Up next in 10
Has International Law Been Replaced by Politics? Maria Zakharova Answers |Russia
Aug 7, 2026
Maria Zakharova, Director of the Information and Press Department of Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, discusses the changing nature of global politics, diplomacy, international law, and information warfare in an extensive interview.
She argues that the world is experiencing a fundamental shift where competing narratives, strategic communication, and geopolitical interests increasingly shape international relations. The discussion also explores historical memory, diplomacy, legal principles, and the challenges facing the current international order.
This video examines the interview's key arguments and the broader geopolitical implications from a news and analytical perspective.
If you enjoy in-depth analysis of geopolitics, diplomacy, international affairs, and global power shifts, subscribe for more content.
#MariaZakharova #Russia #Geopolitics #Diplomacy #InternationalRelations #NATO #UnitedNations #WorldPolitics #ForeignPolicy #GlobalAffairs #RussiaNews #Analysis #CurrentAffairs #GeopoliticsNews #InternationalLaw
Show More Show Less View Video Transcript
0:01
Dear friends, I am glad to welcome
0:03
everyone, our dear viewers, with you
0:05
purity of understanding. Let me remind
0:07
you that this is a platform where we
0:09
deeply and in detail discuss the most
0:11
relevant, the most pressing topics with
0:14
the most interesting experts of our
0:15
country and in general the whole world.
0:18
Let me remind you of course that this is
0:20
a platform for smart and educated
0:21
people. Who hasn't gone then? And we by
0:25
the way have this article. We have our
0:27
own story about this. Dear friends, well
0:30
looking ahead, let me break the protocol
0:34
a little and immediately introduce our
0:36
guest. This is Maria Zakarova, director
0:38
of the information and press department
0:39
of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
0:41
Russia.
0:42
>> Thank goodness for your smile. I just
0:44
keep gazing at your expressions. As
0:46
Gorchakov once noted, deeply engrossed
0:49
>> and we are trying to understand which of
0:50
us is formed
0:52
>> and considering them perceptive would
0:53
equate to equating them with somberness.
0:56
>> Understood, an insightful, knowledgeable
0:59
and melancholic individual.
1:01
>> All right, our regular host, Alexe
1:04
Shadv. Good luck to everyone.
1:07
>> Sonov, a political scientist,
1:08
journalist, and author steadfast in his
1:10
position.
1:12
Today we have a lot of questions for you
1:14
Maria Vladimirna because well first of
1:16
all once again yes thank you for coming
1:18
to us. In recent years the world is
1:22
living well in some kind of colossal
1:24
turbulence. The world is running a
1:25
fever. International institutions have
1:27
already ordered us to live globally for
1:29
a long time. I mean they are not
1:31
fulfilling their function. Often it is
1:32
not clear at all how the international
1:34
agenda is formed. We came in from the
1:36
Trump cards.
1:37
>> Yes I'm with the Trumps. As Alysia likes
1:39
to say, it's unclear how the
1:41
international agenda is formed because,
1:43
well, sometimes, for example, everything
1:46
depends on what Donald Trump wrote on
1:47
social networks. And in general, modern
1:50
first persons are often simple. Trolling
1:52
each other on the internet there, I took
1:54
a picture with it. I didn't take a
1:56
picture with it. The international
1:58
discussion has turned into, so to speak,
2:00
excuse the expression, a fight in the
2:02
comments. Yes. And it is conducted in
2:04
approximately this language, in this
2:06
style. And
2:08
>> it's not clear how to react, how to
2:10
answer your question. Let's agree that
2:13
we will not slip into this style with
2:15
you. All these words are kindly reserved
2:19
that for others. I enjoy trolling and
2:22
joking but without disrespect. Let's
2:25
ensure we don't overstep boundaries.
2:28
You know they said uh in recent years I
2:31
just wrote down the world lives and then
2:33
they listed all these depressing moments
2:37
but the last centuries of course it
2:39
wasn't like that right it was wonderful
2:42
there were no wars there were no
2:44
problems there were no monstrous acts of
2:47
dehumanization what else is there to
2:49
discuss at length
2:51
>> no at least there were a few more or
2:53
less understandable rules back then
2:55
>> rules of decency even in tragic moments
2:58
like gas chambers there existed certain
3:01
decencies
3:03
you know that expression I heard I don't
3:06
know how old I was there 57 well that's
3:08
about yeah that life is a struggle
3:14
I don't remember where or how I
3:17
encountered this idea whether through
3:19
school lessons on the great October
3:22
socialist revolution or perhaps even in
3:24
a joke someone told the context escapes
3:27
me. But the idea lingered, leaving me
3:29
confused. Why?
3:32
But now using different examples and
3:35
everything that is read in fiction and
3:38
when studying history, it
3:41
it must be studied and studied
3:44
constantly because every day something
3:46
new is discovered and every day
3:48
something already becomes history. Of
3:51
course, turning to the general problems
3:53
of the universe from the point of view
3:55
of value issues and so on, life is
3:58
exactly the struggle, including for
4:02
remaining human beings and for what
4:05
seemed to us in my childhood and in my
4:08
adolescence to be a worn out record.
4:11
>> For peace, peace is not a natural state.
4:15
It resists the inherent dynamics of
4:17
existence
4:19
in realms such as politics, economics,
4:22
and the broader scope of history. Peace
4:23
seems elusive. This isn't my personal
4:26
ideology or conclusion, but an
4:28
observation of reality.
4:31
The entire historical process confirms
4:33
this convincingly.
4:36
Renowned figures have commented on it
4:38
extensively.
4:40
The world requires a fight for it.
