, that's right, and he immediately missed two points somewhere, because maybe he considered them unimportant, or maybe he could send signals, putin saw. that the old man was playing some dangerous game, that's why he stuttered, because he wanted to appeal to the west through putin's head, this is what will happen, and he basically, we now understand that he said what they planned, just a few months earlier, that is, the plan was simple: first they enter, recognize independence, then enter, and then annex the east, showed no desire for a discussion. to the discussion of the situation, to the speeches, if we consider that this is a new politburo, then we have now read all the minutes of the meetings of the politburo of the central committee of the cpsu, where the people who had power, not that of the general

secretary of the central committee, but real power, they spoke and said, you know, i don't agree with this item on the agenda, leonid elich, it's the wrong approach, the right approach, as it seems to me, is my position. we must support the resolution introduced there by comrade rryabov, and the position is such that there is comrade ustinov's position, let 's vote, of course, as pra...' most members of the politburo supported the general secretary, but there were situations when the general secretary said that he has no position, well, by the way, this was also the famous story of the erection of soviet eyelashes with of czechoslovakia, the members of the politburo are divided in half, and then the general secretary, how does it all work, of course, the last word after the first person, but people can express their opinions about their positions, there was simply no such thing for discussions in the state duma of the russian federation, well, that means that there is no team in russia. leadership as such , a collective leadership that would be

consultative to, the führer, and the main task of these people, just to say what the führer likes, is that rex marshall henry goering told him that fuhrel, we cannot fight on two fronts, and he immediately said, listen, get out of here, you idiot, and everyone understood that there is no need to argue, when the head of any state becomes such a fuhrer and his employees cannot tell him the truth, ugh, this means that collapse is absolutely inevitable, that such a state is in an absolute frenzy, but you and i very often talk about the fact that little will change on the part of the russian federation in relation to ukraine, putin or someone else, in general it does not matter, as if the system will continue its existence if putin does not become, hypothetically, of course, but again, the system can continue its own.

existence, that putin will not happen, but there may not be putin, but a person is inclined or forced to create a model of collective leadership, then we get what happened in the soviet union, or in early russia, we get a meeting in which one with the russian federation ukraine, it would be better for us to seize their territories, and others will say, why should we risk it at all troops now, let's create some kind of energy dictate, let's try to negotiate with the europeans when they come, why do we need an escalation now, when we 'll get them anyway, in principle, for such a conversation to take place, have a pro-russian leadership in ukraine, there, it's absolutely real there was a development of events for us, but it did not happen because putin did not listen to anyone, these were the last moments, we even know the names of these people, russian politicians who said, they do not understand why it is necessary

to annex crimea, who said that it is necessary to use the east as a tool to overcome the consequences of the maidan, these people were all marginalized and they are gone, we know that these people were, we know their names, we know that they have lost putin's trust, from this moment on , no one offers putin alternative options, again still, i repeat, this is one of those serious problems. for the reason that politics is, as a rule , in any situation, in a democratic, in a self-critical one, it is always a competition of alternative options, you should have two approaches on the table, preferably four, and you have choose optimally and listen to different people, kill them with a rocket or with a cannon, well, we were lucky to a certain extent with that, because if, if they discussed options, they could find options.

much more dangerous, as strange as it sounds, than, well, no, well, clearly, they are simply not crimea, and not crimea and not donbas, but the trojan horse, the government of national agreement after the maidan, once in 2002, not the blitzkrieg, the troops that should you have disembarked in gostomel and paraded with columns from belarus, but the real army, which would would capture kyiv simply by its numbers, or did not capture kyiv, but simply stood near kyiv for several months in a row, i am not sure that it, that any army can capture millions of cities, we know this from the lebanon war, from the israeli army near the walls of beirut, it's another story, but in any case it was a much greater danger, but when you lose your seat, even if you are aware of the situation, we now know very well a person who was aware of the situation in principle, let's say 2022 year, we know the name of this person, it is dmytro kozak,

well, where is he, you at all. once they heard about what dmitry kozak was doing, he is the deputy head of the administration of the president of russia, he simply disappeared from public space, and i can give many such examples, but in the 14th year, i would say that such an example was mykhailo zurabov, ugh, the ambassador of russia to ukraine in 22nd year was dmytro kozak, of course they did not advertise their views, but they at least tried to convey to putin, being his absolutely loyal comrades. that there may be an alternative approach to the solution problems, problem solving, desire, both wanted to take ukraine for themselves, but otherwise, that's all, who will? to risk one's future, that's the whole story, but at least a little typical for us, that's why i keep saying that we need a government of national security, or some kind of military cabinet, in which the president of ukraine volodymyr zelenskyi would be next to petro poroshenko , or with yulia tymoshenko or with some other politicians from

the national-democratic camp, not because i have sympathy for anyone in particular, because that i want zelensky to have alternative plans, listen, you are simply delighted with your abilities, mr. president, you are a real leader, a moral leader of the people, they said, you know, maybe, mr. president, there is a different approach to this story, here we go let's look at it, you can go this way, or you can go that way, these may be wrong positions, we read, by the way, we read the transcript of the meeting of the national security council in 2013, when performing... the duties of the president of ukraine , oleksandrchynov also made decisions thoughts were, but performing the duties of the president at least he could rely on different opinions. when a politician relies on only one opinion of his own, and those around him do everything possible simply to strengthen this opinion with their own, not positions, but imitation of positions, this leads

