[000:00:00;00] ruthlessly and fearlessly, they even ended up in the embassy of the people's republic of china in belgrade where this international law does not exist, they said there was no international law that was not needed, it was outdated, why, because they wanted to act, well, without regard to this international law, then when russia began to take some actions, they said, how can this be, it’s a disgrace, russia is violating international law. but unfortunately there have always been attempts to adjust this international law to suit ourselves, this is good it’s either bad, it’s very bad, but at least something exists that is a guideline. my only concern is that if this is completely swept into the basket, removed, then there won’t even be any guidelines, so it seems to me that we need to follow the path of permanent, gradual

changes, but we need to do this unconditionally, peace changed, thank you, sergey karaganov , vladimi, i am one of the veterans and founders of the club and i am in a state close to happiness, on the day of its twentieth anniversary, because, well, old people should say that in general i say, it was better with us, it wasn’t better with us, now it’s better, more fun, more interesting, brighter, more colorful, so thank you too for your participation, but my question is this, as for fun, it seems to me that this is not , you know, when it’s more interesting, then it’s more fun, that’s when it’s more fun for you, to be honest, i’m not very much, outside, here in

russia and well, now at the club one simple question is being quite hotly discussed, i ’ll formulate it as follows: from ourselves, of course, not from everyone, whether our nuclear doctrine of the use of nuclear weapons is outdated, it seems to me that it is certainly outdated, it even looks frivolous, created in other times and maybe in a different situation, and even follows the old ones, deterrence no longer works, isn’t it time for us to change the doctrine of the use of nuclear weapons in the direction of lowering the nuclear threshold and go, of course , firmly, but quickly enough, to the ladder, escalation, containment, sobering up of our partners, they became insolent, they directly say that because you have such

a doctrine and that they will never use nuclear weapons and we thus unwittingly we allow them to expand and carry out absolutely monstrous aggression, this is one question, it contains another, and the world in the coming years, even when we win in one way or another in ukraine, or around ukraine, the west, will still go through very difficult times , new centers will rise, new difficulties will arise. we need to put back the same fuse that was nuclear deterrence, which held the world for 70 years, now this west, having forgotten - history and fear, this fuse is trying liquidate, shouldn't we change our

policy in this area? to me. i know your position, i have read some documents , articles, notes, and i understand your feelings, let me remind you that in russian military doctrine there are two, two, two reasons for possible use. on the part of russia nuclear weapons. the first is the application against us, that is, in response to a counter strike, so to speak. but in practice, what does this mean? the missiles launched, our anti-aircraft missile system detected, recorded, and let us know that the target is the territory of the russian federation, all

this happens in seconds so that everyone understands. and already understanding, knowing the information that a blow is being struck against russia, we, for our part, do so. to this aggression and i want to assure everyone that today the response is absolutely unacceptable for any potential aggressor, because from the moment the missile launch is detected, no matter where it comes from anywhere in the world ocean or from whatever territory, in response on an oncoming strike, such an amount appears in the air, so many hundreds of hundreds of our missiles that not a single enemy will have a chance of survival, and in several directions at once, the second, second reason

for the use of these weapons is a threat to the existence of the russian state, if even conventional weapons are used against russia, but the . russia as a state, here are two possible reasons for the use of weapons that you mentioned, do we need to change this, and why, everything can be changed, but i just don’t see the need for this. well, there is no such situation, in which, well, let’s say, today something would threaten russian statehood, the existence of the russian state, no , that means, i think, no person in

his right mind, with a clear memory, would think of using nuclear weapons against russia, well, nevertheless, point of view... yours, other experts, people who are patriotic, very worried about what is happening inside the country, around us, worried about what is happening on the line of combat contact in the ukrainian direction, i understand everything, we we we look carefully and treat, believe me, with respect your point of view, but i don’t see such a need to change there... the potential enemy knows about everything, knows about our capabilities, here it’s another matter, well

, for example, i hear calls already, let's say, start testing nuclear weapons, return to testing, that's what i would say here. the united states signed the corresponding international act, document, treaty banning nuclear weapons tests, and russia signed it, russia signed and ratified it, and the united states signed, but not ratified, but now we are almost finished. work on modern types of strategic weapons that i spoke about and which i announced several years ago, the last

successful test of the petrel, a global-range cruise missile with a nuclear installation, a nuclear propulsion system, was carried out, we have actually completed work on the sarmat. over a super-heavy rocket, the question is that we just need to complete some procedures in a purely administrative and bureaucratic manner, move on to their mass production of putting it on combat duty, and we will do this in the near future, as a rule, they say, well, a new weapon, you need to make sure that there is a boyzar, a special boyzar will work without failures, but there is no need