4:43
Therefore, it is not in recent years
4:45
that the world has experienced all the
4:47
horrors through a comma. This is the
4:50
last well, as far as we know, tens of
4:53
thousands of years probably. Yes, we
4:55
calculated it. Well, plus or minus well,
4:59
you know, tens, let's say modestly,
5:01
let's say tens of thousands of years. We
5:03
can more or less somehow review. We
5:06
don't go into the millions because with
5:08
there, well, at least for me, there is
5:10
little, yes, little that is known there.
5:13
All these years, decades, centuries,
5:16
millennia which have come down to us in
5:18
the form of epics, artifacts,
5:21
chronicles, sacred books, objects of art
5:25
and so on testify to exactly this. You
5:28
want peace. You have to fight for it.
5:31
You have to create conditions for peace
5:33
within your community whether it is a
5:36
state, a country, some kind of
5:39
community, uh integration and so on. Uh
5:44
in the form of some kind of buffer rings
5:47
at different points of the world to rely
5:49
on them and so on and so on.
5:55
So let's answer your question without
5:58
spreading our thoughts down the tree.
6:01
two thesises. The first is not recent
6:04
years. It has always been like this. And
6:07
the second is for all the good. I mean
6:09
not in the context of personal
6:11
consumption but precisely what you and I
6:14
civilizationally define as goals, tasks,
6:18
certain constants or
6:22
some tuning forks for all this. Of
6:24
course you have to fight. It's just that
6:27
starting from this I would like to
6:29
strengthen the thesis that yes the
6:31
struggle has been and is always going on
6:33
but what are we recording we note
6:36
significant changes in the style of this
6:38
struggle precisely at that very last
6:40
time
6:42
and this is the style yes this is the
6:45
style of statements the style of
6:47
rhetoric the style of public gesture in
6:50
international politics
6:53
>> can I give you an example
6:55
There are many different versions. There
6:58
are more, so to speak, confirmed by
7:01
facts. There are less. There are more
7:03
romantic ones. Never mind. Let's now say
7:06
that this phrase belongs to one of the
7:08
leaders
7:10
protected by the west who grew up in
7:12
western so to speak hots. This phrase is
7:15
dedicated to him and was said
7:18
also the chairman of the western world
7:21
not at all as you said in recent years.
7:24
And this was the 20th century. Remember,
7:27
he is of course a son of a but he
7:29
is, as the relevant western leader said,
7:32
our son of a How is that? Which
7:35
piggy bank will you take this to? Um,
7:38
more or less digestible from the point
7:40
of view of rules of behavior and
7:42
decency. In my opinion, we were still
7:45
talking about the 20th century where
7:47
there was and the concept one way or
7:50
another glorified by westernism of
7:53
gentlemanship that is a certain code of
7:57
at least external honor, external
8:00
decency, external behavior. There was an
8:02
understanding that not all people who
8:05
would like to do so without having the
8:08
opportunity and education level of
8:11
authority
8:13
reach this most cherished microphone
8:16
podium and so on they could do it that
8:18
is still this required qualifications
8:21
this required well I don't know
8:23
experience work on oneself and at the
8:26
same time that is um here there is no
8:29
segregation of people there is no
8:32
derogatory attitude, God forbid, but it
8:35
is meant that when people broadcast to
8:37
the audience, this implied one way or
8:39
another passing some path. Yes, in the
8:43
end it could turn out to be Hitlers. In
8:46
the end, it could turn out to be really
8:48
outstanding people from a good from a
8:50
beautiful point of view, outstanding
8:52
public figures and so on. But one way or
8:56
another, it was some kind of way. And
8:58
not like now any person who buys means
9:00
of communication can instantly turn out
9:03
to be this alleged prophet, a false
9:06
prophet to an audience of millions.
9:09
It was said then anyway
9:12
here in such expressions. So absolutely.
9:16
So no. And for example, well these are
9:20
chronicles. Okay. We do not have uh
9:24
audio recordings or documentary footage
9:27
from antiquity, the ancient world and
9:30
ancient Rome. But what came as
9:34
statements of their Caesars, their
9:37
representatives, nobles, elites who were
9:41
in charge of the public state then you
9:44
know there are also such expressions and
9:47
actions I would say arrogant speaking
9:50
today's language. No, I think that there
9:53
is nothing new under the moon.
9:56
>> Caesar defeated goal, not Caesar's
9:57
comets, right? This one right there.
9:59
>> There was a lot there. There was a lot
10:01
there. Let's not go into depth now. And
10:03
you don't have the 18 plus mark, right?
10:06
There is a lot that can be cited there.
10:08
That was monstrous. And look how
10:10
interesting it turns out. Today, and you
10:13
have noticed this, we are reaching the
10:15
point of splitting a hair. But how
10:18
ethical is it? and how much does it so
10:21
to speak cross some boundaries of what
10:24
is allowed in terms of rhetoric.
10:28
Let's rewind for a second. Several
10:31
centuries, thousands of years ago,
10:34
people simply by raising a finger up or
10:37
down decided a person's fate not because
10:40
their lives depended on it but simply
10:42
because it was part of the
10:44
entertainment.
