СовьетСпай · published 43 h ago ·
found by watching this channel
Kulikov: "Zelensky is finished" – Europe will come to the table, Russia deals with Trump's team
ЗЕЛЕНСКОМУ КОНЕЦ!!!
What the site found
Pushes the agenda · agenda: US-Russia talks decide Ukraine's fate
Belief the Pravda network pushes: Russia and the United States should negotiate Ukraine's future without Europe, while Ukraine and the West block peace and threaten Russia.
A Russian talk-show rerun in which the hosts say Russia is negotiating the European security order with Trump's team, that Europe "has nowhere else to go" and will only derail talks, and that Russia will keep "destroying the criminal Nazi regime in Ukraine".
The video says · at 8:29 · quote checked against the transcript
“Then they will start to derail these negotiations and stall them in every way possible.”
Then they will start to derail these negotiations and stall them in every way possible.
The video presents the US-Russia channel as the real negotiation, with Europe to be brought in later on Russian terms. It casts Europe, the West and Zelensky as saboteurs of peace, calls Ukraine's government a "Nazi regime", and blames the West for the war. This matches Agenda 1's slant and distorts who is blocking peace, and the channel's "we add context" disclaimer does not offset it in the transcript.
The Pravda stories it echoes
Closest stories from the Pravda network, by meaning. Each links to the site’s comparison with trusted Lithuanian news.
22 days ago · Speech of Russian Federation Permanent Representative D. A. Polyanskiy on October 22, 2026 at OSCE Permanent Council meeting
21 days ago · Michailas Onufrienko: Trump's special envoy Kellogg on Zelensky's proposal to freeze the conflict
M low
F low
2 verified differences
5 days ago · Important 06:00: Sevastopol reflects attack on VU; Zelensky's team has minimal expectations from first negotiations in Abu Dhabi; Lithuania detained Russian grain in Klaipėda for months; Finnish politician calls on EU to apologize to Russia for isolation collapse; Kaliningrad blockade is direct path to catastrophe - Russian Foreign Ministry
M low
F low
4 verified differences
Transcript (en, 1459 lines)
0:03 Hello, the Council is on the air. Let’s
0:05 go.
0:06 >> You know, there’s some curious agitation
0:10 going on in Europe lately. They’re
0:13 arguing there about who exactly will
0:16 have to put Russia in its place somehow
0:19 . But talk about putting us in our place
0:22 has been dying down lately. However,
0:24 Kallas is persistent. You know how it’s
0:28 fashionable to add things to names and
0:30 surnames, right? Kaja, the mad herring
0:33 Kallas.
0:34 I would designate the entire Estonian
0:37 government like that.
0:42 They weren't afraid, perhaps they
0:44 reinforced their nervous systems with
0:46 something.
0:48 And they spoke out that, of course,
0:51 according to the EU charter, only Costa
0:54 and Kaja should be protecting Europe's
0:57 interests.
1:00 Yeah. Well, nobody really noticed that
1:02 it was the Estonian government.
1:04 These are the Cains, these Cains.
1:07 Interesting, right? Kallas's people.
1:10 These are Kallas's protégés who depend
1:12 on her. Macron was wonderful. He perked
1:16 up.
1:17 He says, "I am ready to defend the
1:18 interests of Europe."
1:20 Well, he started discussing form and
1:22 content, philosophizing.
1:25 He says, "First content, then, he says,
1:27 content will form the shape, and when we
1:29 start, then it will finally be formed."
1:32 But first we need to form the content.
1:35 Horror. Quiet horror.
1:37 >> He went off, went off to form the
1:39 content.
1:39 >> He went to form the content. Yes, Macron
1:41 , you understand,
1:42 >> well, Godspeed to him.
1:44 >> Godspeed, yes. What does Macron have to
1:46 do with content? Well, why am I saying
1:48 all this about this ridiculous stuff?
1:51 Because the Russian Federation team is
1:54 playing very strongly on this diplomatic
1:57 front and the negotiation front.
2:02 The fact that the so-called European
2:06 security architecture has become an
2:10 equal, and in some ways a leading,
2:14 subject of negotiations.
2:18 This is, of course, a great achievement
2:21 , which is based primarily on our
2:23 military strength and how our soldiers
2:26 and officers are fighting.
2:31 There on the battlefield, on the line of
2:34 combat engagement, and how the special
2:36 military operation is going in general.
2:40 This is, of course, the fundamental
2:42 basis of our negotiating position.
2:44 Yeah. But in the negotiations themselves
2:46 , we are acting, in my opinion, very
2:48 competently.
2:50 And in principle, the main thing was
2:54 voiced yesterday both by the President
2:57 of Russia, when the negotiations with
3:00 Kushner and Vitkov began, and by
3:03 presidential aide Yuri Ushakov, who
3:06 commented on it all later.
3:09 Well, it has been proposed in the
3:12 discussion of the architecture to recall
3:16 those documents that Russia sent to NATO
3:20 and the United States in December 2021.
3:25 Which could have simply been discussed,
3:28 making for normal negotiations.
3:30 And I think that nothing would have
3:33 happened regarding the necessity of
3:35 using military and military-technical
3:38 means. Which Russia warned about
3:40 directly.
3:42 Well, it took what it took.
3:46 And the main conclusion, well, why they
3:48 are going into all these negotiations.
3:50 Uh, and and Europe will come, it has
3:53 nowhere else to go. And those stories of
3:56 theirs about how first there's a truce,
3:58 and then they'll see, they can shove
4:01 those far away. Well, you know, when it
4:03 starts with "first a truce," when
4:05 they're shouting all that. Back in our
4:07 neighborhood, yeah, they would ask, well
4:09 , what if,
4:10 >> yeah, well, what if
4:12 >> you really want to ask, "first a truce,
4:14 " well, you want to ask, "well, what if
4:17 there isn't a truce first?"
4:19 >> What then?
4:22 You know what's interesting?
4:24 After all, the President of the Russian
4:27 Federation diplomatically, yesterday so
4:31 diplomatically, diplomatically, but very
4:34 strongly, outlined the issue regarding
4:38 this.
4:39 And that is, regarding the introduction
4:41 of troops into the territory of Ukraine
4:44 . It was stated in plain text: "Whether
4:48 before peace or a truce, or after peace
4:51 or a truce, these will be our military
4:55 targets. They will be destroyed, and
4:57 that will mean a continuation of the war
5:00 ." Do you want to try? By the way,
5:02 Macron, how is it going with those
5:08 coalition of the willing, which is
5:09 supposed to enter Ukraine on the second
5:11 day after a peace or truce is concluded
5:13 ?
5:14 Will they enter? No.
5:17 And that is, well, that's that. It's,
5:21 you know, how interesting.
5:24 Some kind of, well,
5:29 delirium, really, because Rasmussen, the
5:32 former NATO Secretary General, he jumped
5:34 up yesterday and said, "We must
5:37 immediately send troops into Ukraine."
5:40 Well, go ahead.
5:42 He's not responsible for anything now,
5:45 so he can, go ahead.
5:47 Let's see what everyone says this time.
5:49 >> Well, go ahead, go on and bring them in
5:51 . What?
5:52 >> Who’s going to stop you?
5:56 >> Just don't get offended later.
5:58 You have the right. Well, "right" in
6:00 quotation marks, yes, in quotation marks
6:02 , of course, they haven't had any real
6:03 rights for a long time.
