why are so many deputies of the state duma going there, but not for everyone at all, of course, they discovered for themselves that this is the people i serve. everything is very clear there. here you start talking, you look and all sorts of smart ones, everything is something here , just like that, you just want it. they don't understand that no one will look for any good russians. the west sets the task of our total destruction. we will never be destroyed. under no circumstances, no matter what we do, no matter what we say, and no matter when would not succumb, yes, and when there are respected people whom i have known for many years, they suddenly say so through the lip of a giggle, but i have acquaintances who would go on mobilization. no, i have no fools around. so this is what i was talking about, so how can a person be allowed? the father, whom he recalled for his

communist ideas, suffered terribly, he was terribly tortured. that is, it is up to what it takes, yes, literally a minute. i was in my constituency. this is a small region of tatarstan. i ask how many mobilized people you have and ask questions. you know broke. i say, how did your mobilization go, and he looks at me the head of the district and does not understand what i'm asking about. i meant maybe there were some problems there. someone may have declined. he didn't understand. he says, well, as my grade climbed , the wives were seen off, everyone was proud together. i didn't even understand my question. it is because the question is something moscow generally understand, and there in this it is the outback. he does not understand this issue, no one will litter in the donbass, where almost everyone who could hold a weapon fell under mobilization, because there is the concept of homeland. real advertisements

. we'll take care of it. it will be the honest detective. it's always interesting how it all starts. now everyone will see the manufacturers of

good things want and but the best thing to check. you know, to talk about the rules, it's interesting how everything closes, the americans demand peace according to the rules. oleg viktorovich protests against the rules. well, in fact, after all, there are no rules, everything seems to be about this. they said there is one rule against which we broke up and, in principle, that's all the rest

will be determined by the success of this uprising well , as far as yes, not a single moment when the victory comes. yes, but how consistently we will win in the process, because, of course, this is a process, because our enemy, of course, is not ukraine at all . here, and washington, and it is clear that this confrontation is not only long. well, an incredibly difficult game. that's uh, incredibly complicated uh. on the political strategy that our state needs in all these actions, because, well, the american hegemons, he is the hegemon because he took this height. he really captured her , you know, and this is not an invented thing, so to speak. and this means that he has enough washing power, well, in order to first capture and that's 30 years at the very least. yes with losses on

hold. well , 30 years have passed since the violation of the soviet union, so, of course, there is no peace according to the rules, the americans are fighting for the fact that they have the only right. the most important thing is to give orders to everyone. and everyone else has an important duty to obey, and this is the only rule of the world in which america going to live on, because if this world changes, she can't, well, the way she is, well, she laid her own projects, how did she develop? where did it end up in the 20th century? here for a long time you can say why, but in this form she cannot be a creature. and that's my only rule. we challenged refused to carry out the order on february 24 in open public. therefore, everything else will be only a consequence and a matter of speed. well, how, how are we going to change

internally, how are we going to change externally? in sense there of possible our alliances of support of interaction with other countries. it is not by chance that i say that this is a matter of serious politics and serious maneuvers, because we understand that we need africa and saudi arabia and india with china and latin america , not in the sense of a banal cry give us an ally. and in the sense that well, all the actions or inactions that these countries will perform will be either harmful or beneficial to us. these are also quite obvious iranians. well, iran is everywhere, i did not list them all. yes, i understand we are talking there, well there is such a term appeared and the west which i do not really like, but uh, i would say strange most. yes, the country is not a golden billion. everything here can be different about an aggressive amount. yes? well, that's

where we're going, okay, i won't. yes, you can slip here, right? so. uh, you know, i’ll only say two words about the constitution, but volodya and i are both for ideology and, probably, one of the first publicly. they started talking about it, but not, as i understand it, we disagree a little, because that i, for one, believe that we have an article that speaks in the country. yes, the country has experience, there must be a common obligatory ideology, we do not even disagree and freedom. yes , we don’t well, we don’t need this, because we shouldn’t be, and we don’t need an article that says that it shouldn’t be in the country, but you understand, even if there is this article, which is difficult to change, again we we argue here. i believe that nothing prevents us from working. we need dialogue. and even this article does not interfere, because the article prohibits one entity. any lawyer will tell you that.

