so it would not be quiet to look, she's on the side. and there she is. bullfinches in this sense, i see, here at home, it seems that i took something there, well, at least we will stop letting their cars through, although i ask what did i think before, in general, here we are all the time in everything, as if opa here is what we are used to think all this all this has been going on for the last almost 10 years there. this is the growth of this polish ambition, which look what they say about us.

but this is unbearable. it is they who must understand that in general they must understand that the russian people are interrupted with them any kind of relationship at all until they restore all the monuments that they have destroyed relationships ever. to such an extent, we will manage, without poland there is absolutely no. well, that's just outrageous. so he couldn't help but tell me. it's just that it cut it, of course, it also applies to the fact that in the baltics with our memory, and all the same, our reaction is somehow so sluggish. here's a sluggish one, there's no such thing. well, let andrey viktorovich out, let him tell him, you see, yes, here, well, there must be some kind of powerful response in this sense. let it be excessive. there

is no need to be ashamed of words here. absolutely not necessary. they must understand this, and i assure you that if you talk to them like that, they will begin to understand it. we also know a lot about the poles, what do we know about them. how do they say mountains and about everything that is? there was never any pole resistance. and during the second world war, there was actually no resistance. and by the way, during the soviet period, what them there partisan detachments that the soviet union gave them, as they say, what they had to say with figs in their pocket, that 's all that was, what else i want to say. this is the moment, i hear about it all the time. here's the counter attack. i don't know, maybe i'm wrong. well, i have a feeling that this is some part of the information war that is being waged from ukraine, in principle,

i already said about six months ago. in my opinion. they won't be offensive, they won't really need it, but look what they are achieve here is the infinite here with this buddirovanie. they keep us under pressure all the time. and i look even here you read this. there, even our military is some kind of this tension. this is where they start coming. right here. well, i mean, they rip. why don't we use this method? why don't we declare that we will attack? now we'll take it, kiev . now we'll hit kharkov. well, i don't hear it. and nikolaevna well, you understand, just kherson frees this, then you need to unnerve the enemy. in this sense, they my opinion, they are in my opinion quite. the body uses this part, which is, in general, new, of course, in history. here is the information war. and that's in my opinion. here

are all their declarations about the offensive. tomorrow we are advancing here, the day after tomorrow we are advancing here. here we are, why don't we use it? why do we never announce that we can even collect, and we are not going to. well , you need to wake it up all the time, in my opinion. as they say, scare the enemy all the time to keep him in suspense. here we are now let's hit it. here we are now here. we will do it. let's do the fifth one. here they are in this sense, creatine does not work. they they all the time, uh, everything, time, come up with something boldly. i must say it works, but this is audacity. in my opinion. it's missing. maybe this is exactly what i had in mind, as if saying that it is not enough. here. andrey viktorovich, he is a daring person, such people. yes, yes, yes, what is insolence? yes, at least it’s good, insolence is a concentrated true expression without a shadow, hypocrisy, absolutely everything is absolutely correct. it

seems to me that there is some kind of e in this sense. in this sense, somehow in the information struggle of russia, somehow we are losing this one here all the time there are offensives and so on and so forth, so it seemed to me that there would still be some kind of group , which develops, or what? these things , somehow, it's all there on the other side , these informational ones, including, by the way, drone attacks are being developed clearly, this is all to a large extent, but it works like this. we fucked up, but we don't see it. when we need to promote it, when we need to show it, then it must somehow be here, because if you show it, we will designate the objects that

showed it to you, but we don’t need it. well, you know, that's what we fucked up there, yes, we fucked up and we would know the results, but if we publish something, we will raise those people who have been information for a long time. good, then. you highlight let other places there like so as not to not shine those people who, well, well, let's say that they already have the tenth double zelensky as president. yes, well, it is necessary, by the way, the soviet union in its heyday. he wasn't afraid. this is how he was not afraid to throw in e information that does not correspond to reality, but at the same time discredited his opponents. he was not afraid, he was not afraid to play against the rules, in general, a great day. well, i just think that this is not a lieutenant general, only ours, that is , a different front of work, a different task, but colleagues could from other departments. i

mean, this is part of this information war, which, so to speak, which in this in a new sense, probably, the quality of modern warfare in general, so it would seem to me that it was important, that's the last thing. what i would like to say, this is in principle. in my opinion, we still have to deal with culture. sorry for being so peaceful, as it were, but in general. for 30 years, the russian state did not, in fact, deal with culture, that is , it was engaged in terms of financing culture, but there were no tasks for real cultures . well, i guess it seems to me that this is wrong in many ways. the problems that we today we see the education of our youth us. we actually saved it. all of