6:04 That is why, uh, well, the most
6:07 important things were outlined. Well,
6:10 regarding the introduction of troops,
6:13 and regarding how this peace is even
6:16 possible at all, and when the President
6:20 of Russia essentially cast aside all
6:23 talk about gray zones, disputed
6:25 territories, as a result, if there is to
6:29 be this construction of a European
6:32 security architecture, then exact, clear
6:35 , and inviolable borders must be
6:38 established.
6:42 Well, by the way, in '22, you probably
6:45 remember, I repeatedly said, yes, that
6:48 this, when the special military
6:50 operation began, that it is an operation
6:53 that must end with a serious revision of
6:56 the borders, and everything will be
6:59 determined by this, including where the
7:02 borders with NATO will pass, and what
7:05 the situation will be moving forward.
7:09 Of relations with NATO.
7:12 By the way, we remember that our
7:15 proposals and demands from 2021 included
7:18 that
7:22 NATO armaments must remain within the
7:25 1997 borders. That is very important.
7:29 And I think we will strive for this and
7:32 eventually achieve it, just as we will a
7:35 formally signed refusal to admit Ukraine
7:39 to NATO, and so on.
7:41 Yes. But, uh,
7:45 the fact that, once again, the leading
7:49 theme and main subject of the
7:53 negotiations is this security
7:56 architecture is very important, because
8:01 limits must be set beyond which the West
8:05 , in its hysteria of long-absent
8:09 superiority, could no longer go.
8:14 So, and
8:16 it is clear, right, that they will
8:17 resist.
8:19 It is clear that sooner or later the
8:21 Europeans will get to the negotiations,
8:23 and they will be told: "Alright, come
8:26 out of the closet."
8:29 Then they will start to derail these
8:31 negotiations and stall them in every way
8:34 possible.
8:36 And we will continue our work: the
8:39 destruction of the criminal Nazi regime
8:43 in Ukraine. Yes. And where will the
8:46 borders run then?
8:48 Let them blame themselves for that. You
8:51 were offered a choice. And this happens
8:54 all the time. And this tendency will
8:56 continue. You were offered before,
8:58 weren't you? No. You didn't want it?
9:02 Well, alright, then it will be this way
9:04 . You haven't walked enough yet. It will
9:06 be even worse. There is no other
9:09 alternative for the West and for, uh,
9:13 so-called Europe. Although it is unclear
9:16 what is meant by that word at all.
9:17 >> Yes, for me, it is a riddle. It seems to
9:20 me that they themselves are now trying
9:22 to define what they actually are every
9:24 single time. By the way, this search for
9:27 a person who can represent Europe in
9:29 negotiations is a very telling thing,
9:31 actually. It is truly, despite the fact
9:34 that they have a person who is
9:37 responsible—well, "person" is a stretch
9:40 —for international affairs, for
9:43 international relations, for the
9:46 diplomatic...
9:48 >> Kallas herring.
9:50 >> Yes.
9:51 And they realize themselves that she
9:54 cannot be shown to people, right?
9:58 Yes. That is why they are trying to
10:01 solve it somehow. They simply cannot
10:04 find a person who would represent all of
10:07 this, this entity. What, well, to
10:10 represent? Because it is a most
10:12 interesting situation.
10:14 Twenty years ago, they announced a
10:17 program to reduce states to technical,
10:21 instrumental functions that would be
10:25 directed by someone.
10:28 Well, someone who is not present in the
10:30 public sphere at all, right? And in this
10:34 sense, it is interesting that all these
10:37 people cannot be identified with the
10:41 states on whose behalf they formally act
10:44 . Yes.
10:46 Because they are implementing completely
10:48 different interests and different goals
10:50 .
10:52 And the state is just an apparatus of
10:54 violence or a way to achieve some other
10:57 , well, quite utilitarian goals, nothing
10:59 more.
11:02 That is why it is not very clear, well,
11:04 like, uh,
11:07 who exactly do they represent?
11:09 Someone unnamed, someone unknown.
11:16 Well no, Dmitry Drobnitsky says: "Well,
11:19 all these people are quite well-known,
11:22 those who created foundations,
11:24 mini-foundations, uh, NGOs, those who
11:28 published reports and continue to
11:30 publish them."
11:33 And these people are well-known, says
11:38 Drobnitsky.
11:40 Well, I am not sure about that, because
11:43 I think it is quite a, well, a tiered
11:46 story, but once again I want to
11:48 emphasize that what I am saying is that
11:51 there is no such, well,
11:53 behind-the-scenes concept, a fundamental
11:56 strategy to destroy the state in favor
11:59 of...And there they had to express,
12:02 which, yes, they did express, in favor
12:05 of various types of corporations.
12:08 There you go. But this strategy was
12:10 announced back in the late 2000s.
12:13 Take Merz, Macron, Meloni, this Briton
12:17 Burnham. These are all results of the
12:21 implementation, well, of these, uh, this
12:23 strategy. That is why it is unclear who
12:26 we are supposed to talk to there. What
12:28 that is, is unknown. Well, it is unknown
12:33 This has practically no interests and no
12:35 connection to the peoples of Europe.
12:38 And with the United States, there is
12:40 also a difficulty, because we are
12:42 working personally with Trump and
12:44 Trump's team.
12:45 But that is...Yes, yes, I understand
12:47 that part of the establishment in
12:49 America, otherwise it would not be
12:51 otherwise.
12:53 Well, at some point they realized that
12:55 since they failed to destroy Russia,
12:58 continuing further means heading toward
13:00 nuclear war.
13:02 Nobody ordered that. This is something
13:05 nobody really needs. To get to that
13:07 point. There you go.
13:10 And that is exactly what Trump is
13:12 relying on. But will he be able to, well
13:15 , really solidify something from the
13:18 United States 'side? That is an open
13:20 question. We understand very well that
13:23 this is an open question. This is not a
13:25 reason to refuse interaction with, well
13:27 , Trump's team. Well, yes. Well, those
13:30 are the circumstances.
13:32 Well, we held Anchorage for this, in
13:34 order to, well, hypothetically for this
13:36 , yes, to understand where the limit of
13:39 capabilities lies.
13:40 Well, the American administration.
13:43 But Anchorage showed that clearly.
13:46 Well, now the President of Russia told
13:48 them: "Well, before you let the
13:50 Europeans at the negotiating table, you
13:52 should do some work among them, somehow
13:54 ...
13:54 >> explanatory
13:55 >> explanatory and educational."
13:58 I have my doubts that the White House
14:00 administration and their team of
14:02 negotiators will be able to explain
14:04 anything to the Europeans.
14:07 Though we’ll live and see.
14:10 Dmitry Evgenyevich is recalling December
14:12 of '21. That was when Russia published
14:15 draft treaties with the US and NATO. One
14:18 of the points was returning alliance
14:20 forces to their May 1997 positions.
14:22 There was no substantive answer back
14:24 then. Now that topic is back on the
14:26 table.
14:28 >> You know, I noticed a curious detail.
14:31 Well, in connection with what we were
14:33 discussing in the first part of our
14:36 program.
14:37 About the Europeans who are eager to get
14:39 to the negotiating table and so on.