common obligatory for all citizens of the country a single ideology. this entity is prohibited by the country. and that we have someone going to write a book and say, believe everything, or something, it will be worse than well, believe in the constitution of what solovyov just said so ? well, here, we don't want that , really, and that means a problem. you are not in this article. although it may be that we do not like it, it is not in it, but in the ideology itself. you see , when asked who we are from where and where we are going, and not even in the constitution as a whole, and not even in the constitution as a whole, this is me at this level. yes, now you can understand lower and lower, not in the constitution. so you say to ban entry. no need. you know why, because here's a comrade like his smolina yes, here's a criminal case for an act of conformity. opened call in, dear, friend, whatever you want, and if there is no

criminal case, look, look. look, you are the legislator. now work as legislators on the careful study and composition of crimes legislated. you understand that there is no law to develop the elements of crimes in an appropriate way. sorry not what it punishes. if not, the corpus delicti. we live in a legal state. i will insist on it. because if there is a corpus delicti, there is something to punish, and if there is no corpus delicti, then there is nothing to prove public ebasstvo to condemn, as if sometimes we shout here, well, yes, please. well, well , you understand, at the same time, that there are no crimes, or there is one question, first the investigatory committee, and then the court. right. we will not doubt this order of things, therefore, if there is a crime

opened. i say, why don't you guys stop by ? are you waiting here? and no one will go anywhere, because there is a corpus delicti. and if the vessel consists, and he will be condemned, as they say in professional language. here is something there, as it were, well, another option, like as a punishment, well , implement it, but this is the next option. well, away from all this procedure of the rule of law . it is impossible in any case. that's what i wanted to say about this discussion here. and the third thing you know about the rules. i read this article today with such pleasure. patrushev, i was really happy. you understand this is correct. once the secretary of homeland security. well, e wrote i published. in general, there is no talk of rules . you see, that's right. clearly said. we

proceed from the fact that we are power in russia, we proceed from the fact that all power in the world's so-called democracies is the diplomacy of international actions. we will now proceed from this. we know this, second. we proceed from the premise that the viewers last name is worth enough a small group of powerful people who manipulate everything including. and we will proceed from this in the future, by the way, here is a three-barrel in the fields, if we talk about the notorious decision-making centers. it’s not even a biden, that it’s not a biden that is a decision -making center, but those we have listed, we understand that they do it and , accordingly, if we deal with

decision-making centers, but it will be necessary to deal with these decision-making centers. with what others? this is only a small part of what is described there, honestly frankly. i'll tell you honestly . here, if here is a game by the rules you me excuse me take it and turn the table. this is what patrushev did, of course, yes, he said publicly. well, we know what we are dealing with hence all the concepts of negotiations. and with whom. well , maybe you will send someone who is still sitting there for negotiations, or you will send bidens to us , not to mention ozelensky. therefore, this situation shows that, in principle, all the rules are broken to the main principle, we refuse to obey, and we are going to talk about the new world only with those. who will prove here is the basic principle that we will stick, the rest is all flowers or

bows from my point of view, sometimes very annoying, but sometimes very annoying, but i 'll tell you honestly. i was in donetsk for 5 days from december 30 to 4, including. so to say, i met the new year here with old acquaintances and fighters whom i had not met before, by the way, here, uh, i’ll say. here it is the battalions of four digits one of 35 34. these are all those who were mobilized, my countrymen were mobilized on the twenty-fourth there on the twenty-fifth twenty-e, on the sixth of february, well, a little earlier. here they, in principle, have already gone through everything, although it was fair intentions that these would be troops in the plans, so it was that these would be second-echelon troops that should. well, uh fill the empty spaces. well, they had to go through kherson and even storm in mariupol, and now they are together there. behind sparta, mobilized

fighters work nearby. well, these are completely different people. i saw them then, then i was 5 days from the eighteenth to the 23rd there and to us points. well, not personally with them, and even those who are now. these are completely different people, and no one asked me. and the tugboat about all these characters, and whom we are here, kind of worried about, they don't care at all. absolutely, because they care when the orders come. here, so that they have just enough to fulfill this order and they intend to fulfill it. everything else they don't care about. in general, that's what's going on there , who staged what performance or did not stage it? because they have a debt that people long. and here the last, probably, what we will come to is obliged to come to the reorganization of ourselves sooner or later quickly this it will be in a few years, in five or 10 years.