10:46
Understand? just like I don't know gas
10:49
chambers there or
10:51
burying people in pits everything was
10:53
somehow
10:54
>> now the volin massacre is being
10:56
discussed in this context it is ethical
10:58
unethical to sing heroes fine right that
11:01
is when 80 well about 80 years ago there
11:04
were pluses and minuses yes when people
11:07
I say again just not for the
11:09
faint-hearted were put in a row in order
11:12
to save bullets and put them with one
11:14
bullet and not only that these
11:16
calculations were transmitted from
11:20
so to speak shooter to shooter. We are
11:23
talking about the Nazis, about
11:24
collaborators, about Bandera. They had
11:27
calculations so as not to waste a lot of
11:29
ammunition on the peaceful civilian
11:31
population. They could be lined up in a
11:34
row and therefore what they did with
11:36
people there there, how they were raised
11:38
to villas, how their skin was peeled off
11:41
just like that. Not because it was
11:43
something, not because it was a threat
11:45
to life, because it was also a kind of
11:47
entertainment in the first half of the
11:49
20th century. And we are now discussing
11:52
with you. Yes, there's trolling
11:55
stylistics, right? No, this is not about
11:58
recent years. This is about the fact
12:00
that this is a historical pendulum and
12:02
humanity has repeatedly approached a
12:06
certain edge and looked into this abyss
12:09
and every time it was possible. Well, by
12:12
the way, not every time. If we proceed
12:15
from biblical historioggraphy,
12:18
then there were moments
12:21
when yes, it was different. And when the
12:23
Almighty said, "No, well, that's it. Now
12:26
that's enough. Now there will be a
12:28
little water and then we begin to
12:30
quickly build the ark all over again."
12:32
Yes, there was such a thing. But if we
12:34
talk about historioggraphy
12:37
from the point of view of conflicts,
12:39
wars, madness which humanity was capable
12:42
of still approaching this edge and
12:45
sometimes even going beyond the edge
12:48
still somehow managed. Yes. The last how
12:51
much will we take? Millennium. Yes.
12:53
Somehow get away from it. They pay
12:55
different prices for it.
12:58
>> Well, not least by the way thanks to
13:00
diplomats because just the history of
13:02
the last few centuries. Yes, starting
13:04
probably from the end of the 30-year war
13:07
is when after all a bloody massacre,
13:09
people find the strength to sit down and
13:12
negotiate. And there is some special
13:15
work of these people who conduct these
13:18
congresses, these treaties after wars.
13:20
The rules of the Westfalian system, the
13:23
Versailile system, the Yaltta potsdam
13:25
system are earned.
13:27
>> I have a question. Help me answer.
13:32
Previously, well, at least again, both
13:35
in fiction and in specialized
13:38
literature, the work of a lawyer
13:41
included understanding that a person
13:43
committed some offense, let's say, maybe
13:47
not a crime, an offense, let's say, and
13:51
but at the same time, uh, the lawyer
13:53
defended his client, either the one who
13:56
was identified to him as part of the
13:59
process or the one who hired him and so
14:01
on
14:04
as I understand it the audience as you
14:06
said is smart will correct me or maybe
14:11
confirm my words well at least I read
14:13
that in a number of countries are now
14:15
introducing norms well I don't know call
14:19
it ethical standards of work or legally
14:23
enshrined there then a lawyer cannot
14:26
defend his word if he becomes reliably
14:29
aware of the commission of a crime
14:32
Well, I read about this in a retelling.
14:34
Maybe this is not so. Here I have a
14:38
question for you. What do you think
14:40
society, the 21st century, I say the
14:43
whole society, the world, today's
14:45
society,
14:47
we have come to such a level of
14:49
development when knowing
14:52
that a client, a person, an organization
14:54
committed a crime, it still needs to be
14:57
defended by proving the opposite.
15:03
I have an answer. We have all read Alex
15:06
Karp's manifesto and it is stated in
15:08
plain text that not all civilizations,
15:11
races and cultures are equally useful.
15:13
Some do not deserve to exist at all.
15:15
This is right here in the same piggy
15:17
bank. That is if this is seriously
15:19
discussed about that not that there is
15:22
an individual person in court. Yes. And
15:25
not that even a single state but an
15:27
entire civilization can be erased with
15:30
an eraser with the help of modern ones.
15:33
It means yes then of course this
15:35
principle. Yes the principle of the bar
15:38
the principle of the right to defense.
15:41
Moreover this right of course absolutely
15:43
for everyone even for people who really
15:46
committed terrible crimes. This was one
15:49
of the basic postulates of that also
15:51
Roman law.
15:53
here.
15:54
>> This is not the answer to the question.
15:55
I'm asking about something else. I'm
15:57
talking about something else. I am
15:59
talking about the fact that we now do
16:01
not and cannot subject any doubt even
16:03
hypothetical. Firstly, it is not my
16:06
competence. Secondly, I to be honest uh
16:09
believe that this is definitely in some
16:11
specialized communities such a
16:13
discussion should take place uh
16:16
regarding the presumption of innocence.
16:19
This is not discussed. We are talking
16:21
about something else. We are talking
16:22
about the fact that a person who assumes
16:24
the function of a defender and it is
16:27
imputed to him according to the law
16:29
according to the traditions existing in
16:32
this or that society uh he knows it
16:34
thoroughly. He his client is absolutely
16:37
clearly recognized says that a crime has
16:40
really been committed. In a number of
16:42
countries some new norms are being
16:44
adopted or developed or are already
16:46
stipulated suggesting that in this case
16:48
protection is impossible anything at
16:50
all. So look right to
16:53
>> protection is protection in the form of
16:55
counter well for example a person says
16:57
he stole
16:59
and the lawyer says well he didn't steal
17:02
he did something else there although he
17:04
knows full well that his ward committed
17:07
this crime do you think society requires
17:10
a transition to this new quality is it
17:13
not timely or is it self-evident because
17:16
when I first encountered this it was a
17:18
few months ago
17:22
I became extremely interested. I wanted
17:25
to discuss this with someone. That's why
17:27
the application was made for your
17:29
intellectual so to speak program. I
17:32
became interested because this is
17:34
directly related to the question that I
17:36
was asked.