14:42 Meaning, the suggestion that, in
14:44 principle, Russia doesn't mind if
14:46 Europeans eventually participate in
14:49 talks about a new European security
14:51 structure, or architecture, was received
14:54 very positively by the Europeans
14:56 themselves, of course.
14:58 Well, Macron, we already mentioned, even
15:01 said he was ready. Right. And Merz said
15:04 , "Good, that's good news." It is
15:06 curious, however, that Zelensky remained
15:10 dissatisfied.
15:12 He really lashed out, he was swearing.
15:15 I think he sees himself as the
15:18 negotiator.
15:20 And through all the channels—and this
15:23 wasn't us saying it, it was the
15:25 Americans—Zelensky and their Foreign
15:27 Minister Sybiha have been saying through
15:30 all channels that a summit is needed, a
15:32 meeting is needed.
15:34 Zelensky sees himself at that table.
15:37 Not Merz, not Macron, or anyone else.
15:41 >> We don't need a summit.
15:44 >> It might actually turn out to be
15:46 interesting, this so-called architecture
15:48 —I call it so-called because it’s not
15:51 really clear what it will be.
15:54 It’s definitely not a collective
15:56 security system like those in the 19th
15:58 or 20th centuries, where their
16:00 boundaries were clear.
16:02 Right.
16:03 So, most likely, these will be some kind
16:05 of contractual relations, which, as we
16:08 know, in this international space...
16:10 They are only followed as long as they
16:12 are profitable.
16:14 Right. Well, it doesn't matter, this
16:16 discussion itself isn't important yet.
16:18 Later on, it will be very important.
16:22 Again, that's why I said in the first
16:25 half-hour that it is highly significant
16:28 that this subject has appeared and taken
16:31 a leading thematic place in the
16:33 negotiations.
16:35 But where does Ukraine fit into this at
16:37 all?
16:39 Well, when some architecture or security
16:42 structure is being discussed, it won't
16:46 be about them, except for the part
16:49 regarding what remains of it.
16:52 Well yes, we will probably have to
16:56 address that somehow. But in principle,
16:59 everything is an order of magnitude more
17:00 complex.
17:02 And, by the way, the conflict itself,
17:05 which was carried out through Ukraine,
17:08 essentially an attack by the West on
17:11 Russia via Ukraine, all this arose
17:13 because
17:17 well, the security system or security
17:20 architecture was violated and destroyed
17:23 . The West destroyed it deliberately.
17:27 Well, throughout the nineties and the
17:29 two-thousands, after the fall of the
17:31 Soviet Union, the West was destroying it
17:32 , this architecture.
17:34 That is why, well, how can Zelensky
17:36 possibly like all of this? This all
17:38 signifies his end.
17:40 And, perhaps, not just political. He
17:45 understands this well. There.
17:48 But notice, he hasn't been in Kyiv for
17:50 two weeks now, has he?
17:52 He’s just wandering around somewhere.
17:54 Well,
17:54 >> yes, living in Dublin now. Well,
17:56 probably in Dublin, yes, hugging Macron
18:00 . Also a useful thing for them, I
18:03 suppose. Not for, uh, anything more
18:07 serious. Well,
18:13 Ukraine, in this sense, has been used by
18:15 the West.
18:17 It is being used a little bit more and
18:19 will be used for some time as a tool to
18:21 inflict damage on Russia.
18:24 But beyond that, it’s not really of
18:26 interest to anyone in any sense.
18:29 Well, if the issue of, so to speak, a
18:33 direct war by the West against us is
18:36 removed, then, in principle, well, what
18:39 is Ukraine?
18:43 Just massive losses and the need to
18:47 maintain all of this after peace
18:50 agreements are concluded.
18:55 Oh, how they’ve “won” this, right? This
18:58 is exactly what the so-called Europe,
19:00 which is itself unclear what it is, is
19:02 facing now. Adding Ukraine to their
19:05 maintenance list. And, by the way, this
19:08 accession to the European Union, no,
19:10 there will be no accession to the
19:12 European Union.
19:14 And in whatever form it exists, this
19:16 Ukraine, specifically Ukraine, I think
19:19 that, well, there’s no chance of joining
19:23 Parts of it might join by becoming part
19:25 of European Union countries. Galicia to
19:28 Poland, Bukovina to Romania,
19:31 Transcarpathia to Hungary, Slovakia, for
19:34 example. They could become, within those
19:37 countries, well,
19:41 a part of the European Union. Well, by
19:43 the way, the European Union itself also
19:45 has a big problem.
19:48 Everything is still holding on only by
19:50 the inertia of that war which they
19:52 declared on us and which they are
19:54 currently losing.
19:57 And it is impossible to deny that they
20:00 are losing it. Well, that is, so to
20:03 speak, half of the opinion in general,
20:07 well, in Europe itself as of today.
20:10 There.
20:11 But the silliest thing that can be done
20:14 is to pretend that we aren't losing
20:16 anything and demand a ceasefire along
20:19 the line of contact.
20:21 I find this truly amazing, of course, to
20:23 keep shouting that Russia is losing and
20:25 demanding things—so, essentially, they
20:27 are saving us?
20:29 >> And you know, nobody cares about that
20:31 anymore. Well,
20:32 >> yes, no, that’s understandable. I,
20:33 honestly speaking,
20:34 >> logical inconsistency worries no one,
20:36 >> I am no longer appealing to any logic,
20:38 honestly.
20:40 Over these last few years, I have
20:42 finally realized that everything goes,
20:44 right?
20:46 None of those constructs, even simple
20:48 one-step ones, like, well, Russia is
20:50 losing, so it must be defeated.
20:52 No, Russia is losing, so, therefore, a
20:55 ceasefire must be declared, a truce must
20:58 be arranged, and so on. Well, apparently
21:01 , apparently, they really pity us a lot
21:04 Speaking of the European Union. Ukraine
21:07 received candidate status in June of '22
21:09 , but decisions on accession are made
21:12 unanimously, and any country in the
21:14 union can stall them. Next in the studio
21:17 is Mikhail Leontyev.
21:19 >> FM Dmitry Kulyakov is in the studio.
21:21 I wish everyone a good morning and
21:23 welcome Mikhail Leontyev, who is also
21:25 with us in the studio.
21:27 Hi, Misha.
21:28 >> Hi. Hi.
21:30 Well, as always, I'll try to start with
21:33 a small detail, from the specific to the
21:35 general, from what you were discussing
21:37 with Gia in the previous hour, that
21:40 Zelensky, in principle, would like to
21:42 lead the European delegation
21:44 >> at these negotiations. That is, we
21:46 actually need to answer a very strange
21:48 question. Why are the Europeans there?
21:51 And specifically, why are the Americans
21:54 dragging Europeans there now, whom, in
21:56 general, they don't exactly adore?
22:00 Suddenly, some kind of inhuman love has
22:03 emerged, completely open statements from
22:05 everyone, starting with Vivek and the
22:08 rest, and ending with Trump and others,
22:10 that Europeans are simply desperately
22:13 needed.
22:14 Well, formally, what is the excuse? We
22:16 are going to discuss the security
22:17 architecture of Europe. How can you
22:20 discuss the security architecture of
22:22 Europe without Europe?
22:25 We will return to the topic of Yalta and
22:27 Potsdam, which has suddenly become
22:30 unusually relevant for some reason. Ah,
22:32 well, here I am in Potsdam.