i would like it to be faster. we must change radically the legal e, the legal structure of our sun, because people should have political rights, long people serving responsibility in exchange for these wires in their lives. they have special rights in relation to us, by the way, no, not to mention payments or about the court there is some kind of assistance or something else, they have no other rights compared to us, but they have an incredible duty of power, from which there is no everyone doesn't. we each give our lives don't you understand retreat from this, and die. they are looking at it there. it's like a duty and they know it. they are what i just said, they

do not speak directly in text. yes , it’s clear that this is a conversation, uh, from which my reconstruction follows incredibly modest people no one there to say so, well, finish or there or start, on the contrary, i don’t know, uh, we must uh in the reorganization of our society the law of the state by a radical revision of the correlation rightful duties of a citizen. this is it, it's not. well, this, if we do this, it will be our complete liberation from the world of consumer ideology. financial capitalism and the hegemony of those behind the scenes, because if the right to power is funded by unlimited duty. i'll look at those who try to stand behind them and pull the string. this, in principle, makes the system of karabas-barabasov

policy management impossible, in principle, makes it impossible, and therefore we must definitely come to this. and say it's all over. we will really have a society in which there will be a significant part of the people, who are entitled to ask, of course. and what are you talking about? and they can be at the same time they are without any pathos, it will be asked. and by the way, well, here we are absolutely in solidarity with dima, there is no need to feel sorry for these people and awards. because they are now in a very strange position, they began to fight before they became russia and before they became russian citizens, it was said that they were wounded two or three times, that is, do not spare state awards for them, attention, on whom it depends on mobilized since february in the republics

battalions and regiments. they will now change the numbers. they'll be pouring in now, of course. it will already be fully armed forces, but the 10 months that i have not passed require status. yes, the fathers and their deeds demand from our state. and i'm here in public. i ask you to pay attention to those mobilized in the donetsk and lugansk republics and the part that is still exclusively made up of them. and i would also like to address from a high rostrum so that we have such guests. heroes of the russian country, but they are the same people. i think it's posthumous, yes. well, that is, there are a lot of guys, givi, that is, well,

legends, that is. they are heroes anyway, but it is very important for their families and in general it is important for donbass in order for this status to be supported by big russia, they died for russia. of course they died for russia. so they fought in the fourteenth year. and many such people should not be spared rewards. it's just not necessary. at first, if possible, i would like to respond to dmitry's words, because i absolutely agree with him and even wanted to supplement. it seems to me that he will agree that in order to destroy even the best ideology in our country, which we suddenly say here, we will develop by joint efforts. here, in order to begin the process of his funeral, it will be necessary to establish it just formally by our people. they immediately begin to reject her. secondly, as soon as she becomes. here is formally, necessarily something required. it

will cease to carry in itself in reality, and in fact we can have absolute folk art in this in terms of there is a very large competitive advantage, which lies in the fact that the bearers of any values, not only here, in general, everywhere in any society. the bearer of value is a person. these values ​​do not exist in the abstract institutions and do not exist on their own. you can take today the entire population of france to load on a ship somewhere to take away and instead of it. let's bring, let's say, the entire population of tunisia to settle there and the french laws, social political institutions, they will act in the same way as they act before, because will. well, yes, nevertheless, the example of the state of liberia in africa yes, why these completely different institutions will be completely different mechanisms, because the bearers of values ​​are people and our people are such stable persistent bearers of their traditional values. with over the past 30 years, all the efforts that have been made are