to defeat, it should not be assumed that this can lead to victory at all, the only thing , that when we meet with authoritarian competition. the one who wins here , relying on their own ideas about the game, no one can say, you know, you can rearrange this figure here, when behind the back, the contender for the champion, the title of champion in the world of chess, there are three grandmasters, two of whom were already champions, then they can offer him options for moves, he will still move, but he knows that it is possible this way, and it is possible that way, and on the other side stands: the other is the same or candidate, let's say this, mother of god, i know, this is partly a very advantageous position, not to let anyone in, so that no one is heard, and then say, but i didn't know , i wasn't told, i didn't have this information, well, putin he does so often, the truth is, he starts

spying on someone all the time, but what is this, why not reported because you don't allow alternative opinions to approach enough, that's it. the russian tradition of government, we need this, if the president of ukraine had an expanded, let's say, composition of the national security council, or some narrow military cabinet, as in israel , with the participation of politicians from various political parties, it would not only add legitimacy to the government, but also which she obviously needs now, it would add opportunities for variable politics, not variable politics is not politics, ugh, that's all. her latest conclusion, probably on this topic, conveys exactly that the military leadership in our country, in connection with this, this week there were a lot of informational insinuations about, well, you know, such a confrontation between politicians and the military on the mountain, but less so, it concerns only the war, i don't think that someone

from our military gives some political advice, but i think that now the war is the most important thing, because again, what war is, one way or another, is a reflection of those political ones. processes that will take place after the war, but all this is connected by infectious agents, so i am honest i don't think that the consultations about the war are any kind of consultations outside of the political field, given that now ukrainian politics is a war and there is, but there is still a question, i didn't see, frankly, in all these discussions about what to call the current situation of some major disagreements between the president and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces of ukraine. uhu, well, because, the only thing, i quote dzhelensky, he said that there is no sinister corner, but if you read these thoughts in detail, then it is only about the fact that zaluzhno does not say that we are in a blind corner, he says that he that there is a way out, if there is no way out of the deadlock, he says that positional war is a deadlock, we need to turn it into

maneuverability, because positional war cannot be the state of the situation forever, if it turns into a permanent one. the situation that the transformation of this war into a maneuverable one, that the prescription of the scumbag worked, we don't know yet, we only have the prescription, you see, it 's like medicine, you are prescribed medicine, you eventually get it, it could be some very rare medicine, or expensive medicine, trying to buy money, and then you them you take and do not recover, you need new medicines, well, at least you need them, but you still do not understand the recipe, the recipe - not yet recovery, it is only a recipe, who would say that there is some serious conflict between the political and military management, the only thing that, of course,

i do not consider. that political figures, that officials should advise the military, to say something, what not to say, is wrong, i generally believe that it is wrong not even because the officials do not have to advise the military, but because there is no political confrontations in the leadership, if you could discuss all this, within the framework of the institution of discussions, the presence of the president of the country, you would not have the need to exchange positions through: if you exchange positions through the media, you thus admit that your own apparatus lacks a platform for discussion, and it is very dangerous for you yourselves, and finally , i cannot but remember what is happening now in poland, a country that has the reputation of our unconditional, which must be decided, as regards our path and going to the european union, then poland has its own demand, this is exgumadziksgu. the poles, as they say, volhynia is different, we have a position on the volhynia tragedy, let me remind you, but it is very strange to feel that poland is now in principle on

the same page as hungary, even somewhere, regarding our accession to the eu in the future. in addition, we have a blockade on the border , the carriers are now feverish, but there are obviously some deeper problems, well, internally in poland, this polish situation is political, they are in the process of forming a coalition government, there are already signed actually an agreement, what does it mean, what is generally happening in our neighbors, how does it affect relations? well, first of all, let's congratulate poland on today's independence day, this is the most important thing that i want to say, because every day of poland's independence is a triumph of the people who defended their freedom in the fight against this holiday, and we wish that there will never be a break in the polish statehood, but i have to say that i do not think that the position that we are talking about the position of poland regarding the exhumation of european integration there is a position official

, deputy minister of foreign affairs of poland, a few weeks will pass and this person will not work in the ministry of foreign affairs, because he is a toxic person who, in my opinion, has no place in european diplomacy, this person appeared in the ministry of foreign affairs of poland's affairs, to create with the two main partners of poland in europe, with germany and with ukraine, because ukraine had difficult relations from the beginning. war, this once again speaks of the diplomatic fiasco of the polish right and their entire camp, politicians, deputies, diplomats, experts, these people can clearly know that they have experienced an absolute diplomatic fiasco, and their activities, which yaroslav kaczynski did not tell about, did not benefit the polish people and the voters, was clearly and clearly signed. now regarding the relationship, of course all these problems will remain. under any polish government , because there are national interests, there are interests of agricultural producers, you know how all european countries defended their

interests when poland joined the european union, there are interests, carriers, uh, there are interests related to the policy of national memory, we may have interests, should be resolved in such a way that it contributes to the strengthening, and not to the deterioration , of our bilateral relations and our european integration, because our european integration is by and large... in favor of poland. poland should be interested in our european integration, as i have always said, for one simple reason: