khasavyurt khasavyurt, that is, they have already burned themselves once and just people are afraid that. but khasavyurt is here. let's remember. let's remember the same khasavyurt that we signed in a good life, then we signed this agreement then not from a good life. do you think the swan was delighted that he had to negotiate there with the leaders, and the terrorists. no, he was not happy. we know the swan. many personally knew him , but he was not enthusiastic, but we clearly understood that at that moment we could not do anything about the information war. we lost then, because it is easier to work on the part of the chechen fighters than on the part of the grouping of our troops, this whole story did not work. as a result, all the broadcasts were packed exclusively with their picture, their statements and their own agenda, but on our part it didn’t work, but then it was not the hubbert treaty, then there was the second chechen one and ended, glory. god that the chechens are now defending our interests . roman georgievich completely agrees with you, only two clarifications, in spite

this is an event with khasavyurt and those looking for various agreements between the political leadership troops. and the third category is the most sensible, sober, evaluating events, as military purely military, because i have already spoken about this in various e, in articles there materials 50,000. this is the ukrainian army. our 30.000. plus the weather, non-flying, when the vks does not operate drones. one infantry cannot be used, such as thermogols. it's just that the shaft is moving, which must be stopped. so, as it is. which option, either we lose 30,000 publish kherson and losing 30,000 years 20,000. it doesn't matter either second option we withdraw, saving the army, preserving the equipment. having preserved the battle formations and solving the tasks of further successful operations, this is the last option, it has worked now and naturally causes very serious irritation, because ukraine and even ukraine itself cannot call this a victory, because we calmly retreated without suffering losses. and where is the truth, it's, well, let's say the events have some rather disturbing

this is an event with khasavyurt and seekers various agreements between the political leadership andost sensible soberly, evaluating events as military purely military, because i have already spoken about this in various. uh, articles, there are 50,000 materials. this is the ukrainian army. our 30.000. plus the weather, non-flying, when the vks does not operate drones. one infantry cannot be used, such as thermogols. it's just that the shaft is moving, which must be stopped. so, as it is. which option, either we lose 30.000 publish, kherson and losing 30.000 years 20.000. it doesn't matter there. either we withdraw from the second option, preserving the army, preserving the equipment, preserving the battle formations and solving problems for the further successful conduct of the operation. this is the last option, it has worked now and naturally causes very serious irritation, because ukraine and even ukraine itself cannot call it a victory, because we calmly retreated without incurring losses, uh, uh, really, these are, well, let's say events has quite disturbing some moments. what

uh, one way or another it should be, but uh, one cannot but take into account and repeat, khasavyurtcha was also imposed on us, respite is the creation of conditions under which they will build an air defense system and another very important point. let's stop being delusional. we, uh, in the spring of this year, clearly said and decided. we are at war with ukraine here. we are at war with nato and the collective west to this day. so, even now, when discussing, we are somehow moving away from this topic, and fighting with the west with nato is not the same thing as with ukraine, this is a completely different war and understand that this war, even we were not ready. here is our demagoguery talking about a compact hmm professional army. in the current conditions, it turns out that the army does not work, there should be another large one in russia with possible operations on a wide front, where such problems cannot be solved by narrow specialists alone. this is the second time for a long time. here are the last month and a half. rhetoric was imposed on us. at the same time, with prepa

khasavyurt two istanbul two minsk-3 it is not important to conclude all these agreements to hold outg. at this is the time to pump up her weapons to train in a couple of army corps, and there some say one full-fledged airborne storm brigade, and the other bear for assault brigades. at the same time, continue to compress russia a within the framework of the economic war, and then strike already, is it clear or not? here are two different approaches. yes, i don't, uh. e to say which of these approaches will choose our hand? yes? with whom on what will it react in dialogue to everything else, but the idea that it is possible to agree on something now with the west, it is not even funny. yes? no, no, what is there to apologize more than surprising that that other scenario. notice in that other scenario, negotiations. here the negotiations look there, at least in places with him, as simple as possible. well, i don’t know, uh, criminal, so to speak, negligence in both scenarios that mikhail gennadievich gave us. wrote, it's a way to buy time. what is our point of view. you see, even with t

this is khasavyurt, we are offered something like the following kherson yes, there was a referendum yeswe remember very solemnly. generally signed. decree we all watched. i am in this case. well, there i had a small role, i was, uh, sitting in the very referendum observation center, just and so on. what are they telling us? well, give up kherson again, in fact, in public. yes, make it so that it is somehow again under control in isu, although our people are there and this is a direct violation of the constitution of the russian federation for this. naturally. i am deeply convinced not our leadership. high society, no army, will never go, but what do they do? it is very important. this you know the overton window. now, if you take the first step, then now our position, it is still that, well, we will defeat you on the battlefield. maybe then we can come to an agreement. maybe we can agree with you at the actual table. yes, some kind of diplomacy will begin to be implemented, but the most interesting thing, against the background of how the real negotiation track is theoretically resumed,

and some smart ones understand that here we are facing another kind of khasavyurt, which will then have that the benefit for zelensky is now to conclude an agreement, if everything is so good with him goes, of course, because, of course, here we are, and they themselves are pumping up that they are winning, that they are twigs and ukrainian propagandists will cut out they will say zakhar prilepin the voice of doom, something must be formulated yes, doom is formulated like this absolutely nothing. the fact is that zelensky zelensky cannot reconcile, because for him this is a defeat, because they now pumped themselves up like kherson and then according to the results. are you saying they lost the entire lugansk region, lost part of zaporozhye, lost part of kherson , if the historian is from fifty years ago e.g. look, he'll say it's russian. they won there. they took over a huge territory. they are there a lot of everything, that is, zelensky will not present. this is like a victory, they will tell him they started with this, a now the borders of the russians are here, when they calm down

just imagine khasavyurt after which there is no second chechen war.’t be an even more dramatic story here, because a lot more people are involved in, like, uh, war. here is a gigantic number of people affected part of the russian. now e territory is occupied. here we keep it in our heads, so no peace. here in the current configuration it is impossible, therefore a mile with such a benevolent expression on his face. he's talking about the world. he says, yes, of course, because the situation can develop in such a way that really peaceful negotiations can be the right reasonable way out of this situation . we are for peace. there are two more points here. well , that is, as if we were talking about the world, now let's give you a little, so, uh, we will tickle you with a sharpening, so that you understand what will happen if there is no peace, but there are hammers. you remember that we have hummers that hit 600 miles. they are, we won't give them, although the ukrainians are asking, and needles, then needles, we have raptors that can fly 1,500 km. we a

khasavyurt two istanbul two minsk 3 no matter hmm conclude all these agreements hold out until springssault brigade is full-fledged, and the other is moving to assault brigades. at the same time, continue to squeeze russia a within the framework of the economic war, and then strike clearly in the spring. is it clear or not? here are two different approaches. i'm not going to uh talk. which of these approaches will our leadership choose. uh-huh, who will join? it is clear in the dialogue in everything else, but the idea that it is possible about something now to agree with the west. she's not even funny at all. yes, no, no, what is there to apologize for, moreover, it is surprising that that other scenario. notice in that other scenario, negotiations. here the negotiations look there, at least in some places. as simple as possible. well, i don’t know, but criminal, so to speak, negligence in both scenarios that mikhail gennadievich gave us. it was written as a way to win. what is our point of view. you see, even with the most favorable development of events for ukraine, the only place