to carry out tests, well, i’m right now i’m not ready to say whether we really or not need to carry out tests, but behave in a mirror manner, so... with the united states , i repeat once again, when they signed but did not ratify, and we signed and ratified, in principle, behave with those the united states is possible, but this question from the department of the state duma, theoretically it is possible to revoke this ratification, it is enough, if we do this, it will be quite enough, right now in the west, they are already open, some are expressing the position that the support for ukraine is such, excuse me, the support for ukraine is so active

with the fact that russia somehow did not respond convincingly enough for the entire year and a half to the escalation on their part, i don’t know, convincingly, not convincingly, but now only the first of the so-called counter-offensive, this is the latest data, only since june 4, ukrainian units have already lost... 90,000 people, this is sanitary irretrievable losses, 557 tanks , 100, almost 1,900 armored vehicles of various classes, convincingly, unconvincingly, so we have our own understanding of what is moving and how , we understand where and what we need to do, where we need to add what, we calmly go.

i am confident that we will achieve our goals, we will achieve these goals that we have set for ourselves, thank you, so radikay, mr. president putin, thank you for another, i would say historically important. thoughtful speeches, i'm always very impressed when i listen to you, i have a question, and a personal request, the question concerns my country, canada, as you know, the canadian parliament just made a mockery of itself when they applauded a ukrainian nazi, a veteran of

parliament of canada, more than 4-40 people already twice, the speaker of parliament resigned, and for me this really shows the scale, the scale of how far the western position has come, they are so focused their ignorant concepts. that they even forgot how much russia did to defeat nazism, they do not understand that if not for russia’s contribution , the second world war would have ended differently, there would have been no victory, they forgot how much russia did for victory , 30 million lives lost, a huge number, it’s hard to even imagine this scale, could you comment on this, what do you think about it? my personal request to you, this

concerns me personally, and excuse me if i say something incorrectly, but this concerns my friend, friend of many of us here and my husband, this is kaberlitzsky’s question, as you know, he was detained, he is concerned about his personal condition, the reasons why i am talking about this, several petitions have been signed in western countries, of course there are many on this case is said, but we do not sign these petitions because we do not agree with their content, because they are completely anti-russian, we have a letter to you, and we hope that you will read it, and we hope that you will understand that we we address you as friends of russia, of course we are in a difficult position because we do not agree with your friend's position

, but we remember how much we learned from him, he has an excellent knowledge of russian history and he has always been committed to russia, and this is our personal appeal to you, please take up this personally, thank you. you know, i... to be honest, i don’t know in detail who kogorlisky is, as a colleague tells me, i will of course take this paper of yours, look and react, i promise you, okay, as for your question, god

knows, we you didn't agree that this there will be a question, but i was waiting for it, to be honest with you, and moreover, i took, took information about what actually happened, for us this is not, not an ordinary event, let me remind you that this division in which that ukrainian nazi served , which you mentioned, was created by hitler, hitler’s command on april 28, 1943. the nuremberg trial is not us yesterday or in the conditions of today, but the nuremberg tribunal declared the sss galicia division in which this ukrainian nazi served, criminal and

responsible for the genocide of jews and poles , and other civilian population, this is an international decision. court, let me remind you that this decision was made by independent prosecutors and judges, well, ultimately the judge, of course, based on the data provided by prosecutors in various countries, this organization was declared criminal, which means, let me remind you of the words, i specifically took this paper with information, so that it is specific and demonstrative, what the speaker of the canadian parliament said, today in this hall there is a ukrainian-canadian veteran of the second world

war who fought for independence ukraine against the russians, i am proud to say that he is a hero of ukraine and a hero of canada, and we are grateful to him for his service, firstly, if the speaker of the canadian parliament, says that during the second world war, this canadian, canadian-ukrainian or ukrainian-canadian nazi, fought against the russians during... the second world war, he cannot help but realize that he fought on the side of hitler, and not on the side of his own homeland of canada, or was a fascist collaborator, in any case fought

on the side of the nazi troops, let’s say he doesn’t know this, i in no way want to offend feelings. then the canadian people, we treat canada with respect no matter what, especially the people, but if he doesn’t know that hitler and his minions fought against russia during the war, then he’s an idiot, well that just means, he’s just at school did not study, does not have basic knowledge, and if he knows that this man fought on the side of hitler and calls him a hero of ukraine and a hero of canada, then he is a scoundrel, either this or that, well, with such

we have to deal with people, and these are our opponents today from some. countries, but what else is important in my opinion, the speaker of the canadian parliament says , he fought with the russians, and today continues to support, there is a further quote, today he continues to support ukrainian troops fighting against the russians, he essentially put hitler’s collaborators on the same level , ss troops, and today's ukrainian combat units fighting, as he said, against russia, he put them on one board, this only confirms our thesis that one of our goals, but for ukraine, is denazification, which means it still exists there and is recognized, this is the nocification of ukraine, our