17:38
>> First of all, the right to defense is
17:40
quite different principle than the
17:42
presumption of innocence. That is the
17:44
right to defense also includes the
17:46
guilty. And by the way uh one of the
17:48
famous speeches for example Pvaka simply
17:50
in court he undertook to defend the old
17:53
woman who stole the kettle and it is
17:55
reliably known that what happened that
17:56
she stole it and the pathos of the
17:58
speech was that Russia withstood it
18:00
there. Cheneago Pof tatters Mongols
18:03
there pol Napoleon and so on. But if we
18:06
do not now convict the old woman for
18:08
hiding the kettle then it means that she
18:10
will collapse. It turns out that the old
18:12
woman by the way was acquitted. He did
18:14
not deny that she did it. He did not
18:16
deny that is the right to defense. The
18:19
lawyer has a lot of options for example
18:21
to mitigate the punishment even when it
18:23
is determined that there is guilt.
18:26
>> Mitigating circumstances a lot of things
18:28
I understand
18:30
this is a function from this from this
18:33
not only do they abandon it from this
18:35
you need to move somewhat to another
18:37
aspect.
18:39
There is reliable information that this
18:42
was done it was done incorrectly.
18:45
contrary to the law and this is refuted
18:48
during the defense and stated otherwise
18:51
that nothing wrong was done.
18:55
Is that how you feel about it? That is
18:58
the defenders understand that a crime
19:00
has been committed but in rhetoric and
19:03
positioning they completely reject it
19:06
and pretend that this did not happen.
19:10
>> I understand this also applies to the
19:12
Volin massacre. This also applies to the
19:14
recent for example trial for undermining
19:16
Nordstreams. That is the crime was
19:18
proven the persons are known. But since
19:21
they committed all this in the name of
19:23
good then it means you can build a
19:25
rhetorical construction in which well in
19:28
essence in general yes they committed
19:30
it. But by and large the end justifies
19:33
the means. Yes. This answer of mine is
19:35
exactly like that since we immediately
19:37
outlined with you. Yes. What is the
19:39
difference between our positions? Ivan
19:42
in fact began.
19:44
We say that something has changed
19:46
recently. You claim that nothing has
19:48
changed since ancient Babylon, Egypt,
19:51
and there.
19:54
I didn't say that.
19:56
>> I said that all these processes took
19:58
place one way or another and were more
20:00
complicated than the situation. I didn't
20:02
say that everything was the same in no
20:04
way.
20:05
>> Perhaps I oversimplified it. My argument
20:08
is that it's different now. Still I
20:11
continue to insist that this change not
20:13
only in stylistics has already been
20:15
mentioned many times but also in the
20:17
basic approach and the main thing is
20:19
what has changed and why what you are
20:21
talking about has become possible. This
20:23
is that the basic logic of right that is
20:26
there are certain laws certain norms
20:28
that we all live by has been replaced by
20:31
the logic of absolute struggle for
20:34
absolute good. Well, remember in the
20:37
movie Lord of the Rings, the ambassador
20:40
of Mordor goes out and tries to
20:42
negotiate with the White Army. And then
20:45
Aragorn takes out his sword, cuts off
20:47
his head right there, and says, "I don't
20:49
trust the forces of evil,
20:52
>> Ivan, can you provide an answer to this?
20:56
Why?"
20:57
>> Wait, you didn't like my answer? Here, I
21:00
insist it has changed. not a right
21:02
anymore but merely a topic of
21:04
discussion. I'm talking about what I'm
21:07
talking about is that this approach when
21:10
well relatively speaking a defender
21:13
whether a lawyer whether a lawyer
21:15
whether a person who will represent
21:17
interests understanding
21:21
that a crime was committed during the
21:24
defense process completely rejects the
21:26
fact essentially presenting the case in
21:29
a false light saying that none of this
21:32
happened and all the evidence presented
21:35
that accordingly has no force.
21:41
Do you understand? That is it didn't
21:43
seem to be considered before.
21:45
>> It wasn't possible before. Yes.
21:47
>> Previously, this wasn't seen as a
21:49
violation and wasn't considered feasible
21:51
earlier.
21:53
Now, let's move on to diplomacy. I
21:55
understand that we have an answer now.
21:57
We were not looking for it.
21:59
>> No, it's just that the whole
22:00
juristprudence is the the point. Let's
22:02
move on to diplomacy.
22:03
demonic and devilish.
22:06
>> Oh, I insist. Please summon the priests
22:08
without hesitation.
22:10
This is normal in this contour. Look,
22:13
you said such an interesting phrase that
22:16
including many things were avoided or a
22:18
large role of diplomats and so on.
22:20
Negotiations of diplomats, negotiators,
22:22
diplomats participating in negotiations
22:25
and so on. Given the depth of discussion
22:28
you presented, I feel compelled to
22:30
underline the diverse interpretations
22:34
surrounding the duties and
22:35
responsibilities associated with the
22:37
diplomat's role. There are tasks of
22:40
diplomacy.
22:43
It encompasses discovering common ground
22:45
while adhering strictly to the
22:47
principles of legality, considering
22:49
international bilateral treaties,
22:51
agreements, traditions and safeguarding
22:54
national interests comprehensively.
22:58
The most difficult job. But what we are
23:01
seeing now and here I honestly think
23:03
that of course there are historical
23:05
examples but in this I see a certain
23:08
scary novella.