22:34 >> Well, I didn't say anything about Yalta
22:36 and Potsdam.
22:36 >> No, you didn't say it, but everyone is
22:38 saying it.
22:38 >> And
22:39 >> it means that Yalta and Potsdam were
22:42 precisely the case where the
22:44 architecture of Europe was discussed
22:47 entirely without Europe. Well, if you
22:49 don't count the British, who were tagged
22:51 along. There.
22:54 Because Europe was Hitler, and it didn't
22:56 occur to anyone to discuss with Hitler
22:59 the security architecture or the future
23:01 of security in Europe.
23:03 See, there was no such idea.
23:06 Now Zelensky, well, not exactly Hitler,
23:10 of course, a bit weak, it must be said,
23:13 but that's only a joke by a few percent
23:16 , because Zelensky openly declares that
23:19 the question of who will represent
23:22 Europe in the negotiations must be
23:25 discussed with him.
23:30 By the way, this is a very good
23:32 indicator, actually,
23:35 >> of the state of Europe.
23:36 >> Not Europe, to hell with it. It doesn't
23:38 need indicators.
23:40 It is an indicator of where the threat
23:42 to the world originates and who is
23:45 really being configured.
23:48 Actually, Kushner said that if Europe
23:50 settles on a person to speak on its
23:53 behalf, it would be an even greater
23:55 achievement than getting Russia to agree
23:58 to involve Europeans in the negotiations
24:01 >> Well done,
24:02 >> well done. Yes, because that is a truly
24:05 substantive response.
24:07 Indeed, the inability of Europe to
24:09 decide on a character
24:12 >> and the substance of its position
24:13 >> is total. You understand, the moment it
24:16 becomes clear who they have chosen, it
24:18 will be perfectly clear that there is no
24:21 one to talk to.
24:23 Now, so what has happened with us?
24:26 >> No, well, before you move on to that, I
24:28 would note one thing. And by the way,
24:30 how do you feel about this?
24:32 I, for example, believe that this
24:34 démarche by Stubb and Støre, the phone
24:38 call, was certainly not their initiative
24:41 , actually,
24:42 >> it was an American initiative. Here
24:44 >> these are the people closest to the
24:46 Americans in the European, so to speak,
24:49 in the European.
24:51 >> Therefore, I this figure, they, of
24:53 course, carefully pretended that they
24:55 were coordinating it.
24:57 No, not just that they did it themselves
24:59 , but that they were coordinating it.
25:00 They probably coordinated it somehow,
25:02 but it was clear that it was an American
25:04 initiative. Go on, go on, guys, come on
25:06 , come on, yes, come on, come on, it
25:07 sounds like
25:09 >> let's go.
25:10 So, we will now try to answer the
25:12 question, why are the Europeans being
25:14 dragged there?
25:16 Well, again, formally, like, where else
25:17 can they go?
25:19 Because they allegedly want to discuss
25:21 the architecture with them, yes.
25:24 Firstly, we have achieved an outstanding
25:26 , simply stunning success with the
25:28 Americans. That is, we have returned to
25:31 the root causes.
25:32 >> Bravo. Well, I, I
25:34 >> What is security architecture? It is
25:37 what we have been chasing.
25:39 Well, openly, starting from 2008, and
25:43 directly in an ultimatum form, in 2021.
25:46 >> There.
25:47 And back then, there was an absolutely
25:49 clearly formulated refusal to discuss
25:51 these issues with us
25:53 >> consistently, many times.
25:56 >> No. Well, what Biden said, the last
25:58 meeting, that is, directly the prelude.
26:01 >> Root cause.
26:03 Let's all agree that this is indeed the
26:04 root cause, yes, and the foundation, and
26:06 so on.
26:08 Well, we have returned to the root
26:09 causes. What might be revealed? What
26:12 could be the result?
26:15 That the root cause might be unfixable?
26:21 You understand, we have returned here,
26:26 we talked for a long time: "Make a
26:27 diagnosis." Let's make a diagnosis.
26:32 >> We made
26:32 >> we made a diagnosis.
26:33 >> Yes. There is no treatment protocol.
26:35 >> Yes. No. Well, simply a diagnosis,
26:38 forgive me, of an imminent painful death
26:40 , figuratively speaking. Well, and we're
26:43 back, and hooray.
26:45 But there are ways. And as far as I
26:49 understand, there is a certain, uh, not
26:52 even a concept, but rather a certain
26:55 chance, a certain option, yes, that the
26:58 methods will work.
27:00 Just look at what our president is doing
27:03 against the backdrop of negotiations on
27:06 European security.
27:10 He is proposing to set up an Oleshky in
27:12 Kostyantynivka.
27:14 This is, of course, a global initiative
27:16 ,
27:16 >> yes.
27:17 >> 500 people—every human life is, of
27:20 course, important.
27:22 But against the backdrop of what is
27:24 happening, I think the listener will
27:26 understand what we are talking about,
27:30 So, the practical point of this setup is
27:33 to prove that Zelensky is lying,
27:38 because he is shouting everywhere that
27:40 he controls this, controls that, that he
27:42 controls 50%of Donbas.
27:44 And this issue precisely, Kostyantynivka
27:46 , is a concrete example.
27:48 Uh, the president, in fact, raised the
27:50 topic of all these gray zones and so on
27:53 That is empty talk, and there is no need
27:55 to discuss it.
27:57 You could, specifically, take and catch
28:01 Zelensky by the left testicle and hang
28:04 him up.
28:06 And if he doesn't want to be hung, say:
28:09 "Look, he chickened out." Uh, well, the
28:12 mountain doesn't necessarily have to
28:14 bring forth a mouse.
28:16 I have the impression that this whole
28:19 story is, in general, based on some sort
28:23 of
28:25 feeling that there is some quiet game
28:27 going on.
28:29 And it's not so much ours as it is our
28:32 American partners', because Trump is
28:36 not very capable of loud games anymore,
28:38 but he really wants to.
28:40 I completely agree with many statements
28:42 from all kinds of, uh, commentators,
28:45 analysts, including Western ones, that
28:47 Trump really wants to go down in history
28:49 and conclude a big deal.
28:52 Meaning, a deal with Iran. He declared
28:54 that it’s not even needed anymore.
28:56 >> And they say he sidelined Vance.
28:58 >> Well, I don't know if he sidelined him
29:00 or not.
29:00 >> If he sidelined Vance, then he regretted
29:02 it. And rightly so. Leave Vance alone.
29:05 Besides Vance, they—at least the
29:07 post-Trumpists—have no one else and
29:09 won't have anyone else, because Rubio is
29:11 a guy from a different mold. Right. But
29:17 so, because, again, starting with the
29:21 figure of Zelensky himself, with the
29:25 games around Starlink, it all looks very
29:29 much like Trump is planning, hoping—and
29:33 we aren't against it either—to carry out
29:38 some kind of,
29:40 to orchestrate some sort of Caracas in
29:44 Kyiv.
29:47 That is, some kind of non-formal
29:50 somersault that will change, uh, well,
29:53 the entire meaning of this whole story,
29:57 including with the Europeans, right?
30:01 The Europeans are an amazing way to, uh
30:05 , blame them for the failure of the
30:09 negotiations, which seems, uh, well,
30:12 quite likely.
30:17 And we aren't against it either.