common goal, i think, is common, to achieve denazification, and finally, of course, it looks absolutely disgusting that everyone is applauding this nazi, and especially the president of ukraine. in whose veins, who has jewish blood flowing, a jew by nationality, stands and applauds a nazi, not just a follower of the nazis, not just an ideological follower, but a person, who destroyed the jewish population with his own hands, he personally destroyed it, because the german fascists created this - the sss division was wounded primarily for the destruction of the civilian population, as

written in the decision of the nuremberg court, they were blamed for the genocide of jews, poles, approximately 150,000 poles was destroyed, the russians, of course, no one considered the gypsies at all, they weren’t even considered people, which means there were a million jews... in ukraine, just think about this figure, but wasn’t this what happened? what, isn't anyone doesn't know this? yes, everyone knows, everyone knows, wasn’t there a holocaust? and when the president of ukraine applauds the man who personally exterminated jews in ukraine with his own hands, he wants to say that there was no holocaust, but isn’t that disgusting?

all means are good, as long as they fight against russia, such people, all means are good if used in the fight against russia, but i can imagine that there is simply an irresistible desire to defeat russia on the battlefield, to achieve its strategic defeat, but is it really possible do it like this at a price? i think this is, uh, this is just extremely disgusting. and i really hope that, uh, that, well, not only we are here, in a narrow circle at the aldai club we will talk about this, but that , after all, somehow, a public organization, those who care about the future of humanity ,

still with thank you, i saw gabort, gabor, that’s where, where you saw it, now i lost it, but here, from hungary, mr. president, i. this time i won’t ask about what will happen to odessa, although in hungary many people ask what they will call what they will call neighboring country, from odessa, you have, no, no, no, you asked last time, yes, yes, yes, that’s my other question, what , well, well, please, excuse me, yes, yes, yes, this means, mr. president, we know that you are interested in history, so now... i would like to approach the current reality from this point of view, and if we talk

about history, then we know what significance it has for the development of russia the fact that peter the great opened a window to europe: europeanness is part of russian identity. certainly, europe is now in decline. and does everything so that russia doesn’t fall in love with her, uh, but for me as a european, seriously, it’s scary to hear the statement that some european cities should be subjected to atomic bombing, bombing, that today is the euro, although sometimes i hear that today europe means russia, because this question is not about what we have, what, about russia, what europe means for russia today,

whether russia will completely turn away from it, and you don’t think so. that it would be a mistake to wall up this window, and if we are already talking about history then, one more question, what if the new russian textbooks and histories caused a serious discussion in hungary, or rather the lines in 1956 , describing what happened as its own... figurative color revolution, do you also think that 1956 was not a real revolution? and do you agree with another controversial comment in the book that the withdrawal of troops from central europe in 1990-90 and 91 was a mistake, i

remember, i know that in vladivostok you said that the tanks were a mistake, that was a mistake, sixty-eighth and '56, but if it was a mistake, while you think that this uh withdrawal of troops is also a mistake, you think that this is a question, this is a reason for writing a dissertation, probably means you said that you will not talk or mention about odessa, although mentioned, well, last time i abstained, i can say that odessa is, of course, a russian city, well , a little jewish, as we say now, a little, here, but uh, let’s not talk about that now , reasoning, if you are in the mood to talk on another topic, then,

firstly, to the window, to europe. you know, now my colleagues said, the world is changing, and climbing back and forth through the window all the time means tearing your pants, not the best thing to do , why climb through the window when there are other doors, this is the first, second, russia, without any doubt, russia’s code, likewise, is based on christianity, this certainly unites us, but we are not going to impose ourselves on europe if it doesn’t want it, we don’t refuse, we don’t slam it, you said whether we regret it or not, well why should we be sorry, it’s not us who slam the door for joint communication, it’s europe

that is fencing itself off from us, creating such a new iron fence. it’s not we who are creating it, but the europeans who are creating it, at a loss and to their own detriment, i have already said, i can repeat, the economy of, say, the united states, it is growing 2.4%, and the european economy is going into recession, has already gone, and... europeans, who are definitely not at all positive, friendly, somehow towards our country, they give the correct diagnostician. prosperity was based on cheap energy from europe and the development of the chinese market. wellbeing

europe was based on these factors. well, of course, high technology, well, hardworking, disciplined, disciplined working class, talented people, all this is certainly true, but there are fundamental factors that europe itself refuses, i spoke in my opening speech about sovereignty, you understand, in what’s the matter, because sovereignty has multi-vector dimensions, that’s why we say all the time, i say all the time, that russia cannot exist as a non-sovereign. state, it will simply cease to exist completely, because it’s not just about military and other security issues, it’s about other components, that’s what happened to europe, uh , many european leaders, so as not to accuse me, don’t accuse me of being rude to someone there or