23:10
We see a completely changed transformed
23:14
in the most terrible sense of the word
23:17
the concept of diplomacy for the
23:19
collective west. These are the devil's
23:22
advocates. These are the people. Now I'm
23:24
not talking about everyone. I'm talking
23:26
about the fact that um many people have
23:29
a false impression about the profession
23:32
there who believe that they are obliged
23:35
to use the entire dream of international
23:38
law in order to justify themselves. This
23:41
is a stage that has already been passed.
23:44
This was already somewhere 30 40 50
23:47
years ago they confessed
23:50
and that they should change this system
23:52
as it were legally. I mean international
23:55
law to serve their interests. Not when
23:58
well relatively speaking a shame has
24:01
occurred. Yes. And we need to somehow
24:03
find a minimum way
24:07
justifying oneself. Well, I mean
24:09
minimally let's say these costs are
24:11
terrible but somehow mitigate them,
24:14
minimize them. No. And then when every
24:18
act has already been paid just as an
24:21
indulgence was paid in their culture,
24:23
the entire system must already work so
24:26
that it gets up in the morning. Yes. The
24:29
sun is there in the west.
24:34
I didn't make reservations. Yes. And
24:37
everything it does is already good. And
24:39
the entire system must immediately like
24:42
sunflowers, you know, turn Yes. behind
24:45
this society. This is scary and this
24:48
this I consider just a novella.
24:51
And when we talk about well diplomacy
24:53
should help and of course help and so
24:55
on. What kind of diplomacy is that? This
24:58
is the kind of diplomacy for which there
25:00
are laws, order, conscience, morality,
25:04
recognizing national interests while
25:06
respecting those who differ in
25:08
perspectives, especially concerning
25:11
critical matters.
25:14
If I adhere to distinct ethical
25:16
principles, how can I effectively
25:18
communicate with such individuals?
25:20
>> Devil's diplomats. There's the movie The
25:23
Devil's Advocate, which shows this
25:25
underside of it.
25:30
>> Avoid sinking into artistic
25:31
representation.
25:33
>> Instead, aim to engage using
25:35
contemporary and relevant terminology.
25:39
And this is the kind of diplomacy of
25:41
devils. when they know who attacked
25:44
during World War II, they know who
25:46
killed, they know who bequathed.
25:51
Uh after a few decades, they dig them up
25:54
and so to speak reincarnate and pretend
25:57
that it is not that they do not know,
25:59
but that those who repel the attack, who
26:02
were the victims and who became the
26:04
victor over this evil did it.
26:09
This is no longer diplomacy. It's
26:11
already some kind of I don't even know
26:13
what it's Well, I don't know. It's
26:15
really some kind of
26:18
I return it to you.
26:20
>> I'm just describing it a little
26:21
metaphorically.
26:23
Still, it turns out we still agreed that
26:26
something has changed and something
26:28
really looks new which still didn't
26:30
happen before.
26:32
You know by the new I always emphasize
26:35
this what looks like what passing each
26:38
test humanity draws certain conclusions
26:41
and lays this as its civilizational
26:43
experience moving to a certain new
26:45
level.
26:48
Not that it is genetically inherent. In
26:50
any case what is meant in the tablets is
26:53
passing on this experience to the future
26:56
generation growing well. For example,
26:59
the first world war passed which became
27:01
an incredible shock for Europe, for
27:03
Western Europe, for all of Europe
27:07
because on the one hand, Europe went
27:09
through wars and the Napoleonic wars.
27:12
But if you read this in documents and if
27:15
you read this especially from Toltoy,
27:18
there was a definite one way or another
27:21
some element still preserved humanism
27:24
and not dehumanization.
27:26
Yes. And the battles were terrible and
27:28
the victims were monstrous and the
27:30
destruction and so on. But there was
27:33
still understanding yes
27:35
the behavior of this very mercy on the
27:39
battlefield which remained and
27:41
punishment for a crime despite nothing
27:43
there and so on.
27:46
Uh the first world war was a shock. uh
27:49
how this most civilized part so-called
27:52
of the world community got to such a
27:55
degree of hatred for each other that it
27:58
killed massively killed so terribly and
28:01
also using chemical weapons for the
28:03
first time
28:08
and you will remember how world
28:10
literature European western literature
28:12
responded to this
28:15
this is the literature of the so-called
28:17
lost generation
28:19
It's remark
28:20
>> uh naturally without question these
28:22
works served as a profound catalyst
28:25
spurring an extensive reevaluation of
28:27
fundamental ideologies and perspectives.
28:30
The prohibitions outlined regarding
28:33
certain acts of hostilities marked an
28:35
approach towards the embriionic
28:37
understanding of humanitarian law.
28:40
Though legal specialists may grant us
28:42
leniency,
28:44
these developments initiated basic
28:46
principles that eventually steered
28:48
humanity toward crafting an
28:51
international comprehensive framework
28:54
for conflict resolution on a global
28:56
stage.
28:57
>> Wilsonian. Yes. League of Nations.
28:59
>> Yes, of course. Of course. The
29:01
unsettling reality lies in humanity's
29:05
perpetual tendency to revisit past
29:08
errors. Despite making resolutions,
29:11
vowing never to regress and establishing
29:14
safeguards, history demonstrates a cycle
29:17
where, ironically, even greater missteps
29:19
unfold, at times surpassing the initial
29:22
triggers of epiphany.
29:27
pendulum or sonosoid it still exists
29:31
historically but at the same time you
29:33
look the second world war again this
29:35
precipice is an abyss
29:37
you see from what I gather and
29:39
considering a generational closeness we
29:41
share an understanding a mutual frame of
29:43
reference shaped by similar experiences
29:46
we saw this from childhood in news real
29:48
footage not only from May 9 to May 9th
29:52
it was our culture I mean this is what
29:54
surrounded us and monuments and vet
29:57
veterans and stories and fiction and
30:00
films. Of course, we were shown this
30:02
truthfully but at the same time
30:05
delicately so as not to turn ourselves
30:07
into animals. That is we were made to
30:09
understand. We were told what they were
30:14
acts of dehumanization
30:16
but at the same time they did not
30:18
provoke us. Yes. And did not incite a
30:21
feeling of hatred in us and so on.