us present here actually came out of soviet culture. in general, we have preserved this one, no matter how we say it, 30 years of culture is laid in youth. here we still carry that charge in ourselves, so we have a completely different attitude to what is happening in many respects, but i look at the youth. she she is lost in her no. as they say, and this is this rod on which we stand, and those who remained, who remained have the same, by the way, he also came to a significant extent from soviet culture they still watch soviet films they tell, grandparents, so to speak, from here still goes, but if culture by itself cannot be there should be some kind of task in it. it must serve some purpose. in this sense, it seems to me that we still need to deal with it, ah,

for the last year we have, in general, let it all go by itself. and when we speak, of course, the president says that we must not cancel. there, western culture is certainly in western culture there are a lot of achievements, although modern western culture. in my opinion it is not of such value. as western culture represented it, it was classical, so a lot of things must be denied. comrade lieutenant general during a speech there at the moment one said speaking. uh, i hope henry doesn't get offended. i perceive this as a very subtle sense of humor, er, comrade lieutenant general, because it is difficult to find points on which we would differ in views there and i want to agree with everything he said, but briefly, if possible, i will return to such an essential discussion of the problem related to the concept of the use of nuclear weapons. since i am not a military specialist.

i will not touch on nuclear weapons themselves , but simply about things related to theory and definition, which are given, firstly, if we discuss, that's only within the framework of the text that exists. well, because the question is important, in fact it is a question of general perception of what a special operation war is. what is the scale of the threats that we face in my opinion, they claim that this is the official position. it's just my point of view that if strikes are made on the territory of the russian federation by a coalition, because strikes can be delivered to ukraine but with the supply of the training that is carried out by western countries, therefore they are a single coalition, a coalition that, as its final the goal is, firstly , the overthrow of the constitutional government in the russian federation, this is a threat to the constitutional order, which defines russia as a democratic constitutional state with the equality of law, if

these coalitions set as a task to take away from russia those territories that , in accordance with the constitution of the russian federation , namely the donetsk region there lugansk kherson zaporozhye and crimea an integral part of the russian federation is the goal of this aggression, then these regions are listed in our constitution and russia, as a legal reality , is a federation that includes these subjects, and if they are not part of russia or they try to take them away from russia by force, then this, of course, a threat to the existence of russia in the form in which it is, but the question is, maybe in another. well, even if we perceive that this is what is meant there, this is only the version that if now the last step is already suffocating for him there, and we, shaking our hands , press this button there. well, if such a position, let's change the concept. this is

the concept of nuclear weapons. we do not exist in order to comply with this concept, this concept exists in order to reflect our national interest. and if they demand to be reconsidered, let's reconsider. this is not this is not eh. the canonical gospels that were given to us from er, means the apostles, and we can’t take them at all to revise the change, if necessary, it means the manual on nuclear weapons, but i think yes, and what was written on the other hand, therefore, i think that how would for this need to be guided it may well go changes to make. and in general, i'll just say my attitude to the issue again. i'm not a military and not a military expert but make out nuclear weapons. here is something that can only be used in some kind of humiliated state, when everything is already there for just a little more and collapse. it's like we

're playing against ourselves. it's like being a master of sports of international class in boxing, someone provokes you to a fight, they say, but we don't fight with our fists. okay , anything but hands like that, why do we have nuclear weapons here? no, that we developed it, for what, so that only with the americans? that's why you need my opinion. no need to put its use in such status, that if we use it someday it will know that all the shame is over there and all that. now , with regard to these attacks on our territory as a whole. yes, it is clear on the one hand, that the ukrainians, as usual. we repeat this many times, it will not be superfluous, probably, to repeat that there is no military task. they cannot solve such strikes by drones on the territory of russia. it is obvious. in this case, in addition to the traditional e- terrorist nature, which aims to intimidate the population of russia and solve political problems. there is also