tremendous efforts. i'm not sure that there is another country, in principle, in terms of the scale of efforts. here is what has been done with regard to ukraine over these 30 years in order to turn it into anti-russia, in order to turn it into what it was possible to turn most of the population of ukraine into, the same efforts were made in relation to russia, our population resisted and, in general, was able to turn away. this is to such an extent that from the first day of the special military operation, 90 percent or more of the population of our country support it. this military operation would have been impossible, if in 30 years, it would have been possible to break them over the knee with this globalist and liberal propaganda. now, as for uh, oleg's publication viktorovich which i really liked very interesting indeed. i absolutely agree with her. and in fact, science gives us answers to questions about why. so why did we come to this and our american opponents, in general, to be honest, they are acting right by the book. they now open

the instruction and move according to this instruction. there is a game theory. this is basically a mathematical theory, but it has become very popular in the field of international relations as well. here she explains to us, in principle, how analyze the strategy of your opponent's behavior and when it comes to the strategy of this behavior. there is such a famous author, one of the authors of this theory, tom shering. he says, here, if you want to deprive your opponent of jenny's freedom and freedom as much as possible , the first thing to do is to put him in your boat, here's the first thing to do, drag him into your boat, and make sure that he is sure that this gives he has a strategic advantage, so when we drag the wto various international the organization says, yes. that's good for you, and you explain it with that. we are now thanks to this, as soon as you got into the boat for you the idea is to turn this boat over with your opponent. it's already getting so-so, because you yourself are in this boat, the second, what needs to be done? how here, too, the little one is burning

is to inspire you that i will observe my duties towards you. it's just that it's not being discussed. for me. this is the holy of holies. i will never break my obligations. then you are interested in never deviating from that the pattern that i have already imposed on you. well, in principle, when we are discussing this, we can trace the path that we took in trying to integrate into the global space, there and so on. could learn so that nevertheless we were sitting in this one boat already there. i don't know, would sail somewhere together and would exist like that. the same theory explains to us mathematically that there could not be such an example with two criminals who are caught by the police and interrogated at the same time. we have legal today. eh, such a kamba appeared needed transfer they are interrogated in parallel and the key is that if one of them testifies against the other, and the other does not testify against him

, then they let him go, they give him 10 years, if both remain silent, then they get 2 years, if both give a friend testify against each other, most likely they testify against each other, then they get 2 years. and if , respectively, both will be silent, they get six months, and at the mathematical level it is proved that both will testify against each other, there is no scenario in which they will make a choice, in which they will either keep silent, or give, there is no evidence, so there was a question. when our opponents start against us there, they testify here, they start aggression against us here, the question was only the timing of a mathematically different scenario. it just couldn't be here, which is very important in this theory. here its criticism shows us one important thing, which we often also released and did not take into account the main essence of the criticism of this theory in that it all the time comes from the rational behavior of both parties. while it also exists in international relations

a scenario where non-trading economic relations are, uh, a motivating factor for making certain decisions. let's say in the case of the europeans. we see there is another case there, which, if i'm not mistaken, is thirst for cucumbers. uh, cited as an example it is called deer hunting, when two hunters, they can both hunt one deer together to drag it. or maybe he hunts one hare alone, in principle, he will pull out one hare, well, a deer is more profitable together and, as a rule, proceeds from the fact that it’s okay, let me be badly. but here it will be even worse for him. why is this not what europeans do, in principle, it would be possible to hunt deer together, but i would rather let the deer go, because i am 100% sure that it will be worse for you than for me. although we could cooperate here.

gennady petrovich or simply gena is in the gardener of the arboretum, but he cannot talk, small business is always stormy, so we are big. if you stick your nose into this apartment again, then your big business will feed. so it won't seem like much.

continuation of the conversation in the new issues of our podcasts, and in order not to miss anything, subscribe, listen and watch on the video platform, watch the first podcasts that we watch

now to the one from the article that dmitry spoke by the way, our secretary of security. if there is nothing to this board, here is there a hypothetical alternative scenario in which we do not turn the board over and nevertheless achieve, it does not succeed, because the only thing that i would like to correct several times was said that we are playing a sharper, playing when when you play a card sharper, you have the rules of the game for both of you. known. they are simply the same.