30:24
Unique by the way was the work in this
30:26
sense of the ideologists of that period.
30:29
How to instill this knowledge, how to
30:32
instill rejection of any Nazism,
30:34
nationalism, but at the same time do not
30:37
develop hatred and at the same time
30:40
stimulate a unique feeling.
30:45
Forgiveness. Yes. And not arrogant
30:47
forgiveness. Yes. Here I give you my
30:49
forgiveness.
30:51
>> Oh our Russian Christianity.
30:53
understanding. Yes, despite the fact
30:55
that the word Christianity was generally
30:57
taboo. Well, not that it was taboo, but
30:59
understandably it wasn't in everyday
31:00
life.
31:01
>> But nevertheless, the phrase Hitler's
31:03
come and go and the great German people
31:05
remain said as early as 44.
31:08
>> Simultaneously, our work held uniqueness
31:11
amidst other societal elements and
31:13
efforts.
31:15
I'm immensely grateful that I became a
31:17
part I became a recipient of this
31:19
educational process of that period. this
31:21
is with me forever.
31:25
But at the same time, it played with us.
31:28
Well, you don't want to tell a bad joke.
31:30
But it let us down a little bit. I truly
31:33
believed everyone shared that
31:35
perspective.
31:36
>> Oh, well, that job wasn't there.
31:38
>> I was absolutely unsure about it. Well,
31:41
there can't be such a situation that
31:43
about 27 million victims, no matter how
31:47
many further discoveries there are, no
31:49
matter how many clarifications of data
31:52
and so on, the whole world knows about
31:55
this catastrophic figure and will never
31:57
forget it. I could never imagine that
32:00
Hiroshima and Nagasaki will be
32:03
restitched in such a way that those who
32:05
bombed will be forgotten and they will
32:08
be on the front stage as it were
32:11
new heroes have been brought out who
32:14
supposedly did this and when I didn't
32:17
think that Babiar would be as it were
32:19
half known as a component of only one
32:22
part of the tragedy and everything else
32:24
would somehow be very carefully and
32:27
sometimes then carelessly ly thrown into
32:29
the bucket.
32:33
It seems to me that I still have the
32:35
right in this case to say about our
32:37
generation that everyone knows this
32:42
>> and that's for ages.
32:43
>> We analyzed this in one of our podcasts,
32:46
but let's do it this way. Kaos, she is
32:50
also from our generation, from the same
32:52
Soviet Union as us. She watched the same
32:55
films as a child with her therefore
32:58
parents Soviet functionaries so
33:01
prominent and notice right?
33:04
>> No it's not like that at all. Firstly we
33:07
watched films whether on TV in the
33:10
cinema or read books or brought
33:13
something from the street. We had
33:16
parents who told us or parents or
33:18
grandparents who said this this is not
33:21
good or you know I have to explain
33:24
something else to you.
33:26
We were told we were told that this is
33:29
ours, this is not ours, this is bad,
33:31
this is good.
33:34
And someone was told remember this very
33:36
sacramental phrase which appeared as a
33:38
meme in the 14th year. Not everything is
33:41
so clear. And to someone they said that
33:44
and to someone they said you know that
33:45
don't look at it.
33:47
>> Others were advised to wait with the
33:49
promise that their circumstances would
33:51
improve eventually
33:53
and so no everything was there.
33:55
Everything wasn't like that.
33:58
>> There were many forest brothers in
33:59
Lithuania and different families there
34:01
differently.
34:02
>> I was struck by her story Kaialas about
34:05
how she is in Estonia. In my opinion, it
34:08
was Kaiala and about Estonia. As it
34:11
turned out that she
34:17
No, sorry, it wasn't her. It was one of
34:20
our compatriots who not so long ago gave
34:23
an interview, so to speak, to one
34:26
foreign publication. And in this case,
34:29
no sarcasm simply has to say this in
34:32
order to comply with our corresponding
34:34
law.
34:36
She's also from one of the Baltic
34:38
countries and she said that uh when she
34:42
went to school there on the territory of
34:44
the Baltic Republic, then part of the
34:47
Soviet Union,
34:50
naturally she learned her national
34:52
language, one of the three Baltic
34:54
languages during school. Then she began
34:57
to learn English at school, well
35:00
probably with teachers in the first
35:02
grades. and she began to learn Russian
35:04
only from the second or third grade.
35:10
And now these are the people who
35:11
prohibit those who are called national
35:13
minorities for whom Russian is their
35:16
native language from teaching it in
35:18
schools. Can you imagine?
35:22
And they pour mud on the Soviet
35:24
education system and the Soviet Union
35:26
which supposedly did not give them the
35:29
opportunity to realize their national
35:32
identity. That is this is confirmation
35:34
when in school they taught their
35:35
national language in the Baltic states
35:38
right away but this was a school
35:41
precisely on so to speak oriented on the
35:43
national language then it was possible
35:46
to teach English and Russian from some
35:49
later grades there from the third and
35:51
fourth grades. So everything was you
35:54
know it was different. I still would
35:56
like to return to the topic regarding
35:58
the fact that diplomacy helps and a
36:01
diplomatic priority has such a
36:03
constructive positive role in preventing
36:06
conflicts and so on. I apologize but
36:09
Colin Powell who sat with a test tube in
36:12
the UN security council hall he was a
36:15
diplomat he was not the cosakent he was
36:18
not a politician who was instantly
36:20
converted as happened to them and it
36:22
happens he was the US secretary of state
36:26
he was a man associated with it doesn't
36:28
matter so to speak with what nuances but
36:31
he was engaged in American diplomacy
36:34
professionally he knew it and so on
36:38
he waved the test tube symbolizing a
36:40
greater narrative. Let's now revisit the
36:42
thesis in question
36:45
about the legal profession which is
36:47
sometimes engaged in by a western
36:50
diplomat obviously knowing that this is
36:52
not true that this is a lie.