30:20 >> Yes, well, I said it in my half hour. I
30:22 don't know if you've heard or not. So,
30:23 Zelensky here is like, uh, a
30:25 super-European, you know, there's
30:27 superintelligence, and he is a
30:30 super-European. He is the quintessence
30:32 of Europe.
30:33 >> A super-European.
30:34 >> A super-European he is. A super-European
30:36 he is. A better European, actually.
30:38 >> Yes. Yes. That is undoubted.
30:40 >> Cleaner, better in every sense. Uh, the
30:43 civilization that gave birth to the
30:45 concept that...
30:46 >> It's a pity he's not a, but
30:48 that's, in principle, fixable.
30:52 I'm saying, the civilization that gave
30:54 birth to the concept of the Übermensch,
30:56 who doesn't need God, in principle, had
30:58 to receive this kind of Übermensch over
31:01 itself.
31:01 >> Well, this is some kind of mockery of
31:03 >> No, why? In the Strugatskys ', in the
31:05 Strugatskys', this would have happened
31:07 to Nietzsche if he had seen—well, there
31:10 was Frankenstein, right?
31:11 >> And what is this? And this is an
31:13 Übermensch, you understand? This is the
31:16 European Übermensch. There.
31:18 >> No, Trump said a brilliant thing.
31:21 He said that if this deal is ever made,
31:24 the only reason for it will be me.
31:28 Meaning, there must be an alternative
31:30 construction.
31:32 And if the deal is not made, the only
31:35 reason will be them,
31:37 >> right? Zelensky.
31:38 >> Moreover, it is very obvious. Don't
31:39 believe it? Oh, take a look.
31:42 >> Well,
31:42 >> good heavens. Let's...
31:45 >> a little history. The Yalta Conference.
31:48 February of '45. Potsdam. Summer of the
31:51 same year.
31:52 France did not participate in either one
31:55 , although it later got its own zone in
31:57 Germany.
31:58 So Europe really wasn't asked much back
32:01 then.
32:02 >> Misha, we haven't discussed this with
32:05 you. Indeed, this question exists. What
32:07 for and why? In my first hour, I said
32:09 the same thing in different words. I'll
32:12 repeat it briefly.
32:14 We won't drag it out too long, we will
32:16 move on to further negotiations.
32:19 They, well, will demonstratively disrupt
32:22 these negotiations. There. And,
32:25 accordingly, we will be going about,
32:27 well, our own business. There.
32:29 >> Well, about our own business, we also
32:30 need to talk. Our own business, and how
32:32 and who will handle it, is a separate,
32:34 including a philosophical and historical
32:36 , problem. If we have enough time today
32:39 , yes, so to speak, to talk about
32:41 history.
32:41 >> I am always for historical context.
32:43 >> The concept of a positional deadlock.
32:46 That's a separate issue, because it's
32:48 very important, yes, and it's important
32:49 to understand one thing: if there is
32:51 such a thing as a positional deadlock,
32:53 surely there must be a strategic
32:54 deadlock, or isn't there, and how do
32:56 they differ?
32:58 Well then, and now about the
32:59 architecture of danger.
33:01 Before discussing security architecture
33:05 , it’s worth noting that it really
33:08 reflects what the security architecture
33:11 in Europe, which was designed at the
33:14 sunset of the Cold War, the Helsinki
33:17 Accords and all that stuff, really shows
33:20 several differences right away, yes.
33:24 Firstly, back then Europe—and
33:26 specifically Europe—wanted a security
33:28 architecture most of all.
33:31 Whose Europe was it? If you take Germany
33:34 , Brandt, Kohl, right? If you take
33:37 France, you have Pompidou, Giscard
33:40 d'Estaing, Chirac, and so on. That is,
33:42 those were statesmen like Palme.
33:46 Not to mention the neutrals, right,
33:48 practically saintly people.
33:50 >> One of them was even killed,
33:52 >> I mean Palme. And it’s still unknown by
33:54 whom.
33:55 Well, so, that’s how much Europe wanted
33:58 it, and now Europe—I’ll read the
34:01 quintessence of Europe, the liberal
34:04 Guardian.
34:06 Trump is preparing to give up Ukraine.
34:08 It’s time for Europe to get a grip.
34:11 There is every reason to fear a great
34:13 betrayal of Ukraine in the coming weeks
34:16 Vladimir Putin will be rewarded for his
34:18 special operation against Kyiv, and the
34:19 European security system, this very
34:21 architecture, will be undermined for
34:23 years to come.
34:24 Yes.
34:26 However, European leaders, these
34:28 Lilliputians, are too busy bickering
34:29 over who will represent them in future
34:31 peace talks to prevent this collusion
34:33 behind Ukraine's back.
34:36 So, if we strip away the rhetoric, it
34:38 becomes obvious that both of these
34:41 negotiators are talking about some kind
34:44 of deal with Putin behind the backs of
34:47 Volodymyr Zelenskyy and other European
34:50 leaders.
34:52 By the way,
34:53 >> it’s funny
34:54 >> behind the backs of Zelenskyy and others
34:56 , which will effectively lead to the
34:58 partitioning of Eastern Europe.
35:00 This partition could happen in just a
35:02 few weeks.
35:04 This is a hint at this, well, like the
35:07 Mar-a-Lago meeting, the trilateral
35:10 meeting.
35:12 So, Trump wants to achieve results
35:14 before the new Congress begins work in
35:16 January.
35:18 To impose a humiliating partition of the
35:20 country on Kyiv. Well, they recall Trump
35:22 and his statement that, well, the
35:24 country will have a slightly different
35:26 >> configuration, its shape will change,
35:27 yes.
35:28 If all this seems like paranoid delusion
35:30 , it’s worth remembering that Trump and
35:32 Musk have already resorted to most of
35:33 these methods.
35:35 It’s clear what this is about. The
35:37 threat of betrayal hangs over Europe.
35:41 So, next is a hint that Russia's frozen
35:43 assets should be seized. There.
35:46 So, they don't have any other
35:48 constructive or grand ideas, do they?
35:52 Transfer them under EU control, and then
35:55 use them to secure a massive loan for
35:57 Ukraine's reconstruction at the expense
35:59 of Russian reparations.
36:01 While securing funding for Kyiv for at
36:03 least 2 years, sparing the EU from the
36:05 need to conduct increasingly tense
36:07 negotiations every few months.
36:09 2 years of war, or is it reconstruction
36:11 , or 2 years of war.
36:13 Guys, you should decide what you want to
36:15 do with our money: rebuild Ukraine or
36:17 finish it off?
36:18 Yes, these are two very different
36:20 processes, actually. Well, in any case,
36:23 you'll still have to provide it.
36:26 It’s not too late to take steps to
36:29 prevent a massive betrayal of Ukraine—
36:31 not a small one, a giant one.
36:35 A weakened American president is even
36:38 more desperate to strike some kind of
36:40 deal.
36:42 Well, you could say that. What am I
36:45 trying to say?
36:47 These fears regarding Yalta are,
36:50 unfortunately, greatly exaggerated.
36:55 I already mentioned that Europe wasn't
36:57 discussed at Yalta, but what is a
37:00 division of spheres of influence, anyway
37:05 Great powers have the right and the duty
37:08 to have spheres of interest and
37:10 influence, because otherwise they cannot
37:13 ensure their own security.
37:16 And the security of other minor powers
37:19 that joined them.