, apparently, an informational need to greatly interrupt the shame that the leadership of ukraine faced in connection with the loss of artemovsk, and to interrupt them. this is necessary not only in the russian information space. which, well, should now be discussing the heroism of our soldiers, who managed. uh, it means to take this city by storm after long and very fierce battles, but there is still a task to interrupt this thesis in the western press, which every time the ukrainians start to give in something. she is standing thesis, what from what? we then support. why finance then? why give something, and so the thesis at least goes aside that already on the territory of moscow there are some kind of clashes, therefore, completely. it’s clear why this is needed, well, our residents and , uh, the trade union streets of leninsky prospekt, to be honest, it’s not hot or cold from why ukrainians do this to the residents of kursk here kursk there bryansk them in general and their

goal-setting. it doesn't matter if they are not safe and i just want to note my point that these steps the ukrainians are greatly expanding the goal-setting of the special war operation. let me remind you that the first days the president spoke about the liberation of the territory of the donetsk people's republic of the luhansk people's republic of the demilitarization of the identification of ukraine well, in general, today we see that there is a direct threat to the russian federation because of this region from that region. this means that the goals are completely different, and it means that we must understand that until , say, until kharkiv is part of the russian federation, people will not be able to live in bryansk in peace. this is already obvious and everything. and further and it is clear what will happen, kharkov is in our composition. so it will be necessary to take the new frontier in order to at least feel like a teapot, or be safe. this seems to me to be understood. now as for the statements at once. america what we know about

the americans in the west completely overlooked east asia, they all experienced a very serious psychological trauma. this is colonism, you can say, and everyone has their own culture. everyone has their own beautiful kitchen. nature. over the past week, after these strikes , a number of statements were also made.

again, they are imposing a rather artificial agenda on us so that we try to understand the shades of aggression that exist in our attitude, and now the americans say that we do not want the british to openly use weapons against russia. we really want to use this weapon, but there is enough to clear between the lines, at least to reach the next line to look at their actions. well, the most basic question. if you don't want to weapons were used against our territory, why the hell are you giving them to ukrainians in general, first of all, you understand? who are you giving it to? to what regime do you give a political conclusion, secondly, and why else is it needed, if it has such a range that it can reach our territory? this is the first, second how these phrases sound in full, because they are often taken out of context. here, let's say. well, he says, we do not encourage strikes against russian territory with weapons that we supply from the west. but when further, means continuation, but when the ukrainians have it, it already belongs to them. so what if you don't encourage it? well,

obviously you see, they strike, you deliver it nonetheless. e, of course, much more such a brazen outspoken position. for the british, just here, the head of mead clairlie said the following. he says ukraine has the right to project power into russian territory in order to prevent power from being projected onto itself. so, in this point of view. uh, if uh we understand what that means, foreign minister, actually replaces the international law of the topic with the rules that they have been talking about for a long time trying to impose on us and it is obvious that this rule in order to prevent the projection of ukraine's force on the territory of the russian federation, we must project our force

on the territory of poland, the czech republic of many states, where there are warehouses of many states, from where logistics are delivered weapons of many states, where the military and mercenaries are trained, who then fight with russia and carry out acts of aggression against our territory, exactly the same logic, if we project ourselves there. then we will not allow the projection of force on us, which means that, according to this logic, you want us to directly begin to act, as we have been talking in this studio for a very long time. and if you really want to understand their position. here's how they see it. i thought as much as possible, succinctly, clearly and understandably it was formulated head of the committee on foreign affairs of the lower house of the parliament of poland vogel, who said the following. he says a cheaper way to contain russia, he said there to defeat russia, that it’s some kind of fantasies and various dreams, well, a cheaper

way to contain russia with with such a small percentage of poland’s gdp , it’s impossible to imagine without the presence of americans on earth, and this is in reality reflects their position. why my point? why are they there , little by little, delivering to them, then this, then they begin to decide. it is clear at first, they are probing the soil. to understand what we will accept there, what we will not accept, but plus , due to this, they lengthen the conflict with them. this is extremely beneficial in the end. i want two sentences. angeli duda complete his speech. the first is how terrible things were discussed here in order to cheer up our citizens a little, who are watching us at a late hour andrzej duda said that when he took away a tank from polish soldiers to give it to ukrainians, they cried and they asked if there would be another one or if that was it , the last tanks were taken from them. i don’t know what these phrases are and what goal she

sets before herself to inspire citizens more so that the last tank is taken away from the polish soldiers and now they have to drive. they imitate it there, i don’t know something else. and the last thing he said, and with that i agree. i wholeheartedly support him in this. he said that he wants to remind the french that the russians were in paris in 1812 after the aggression of napoleon after the aggression in the twelfth year, and he wants to remind the germans that the russians were in berlin in 1945. i think this is very correct, and they should remember this every day before they go to bed. and when they wake up in the morning, they should not forget about it. let the lord. duda, too , does not forget about this, nikolai nikolaevich yes , for some reason, when they talk about polish leadership and various historical events. they probably will never forget what happened in smolensk well, probably everyone understood what is going on, i will join the discussion about hmm existential threat russia well, when the task is set to arrest