36:56
Then he gave probably 15 years later
36:58
literally it seems to me a year or two
37:00
before his death he said that he had
37:02
been set up.
37:05
I never understood from his statements.
37:07
He knew, he didn't know. But I think
37:09
that an adult person, an adult man,
37:13
let's add, who has reached such heights,
37:16
he probably guesses that it is unlikely
37:19
that he would have been given a test
37:21
tube with disputes there. I don't know,
37:25
anthrax or giggle to bring it to the UN
37:28
podium. Yes. Yes. or even some flammable
37:31
substance simply because it is
37:32
prohibited
37:35
laws of both New York and
37:37
[clears throat] norms so to speak
37:39
regulating security inside the UN
37:42
headquarters. He of course understood
37:44
that it was all on camera that it was
37:47
all a game and this was a game that PR
37:50
agencies told them which in many ways
37:53
became accompllices of this devil's
37:56
advocate. Then Porrohenko walked with a
37:59
piece of the bus with bricks with
38:01
passports. Then we saw a lot of other
38:04
figures and the white helmets and
38:06
unhappy children who were allegedly
38:08
represented as victims so to speak of
38:11
all chemical experiments and so on. And
38:14
then it turned out that these were all
38:16
staged.
38:19
Of course, Bukha is certainly at this
38:22
stage which is just a copy of SNESorf.
38:26
Don't believe it? I recently talked to
38:28
the German ambassador here. He was
38:29
summoned to the foreign ministry. As for
38:32
the person who left the Russian
38:33
Federation, I can't be certain when this
38:35
will be aired. So I don't know whether
38:37
they are departing or already gone. So
38:41
when I told him that the situation and
38:43
this production in Bukha was absolutely
38:46
played out according to the notes of the
38:48
story in Nemerstof, he said, "Excuse me,
38:50
where?"
38:52
I responded saying it was part of German
38:54
history for reference.
38:57
Surprisingly, the German ambassador
38:59
seemed completely unaware
39:02
in the Russian Federation which a priori
39:06
if he were an ambassador to another
39:08
country I mean not the European
39:09
continent maybe somewhere in a distant
39:12
uh I don't know in a distant Latin
39:14
American state perhaps although in Latin
39:17
America the German ambassador should
39:19
also know a lot about the second world
39:21
war but let's take well maybe somewhere
39:25
there
39:26
somewhere somewhere. Yes, maybe I would
39:29
still understand. But understand that a
39:32
person who comes to work in Russia does
39:34
not know the name of Nemerstof. That is
39:37
this is the same German city that in
39:39
1944 when Soviet troops retreated became
39:44
part of Gerbel's provocation when the
39:46
bodies of supposedly killed civilians
39:49
were laid out.
39:52
>> These are the notorious millions of
39:53
raped German women. then he is still
39:55
this.
39:56
>> So you understand what's going on. He
39:58
listened with his eyes wide open and
40:00
roaring and I tell him that you
40:02
understand because at that time an
40:04
international tribunal was even created.
40:09
He says how how I say the international
40:11
tribunal was created. Who headed it? A
40:15
representative of the Baltic territories
40:17
so to speak at that time.
40:20
Yes. And this tribunal was masquerading
40:23
as a kind of justice.
40:25
I say you know what happened afterwards
40:27
when in all the German well I mean the
40:31
third Reich newspapers so to speak in
40:33
the world press where else could
40:34
Gerbal's propaganda then reach says what
40:38
I say that at the end of the 20th
40:40
century the German foreign ministry
40:42
returned to this topic opened the
40:44
archives and made a confession.
40:49
Later in the 20th century, the German
40:51
Foreign Ministry reopened this topic,
40:54
accessed the archives and made an
40:56
admission. They revealed it was a
40:58
fabrication, a case of staged propaganda
40:59
by Gerbel's machinery. Everything that
41:02
>> for this Germany had to tolerate the
41:04
rules.
41:05
>> I was taken aback. It truly came as a
41:07
shock. Can you imagine? This is despite
41:09
the fact that
41:10
>> hard for me to imagine of course.
41:12
>> And he tells me, well, this all needs to
41:14
be checked. I say then you won't check
41:16
me. Then you will check your colleagues
41:18
from the German foreign ministry who
41:22
so excuse me this is the question that
41:24
not everyone so to speak who today calls
41:27
himself a diplomat and I am primarily
41:30
talking about the western minority as
41:32
you say promotes or contributes to a
41:35
settlement
41:43
really can and should so to speak
41:45
working on this field in the negotiation
41:47
process, so to speak, bring such a
41:50
constructive treasure. Have we seen
41:52
this? Okay. But the diplomacy of France
41:54
and Germany on the failure to implement
41:56
the Minsk agreements was all done by
41:58
diplomats.
42:00
There were no people who called
42:02
themselves,
42:03
I don't know, philosophers or
42:05
theologians or engineers, teachers,
42:08
doctors
42:10
and heads of state, talents, Merkel.