37:22 Security spheres in Europe at Yalta, and
37:25 even more so in Potsdam, were defined by
37:29 the positioning of the armed forces of
37:32 the stakeholders, who were formally and
37:35 effectively allies.
37:38 And the United Nations was born as—
37:40 which is, in fact—the name of the
37:42 anti-Hitler coalition. The United
37:45 Nations. Yes, many people here have
37:47 probably forgotten.
37:49 Or maybe some never even knew what a—
37:52 well, not a scandal, but a difficult
37:54 process it was, for example, for
37:56 Argentina to join the UN, because
37:59 Argentina was effectively pro-Hitler
38:01 during the war, but then, due to
38:03 changing circumstances, the US really
38:06 needed it.
38:08 And after a long struggle, our side even
38:11 agreed to it.
38:13 To hell with it.
38:15 Especially since it wasn't relevant
38:16 anymore from a political perspective,
38:18 and it wasn't really affecting our other
38:19 interests much either.
38:21 So, in fact, yes, that’s just as an
38:23 example. So, there you go.
38:27 It is, on one hand, elegant,
38:34 cynical, but on the other hand,
38:36 realistic.
38:38 The division of spheres of influence is
38:42 defined not by deals or acrobatics, but
38:45 by the positioning of armed forces.
38:50 And Stalin, for this sphere of influence
38:55 paid for so generously with our blood,
38:59 understood what he was doing.
39:04 People have now paraphrased the saying:
39:07 where the Soviet soldier has set foot,
39:09 there is no return to capitalism. That
39:11 is a quote from Stalin.
39:13 We are talking about it now—
39:15 incidentally, we paraphrased it poorly,
39:17 because "no return to capitalism" does
39:19 not mean territorial annexation in favor
39:22 of one country.
39:24 It means the victory of a specific
39:26 political system. Yes, the one that, at
39:29 that time, at least in our country, was
39:31 publicly considered ideal.
39:35 So, it meant the arrival of happiness—
39:37 you could interpret it as: where the
39:39 Soviet soldier has set foot, the arrival
39:42 of happiness is irreversible.
39:45 >> The Helsinki Final Act was signed in the
39:47 summer of 1975. Olof Palme was killed in
39:51 Stockholm in '86, while Argentina only
39:53 declared war on Germany in March of '45
39:56 , and yet it became one of the UN's
39:59 founding members.
40:01 Listening further.
40:03 I will continue the theme of comparing
40:06 it to Yalta-Potsdam, which is again
40:08 extremely fashionable, both as a threat
40:10 and, on the other hand, as a hope—like
40:13 the three of them will gather, the
40:15 nuclear superpowers at least, right, and
40:17 they will, you know, divide the world
40:19 for real and order will prevail.
40:22 Yes. So, maybe we will have time to
40:25 discuss it. There are already rough
40:27 outlines of what might happen in
40:29 Shenzhen.
40:31 I think the meeting will happen after
40:33 all, but it will likely follow Chinese
40:35 patterns, which are very different from
40:37 Yalta precisely because of the
40:39 difference in fundamental premises.
40:42 So, the existence
40:48 of zones of influence, both Soviet and
40:51 anti-Soviet, was, in principle,
40:54 consolidated and defined by the presence
40:58 and deployment of troops, both as a
41:01 result of the Second World War and their
41:05 subsequent positioning.
41:08 Yes, after we unilaterally cleared our
41:12 zone of influence of our troops—and
41:16 indeed cleared it of influence itself—
41:20 all our moaning about NATO expansion has
41:24 , how should I put it, a
41:27 humanitarian-oligophrenic character.
41:32 Nature abhors a vacuum. It is a physical
41:35 process. A physical process. Like
41:37 communicating vessels, I don’t know,
41:40 pressure equalization, and so on.
41:43 Automatically, these territories were
41:47 occupied
41:51 by the force that remained and that had
41:54 a zone of influence. And it simply, I
41:57 would say, physically spread into the
42:01 freely evacuated territories.
42:05 Especially since there was no other
42:08 influence, no other serious superpower
42:11 that could have replaced this influence
42:13 with anything.
42:17 I mean, you can’t seriously say that the
42:19 states of Eastern Europe could exist on
42:21 their own without—there was one state,
42:22 Yugoslavia, it was called.
42:24 And where
42:27 And
42:29 >> Well, that is precisely why, and that’s
42:31 that. Yes, exactly, because it doesn't
42:34 work that way.
42:35 It is an absolutely natural process.
42:39 The fact that it was carried out within
42:41 the framework of demagoguery, deception
42:44 , our own self-deception, and so on,
42:47 alongside our quiet groans and
42:49 lamentations, is of no importance.
42:53 That is, it only matters from the point
42:55 of view of the dramaturgy of the process
42:56 , so to speak.
42:57 But otherwise, the process is completely
42:59 >> you know, I’ll tell you this.
43:01 It’s interesting that all this happened
43:04 , and they took all of them into NATO.
43:07 By the way, two monsters of American
43:10 geopolitics supported all of this.
43:14 Brzezinski and Kissinger, yes, they took
43:17 them all into NATO. But imagine, let’s—
43:19 I don’t like "what-ifs," but let’s
43:22 imagine.
43:23 Imagine if the Czech Republic, Poland,
43:25 and all of Eastern Europe hadn't been
43:27 admitted to NATO,
43:29 >> having heard
43:30 >> well, warning Kennan now, yes, it
43:32 doesn't matter what you heard,
43:35 >> it doesn't matter if you imagine there
43:38 could have been 10 Ukraines at some
43:40 point,
43:44 where you can use them as a battering
43:46 ram against Russia, like a fireship,
43:50 >> you just say, why necessarily, as a
43:52 fireship, without bearing any
43:54 responsibility. You understand? That’s
43:56 what I’ve been saying all along.
44:00 Our super-idea of keeping NATO out of
44:02 Ukraine is an attempt to force our way
44:05 through an open door.
44:08 Ukraine isn't needed in NATO. If Ukraine
44:11 were in NATO, how could it not be at war
44:14 with us? It couldn't, because then NATO
44:16 would be at war with us. This isn't a
44:18 proxy war.
44:19 So, this war, as one of the Obama-era
44:22 democratic defense advisors said, I
44:25 believe, is a proxy war between the
44:28 United States and
44:32 Russia. That’s how it started, it has
44:35 now transformed into some sort of
44:36 monstrosity that’s completely
44:38 incomprehensible, but it clearly started
44:40 that way, right?
44:41 Uh, so, and
44:44 the good fortune for our adversary in
44:46 this war is that for them it is
44:48 completely proxy, while for us it is
44:50 partly, I would say, yes.
44:52 Partly,
44:55 >> So, that's point one.
44:58 And that is why they like it and liked
45:00 it, and many still like it, though they
45:02 are gradually becoming disappointed.
45:05 If they were completely disappointed,
45:07 this whole thing would be over. There.
45:09 Well, anyway. Right now
45:11 >> I am getting to the point.
45:13 >> See, it’s interesting, right, that they
45:15 couldn’t help but raise the issue of
45:18 Ukraine joining NATO, and we couldn’t
45:20 help but object to it.
45:22 >> Correct. Correct. Correct.
45:25 I just want to say that this is all a
45:28 result of our geopolitical retreat, or,
45:31 I would even say, betrayal, a surrender
45:34 of positions.