the leader, and this is the person who makes, among other things, the decision to launch nuclear missiles. this will catch the threat to the existence of the state when biden is at the level of the president. uh, they're talking about bringing the russian economy to its knees. and this is a direct threat to the existence of the state. when finland is a member of nato, 100 km from st. petersburg , the second largest city in the russian federation, this is also a direct threat. eh, the existence of e state. and, of course, the queen aims to destabilize socio-political so that we are ours here , the dissatisfied society did everything with their own hands. well, to put it simply, the orange revolution and the coming to power of a regime pleasing to the west is another matter, that all this is quite sly and indirect, and, of course, if we talk about the use of nuclear weapons, most likely. eh,

already in this decade. it will be commonplace, including tactical. well, for example, the negotiations between the taiwanese and the united states about including taiwan in the nuclear umbrella are probably not groundless, but the american nuclear one, because, rather in general, the chinese will use does not exclude such a possibility of using tactical weapons to conquer bridgeheads, and in taiwan, therefore, this is in principle, but a thing that needs to be discussed and not thought that this will not happen, most likely it will happen. the more we talk about it, the more we prepare for it. uh, most likely, we will have more chances to survive, win, and so on. and how to react? well , probably as indirectly as they are. and these provocations are carried out, for example, to conduct a mass exercise on some kind of nuclear safety. well , some small russian city and so on. maybe, uh, again, i'm not a military expert, maybe test tactical weapons somewhere on novaya zemlya it's not necessary to scare kazakhstan

it's not necessary to scare someone else space with enough it's not necessary to shine it to portray some nikolaev on novaya zemlya partially disembarkation after that fuck. are you useful anywhere? in principle, yes, where in antarctica antarctica well, just we are malvins free for the argentines, that is, here is such a fairly effective indirect way to show. and the fact that the americans are really losing influence, i absolutely agree, is a series in the league of arab states. this is turkey erdogan. this is a direct flight. beijing kabul and negotiations. uh, beijing with the afghan government. these are also all signs that the united states is losing very quickly. e influence and if we talk about who will be the first, it is possible to use these weapons . it is possible that it will not be us, because the americans have already done this, and they can do it. repeat. and accordingly, where they repeat it. this is already a different question, but now i drew attention to the ukrainian scheme for the supply

of e-weapons of emergency specially by decree of the us president. and in the conflict between russia and ukraine , the first such deliveries. and there were 21 years in august, then in december in the amount of only 260 million dollars, now 500 million dollars. that is, if you apply some kind of linear logic, it is clear that many factors in life are ambiguous, that taiwan will happen there in 4 months, but it is clearly approaching, and the deliveries were announced on may 4 stingers were loaded onto ships, and on the pacific coast of the united states immediately and on may 24th. they have already arrived. interesting. this is the fact that the americans supply weapons that do not deter china, that is, not against ship-based missiles, again, not military experts, but directly stingers for a very large amount of what would already, let's say , simulate an invasion, an invasion is already underway, money is being used against, means air targets ground targets and so on. that is, this is not a weapon, deterrence. the americans are fully

preparing for war. just recently today there was a statement from the team that the us pacific ocean troops alina if i'm not mistaken, the surname may have been incorrectly named, but announced that the united states was preparing to prevent a war. and if it doesn’t work out, then contain china already in direct contact. that is, indeed , preparations are already underway in that direction, but if the war is expanding there, this does not mean that russia will be on the sidelines japan is a member of this coalition, south korea is a member of the coalition. there is also, most likely, nuclear weapons will be deployed, that is, and there, too, it is necessary prepare for the use of tactical nuclear weapons at sea on land and so on strategic not tomorrow, but it is also quite likely that this will happen, therefore i think that the discussion is absolutely rational and they are afraid there that there will be nuclear strikes, that we will not can we do it, or we won't put it there? it is not right. yes, that is, we really need our, which means former partners, no enemies. eh, explain it all the time. this

will keep them from much and the student has a hot head. much shorter, well, that is, the discussion that was an azerbaijani weapon. first, nuclear weapons are made to be used. nobody does it to scare him, they design it, they arm themselves, they work out ways to use it in order to use it, and every army that has it is ready to use it, not to scare it. yes , there is a calculation that the enemy will take into account that the use of this weapon will cause him serious or irreparable or catastrophic damage to use and it can be carried out and will be used depending on the target and therefore. determined

from tactical blockade of ports threat threat action not not statements actions of the west in relation to russia were aimed at ta- in order to destroy the existing political order in russia and finish with russia as a state. it is a threat a threat to the actions you can respond to.