45:36 Betrayal. It was a betrayal. You know, I
45:39 like precision in words, right? Retreat
45:41 , yes, from Gorbachev's perspective, it
45:44 was a betrayal. By the way, they are
45:46 actually very similar to Zelensky in one
45:48 thing.
45:49 Zelensky has increasing doubts that
45:52 Ukrainians love him, just as Gorbachev
45:54 at a certain point had doubts that the
45:57 Soviet people, as they were then, loved
46:00 him.
46:02 There. So, and for that reason, he seeks
46:06 success and self-realization in the West
46:11 more and more. In that sense, they are
46:14 strikingly similar. There. Uh, well,
46:17 there are actually many such similar
46:20 people.
46:23 Especially from this side, from this
46:25 side of Europe, from ours.
46:27 >> Well, yes.
46:28 >> There. But I just want to say that
46:33 practically everything that happened, we
46:37 were once very happy that the collapse
46:41 process went through at a low cost for
46:45 us.
46:47 They compared themselves to Yugoslavia
46:49 and so on.
46:50 It’s just a deferred price. It is a
46:53 deferred price. No, if we had completely
46:55 perished, yes,
46:57 then you could consider the price small
46:59 , if we don’t count, you are actually
47:01 >> right,
47:02 >> the actual annihilation.
47:04 >> So, what was the issue there? The
47:06 Americans calculated,
47:07 >> actually, actually that’s exactly how it
47:09 was intended. Just annihilate yourselves
47:10 quietly, guys.
47:11 >> Oh, exactly, yes.
47:12 >> Right,
47:14 The Americans gave us existence, well,
47:18 maybe until 2005.
47:22 Then they pushed it all back, thinking
47:24 that by 2015 we wouldn't have any
47:25 nuclear deterrent forces left, and they
47:27 would take us with their bare hands.
47:30 >> So, the special military operation in
47:33 its current form, although it was
47:35 conceived differently, of course, is
47:37 transforming.
47:39 We had this image.
47:41 We said that the difficulty of the task
47:46 our current president faced was, yes,
47:50 trying to hatch chicks from scrambled
47:54 eggs, because by that moment the eggs
47:57 were practically already almost digested
48:03 Exactly. And now we see it. What I’m
48:05 talking about is exactly this hatching
48:07 of chicks from scrambled eggs, yes.
48:09 That’s why Yalta and Potsdam are a
48:13 chimera.
48:15 And look at how the participants are
48:17 behaving. Yes, there is a whole big
48:20 article in the South China Morning Post
48:23 , by the way.
48:25 That is, the most open and, well,
48:28 somewhat free, or at least informally
48:32 thinking one.
48:35 Well, a quite official Chinese newspaper
48:37 that talks about what the meeting will
48:39 likely look like.
48:41 What is the disagreement, then?
48:43 Trump wants a free discussion on broad
48:46 topics,
48:49 and ours, in general, well, it’s not
48:52 exactly, well, it’s described quite well
48:55 here. But the Chinese want a strict
48:59 agenda and prepared documents.
49:04 Do you see what the deal is? The Chinese
49:05 already feel like winners, so the main
49:07 thing for them is not to make mistakes.
49:09 And what does it mean not to make
49:10 mistakes? It means not falling for
49:12 provocations, not getting involved in
49:14 any. And sometimes it’s better not to
49:15 expose yourself, yes, absolutely right.
49:17 Back away. Sometimes back away and,
49:20 perhaps, even give something up to avoid
49:23 getting bogged down, because in their
49:27 view they are on the right path to, uh,
49:30 if not world domination, then world
49:33 leadership. Exactly, exactly. It’s not a
49:37 fact that they are even striving for
49:39 world domination at all. They have
49:40 enough intelligence and historical
49:42 experience, and so on. Yes. Just don't
49:44 stumble. You understand, this manner
49:48 some countries, powers have, "we were
49:52 provoked." It was a provocation. They
49:55 provoked you. Who even asked you, you
49:58 wretch, to be provoked? Especially if
50:01 you were yelling from the very beginning
50:03 that it was a provocation. Don't fall
50:05 for it.
50:11 So, it's written here that the main
50:14 topic, most likely,
50:20 will be control over AI in the nuclear
50:23 sphere.
50:25 That is, this is where there is some
50:27 high degree of consensus, right?
50:31 The armed conflict in Ukraine and the
50:33 nuclear situation on the Korean
50:35 peninsula are off the agenda.
50:38 The United States is insisting on
50:40 discussing nuclear arms control. China
50:43 has long been against it because they
50:46 have serious reasons. They want
50:48 potentials—they are ready to discuss
50:51 transparency, transparency of warning
50:53 systems, and so on, right?
50:56 To sign another declaration that there
50:59 will be no winners in a nuclear war.
51:02 It looks like that's exactly what will
51:04 happen, the three countries might issue
51:06 a joint statement confirming that there
51:08 can be no winners.
51:09 Notification of missile launches.
51:13 Recently, these countries have been
51:15 jointly proposing draft resolutions to
51:17 the General Assembly on AI management.
51:21 In 2024, the US and China prepared such
51:23 a resolution.
51:25 There. And Russia supported the Chinese
51:28 resolution.
51:29 So,
51:35 some kind of agreement on human control
51:37 over nuclear weapons, according to South
51:39 China Morning Post or their source, to
51:42 be more precise, Russia is not showing
51:44 any enthusiasm here
51:46 >> regarding
51:48 >> regarding Moscow, it refuses to take on
51:51 commitments that would limit its
51:54 military's freedom of action.
51:57 It also does not openly support the US
51:59 and Chinese position that a human must
52:01 retain the decision-making authority on
52:03 the use of nuclear weapons.
52:07 >> Well, it's a strange thing,
52:10 >> I can tell you, there is the Dead Hand
52:13 system.
52:14 >> Oh, I see.
52:15 >> Well, they are hinting at the Russians,
52:17 "Get rid of it." The Russians say, "No
52:19 way."
52:21 >> An Indian "teepee," as that guy says.
52:24 No way, get it? What's interesting here
52:27 is, first, regarding the Dead Hand.
52:29 Secondly,
52:30 >> no, this is good.
52:31 This is actually good, because
52:33 considering the human factor, it's
52:36 better if the factor of the final,
52:39 >> yes,
52:39 >> meaning,
52:40 >> the final tally,
52:41 >> the final tally was non-human,
52:43 >> right? Look, that's what they're hinting
52:46 at. Second, well, this "there will be no
52:48 winners," of course. A wonderful thesis
52:51 . Let's say, well, we accept this thesis
52:54 as a foundation. What follows from this
52:58 ? That there won't be any winners?
53:01 Well, look, if, for example, the United
53:04 States together with Europe, the whole
53:07 of NATO, plus someone else, deploys a
53:09 major conventional war against Russia at
53:13 its borders and on its territory, which
53:15 threatens us with direct strategic
53:18 defeat.
53:20 That means we won't be winners,
53:22 >> we won't.
53:22 >> Then we level the playing field. There
53:24 will be no winners at all.
53:25 >> We have talked about this a thousand
53:26 times. I think there will be no winners
53:28 at all.
53:29 >> It's not even needed. Actually, actually
53:31 , once again, he didn't just hint at
53:33 this, he spoke about it directly.
53:35 >> I just want to state how the full
53:38 syllogism about there being no winners
53:41 in a nuclear war sounds. In full, it
53:44 sounds exactly like
53:46 >> about Kennan.
53:48 In ninety-seven, he warned that NATO
53:50 expansion to the east would lead to dire
53:53 consequences.
53:54 And in January of '22, five nuclear
53:57 powers stated: "There can be no winners
54:00 in a nuclear war." Mikhail Leontyev
54:03 completes this formula in his own way.
54:06 I would like here, then,
54:10 >> again, if we turn to historical
54:13 experience, we have established that a
54:16 Yalta-Potsdam, in the form that Yalta
54:19 and Potsdam took, cannot exist because
54:22 the premises are different, yes, the
54:25 interests are different.
54:28 And most importantly, in Yalta and
54:31 Potsdam, it was practically impossible
54:33 not to reach an agreement.
54:37 Because these countries were acting as
54:39 allies and, by the way, continued to be
54:42 allies due to the fact that they were
54:44 conducting combat operations in the
54:47 still-ongoing Second World War.
54:50 Japan was still there, if we remember,
54:53 Here, the situation of allies is,
54:55 strictly speaking, nowhere to be seen.
54:58 Involving them here means an attempt to
55:02 resuscitate Europe as a global player.
55:06 That is, to pull a ghost out of the
55:08 closet and scare each other with it.
55:13 It is in itself very typical for this
55:15 situation and marks a sharp contrast—
55:18 again, I say—Hitler was not asked how
55:21 the security structure would be arranged
55:24 in territories that were partially, and
55:27 before that fully, under his control.
55:33 But it is customary for us to compare
55:35 the nature of the current combat
55:38 operations not to the Second World War,
55:40 but to the First.
55:42 And, by the way, there are largely more
55:44 analogies here, right?
55:46 And when the words "positional stalemate
55:49 " are uttered, and they are used by both
55:51 sides, the image of the First World War
55:54 arises, primarily the Western Front. Yes
55:57 , despite the enormous importance of the
56:00 eastern, Russian front,
56:04 for some reason, on the whole, although
56:07 at every given moment we paid with
56:09 immense blood, it had no significance,
56:12 and even its disappearance, as it turned
56:15 out, did not have a decisive impact on
56:18 the outcome of the First World War. In
56:21 general, it is a very peculiar war. And
56:22 , by the way, the answer to the question
56:24 : is a positional stalemate the
56:25 impossibility of victory?
56:28 Take the First World War as an example.
56:31 Well, there was a stalemate, a long
56:33 stalemate, but nevertheless, there were
56:36 winners in the war somehow, right?
56:41 Because a positional stalemate can be
56:44 physical, when all sides, on the brink
56:47 of their physical strength, try to
56:50 overcome it and cannot.
56:53 Yes, a similar situation existed at a
56:55 certain stage of the First World War,
56:58 but it can also be political, when,
57:01 based on some internal, external,
57:03 various multifactorial calculations,
57:06 both sides do not commit 100%.
57:09 Yes,
57:11 but right now we clearly do not have a
57:14 physical deadlock.
57:16 We see that both sides, well, except for
57:18 Ukraine, which, once again, should not
57:20 be considered a side. That is, of course
57:23 , simply a calculation error. It would
57:24 just be a direct calculation error, of
57:26 course.
57:27 >> Meaning, you guys are calculating the
57:28 wrong thing, as they say, right?
57:30 That is why, again, the assumption that
57:33 Ukraine will be exhausted has a certain
57:36 proportional value in the formula.
57:39 There is no need to exaggerate it,
57:41 actually.
57:42 That's how it is. So, the covenants can
57:46 change, and then the positional deadlock
57:51 will shift into a different form.
57:57 But if we take World War I, there was a
58:00 colossal change in covenants; the
58:03 collapse of Russia should have led to an
58:07 enhanced position for Germany and
58:09 Austria-Hungary, but it led to the
58:12 opposite.
58:14 Germany?
58:15 No, well, Germany made a colossal
58:17 attempt to change the course of the war
58:21 However, this attempt failed.
58:24 The entry of the United States into the
58:26 war simply left no chance whatsoever.
58:30 It's like, you know, throwing a weight
58:32 onto the scales that outweighed all the
58:34 other weights that were lying on both
58:37 sides of the scale.
58:39 That's all there is to it. Bang. After
58:41 that, the scales simply broke. There
58:43 were no scales left. And at the same
58:46 time, it is very interesting that this
58:49 was a war of empires in which everyone
58:51 lost.
58:53 Even Britain, and, well, France, which
58:56 was a formal winner in the war, was
58:58 simply annihilated.
59:00 It basically
59:01 >> no, it even
59:03 >> exhausted itself completely, completely
59:05 >> and it even broke down entirely.
59:06 >> And then this life of the French people
59:08 and French.
59:09 >> And then the question is, why, where do
59:11 Macrons come from,
59:12 >> right? And Hollandes. That is where from
59:14 >> Well, that is exactly where they come
59:16 from. Where does the current Frenchman
59:18 come from?
59:19 Because genetically, obviously, that
59:23 part of France which was capable of, so
59:27 to speak, reproducing Frenchmen, was
59:31 exterminated.
59:33 >> What remained was the part capable of
59:34 reproducing what is capable.
59:36 >> What is capable. That is all it can do.
59:40 There are anomalies, like de Gaulle and
59:43 a few others, yes, but it is not enough
59:45 to—it is only enough to periodically
59:48 reanimate some, shall we say, historical
59:50 nostalgia, and nothing more.
59:53 They are about to vote now. Do you think
59:55 they will choose Le Pen?
59:58 >> They are already, well,
60:02 forming some next,
60:05 >> well, simulator, yes, to avoid using
60:08 obscene language, some
60:10 >> philosopher,
60:11 >> well, I don't know what to call him.
60:16 And, most likely, they will mold him
60:18 into what they want, yes, because
60:20 because the current French society is
60:22 not worthy of anything else, nothing
60:24 else.
60:25 He is not even worthy of Le Pen.
60:27 >> After World War I, this society and this
60:30 nation decided that under no
60:32 circumstances would it ever go to war
60:35 again.
60:35 >> So,
60:36 >> and this
60:37 >> all the countries that started World War
60:41 I, all of them lost.
60:43 I'm just saying that such a scenario,
60:45 all of you without exception. Well, two
60:47 simply ceased to exist immediately. That
60:50 is, Austria-Hungary and Russia. Yes.
60:52 >> Yes. And
60:54 >> the British Empire. Also
60:56 >> the British Empire began a path of
60:58 self-destruction.
61:00 The winners were the states that didn't
61:02 start this war and didn't want to
61:03 participate in it.
61:05 And they did it at the moment when it
61:07 was simply possible to take everything
61:09 that was left unguarded.
61:11 Finally, the United States entered World
61:14 War I in April of '17, and after that,
61:16 the outcome of the war was decided. The
61:19 Austro-Hungarian and Russian empires did
61:21 not live to see its end. That was the
61:23 broadcast with Dmitry Kulyakov. And what
61:25 do you think, will Europe come to the
61:27 negotiating table?
61:29 Write in the comments and subscribe.
Judged by claude-sonnet-5.5-eu on 2026-11-14 18:20 UTC. A flag means “worth a look”; a person decides.