42:14
They perform diplomatic functions when
42:17
they carry out interstate activities to
42:20
deception when they said that Russia
42:22
allegedly did not fulfill its part of
42:25
the Minsk agreements is obliged to
42:27
fulfill it and they fulfilled
42:29
everything.
42:30
>> Well, that's it upside down. Then why
42:33
are we even talking to them? And at what
42:35
point are we? Maybe already. Well, if we
42:37
have such a different picture of reality
42:40
with the west and they don't want to
42:42
change it or they know it but don't want
42:44
to admit it.
42:47
This can be a magical reboot button.
42:49
Yes, let's change the scenery. If there
42:52
is something like that, then suggest it.
42:54
I just don't know. We can reboot this
42:56
world so that it becomes
42:59
divinely beautiful as strictly speaking
43:02
was originally intended. Then
43:05
reformulate.
43:07
Probably not. Probably we should proceed
43:09
from the reality that exists. Probably
43:12
we should look for points of contact
43:14
where possible. Probably we should fight
43:17
back where this is the only way
43:19
possible. Probably we should protect
43:22
ourselves. should probably respond to
43:24
the requests of others, protect them,
43:27
know your national interests, proceed
43:29
from them. But the most important thing,
43:33
we return to the beginning of your
43:34
question. In my opinion, the most
43:36
important thing is to be in reality and
43:38
understand that there is reality. Do not
43:41
proceed from the fact that some heavenly
43:43
times will come or that they on the
43:46
contrary have passed irrevocably and
43:48
that we no but proceed from the fact
43:51
that we know what happened. We know
43:53
history. We know
43:56
how do we want to see the future. We
43:58
know what national strategies for our
44:00
own development are based on. We
44:03
understand who is a friend, who is an
44:05
enemy and who as Visodski said is like
44:07
that.
44:10
In fact, we build our own.
44:12
>> If we follow this logic, it turns out
44:15
that the basic point of misunderstanding
44:18
we have with them is precisely that we
44:21
insist that reality is important.
44:26
But they are on the fact that reality in
44:28
general is not important. The picture is
44:30
more important.
44:31
>> No, this is a misunderstanding.
44:32
>> No, this is not an alternative history
44:34
institution.
44:35
>> There is no misunderstanding on their
44:37
part. This is our deepest misconception
44:40
who still has it that supposedly they
44:42
don't understand us. Stop thinking that
44:45
way.
44:46
Stop justifying them. The main thing in
44:49
my opinion is that from the reality that
44:51
I'm calling for its feeling. This is
44:54
precisely
44:57
realistic finally is the recognition
44:59
that they understand well what they want
45:02
to achieve. that they understand us very
45:04
well and that they pretend that they
45:07
don't understand and that they pretend
45:09
that they share our misunderstanding of
45:12
how they act.
45:18
I want to say they are very rigid in
45:20
their positions and most importantly
45:23
they do not want to leave them. They are
45:26
very satisfied with their formed
45:28
platform. But what does it consist of in
45:31
the fact that there is call it a class
45:34
approach or something else? The fact
45:36
that there are those whom they have so
45:39
bal simply designated but a beautiful
45:42
garden or a golden billion or with
45:44
exceptional ones.
45:47
And there are all the others which are
45:49
divided into the following segments.
45:52
service personnel simply so to speak
45:55
spending this is their own terminology
45:58
and so on and so on
46:01
how to adapt them as they consider us
46:04
because we fall into the same category.
46:06
Well, we need to see look at how much
46:09
has been done over these decades of what
46:11
could signal that we absolutely share
46:14
with them the values they declared and
46:17
human rights and freedom, democracy,
46:20
well-being. By the way, no one said that
46:23
we should live only in aseticism. We
46:25
will live in aseticism and you too live
46:28
in aseticism. No well-being, prosperity,
46:31
development and so on. How much has been
46:33
done?
46:37
No world revolution was on the agenda.
46:41
No separation of systems. They say your
46:43
system is bad, our system is good. It
46:46
seems like a market economy, free
46:48
competition, international law, private
46:51
property, which turned out to be
46:52
unsacred to them.
46:56
So what? And despite the fact that these
46:59
dividing terrible ravines seemed to have
47:02
disappeared, everything was, so to
47:05
speak, leveled. Bridges were built.
47:08
>> There is a certain cynicism in this. Of
47:10
course,
47:11
>> it turned out that again we came well I
47:14
mean altogether to the same thing. They
47:17
are somewhere there on some mountain
47:19
there on some hill in some blooming.
47:22
>> A shining city on a hill aka a flowering
47:25
garden.
47:26
>> Everyone else should pay attention to
47:28
them serve them helpfully await their
47:30
will.
47:32
Now here is the most important thing and
47:35
the most important argument of western
47:37
diplomacy. You won't believe which one.
47:39
There are options.
47:42
Why does it need to be this way?
47:44
>> Curiosity persists.
47:46
I'm deeply intrigued and curious to know
47:48
more.
47:50
>> I couldn't understand it either. When
47:52
you provide an example for clarity, he
47:54
interrupts, dismissing it.
47:56
Well, well, you know how Yes, there we
47:59
play some games and we have a bunch of
48:01
bats there. Yes, that's when the bat is
48:03
played.
48:06
Here's a card like this for you. We have
48:08
such a bat. Yes, we hit this card. This
48:11
is a bat. And when we are already so
48:14
clean, it's like the last card. When you
48:16
say, "Well, look, it's like that for you
48:19
and it's like that for us." They say,
48:21
"No, no." Despite seeming equal, this
48:25
equality is entirely irrelevant.
48:29
And when you say why,
48:31
the response often hinges on the belief
48:33
in their historical correctness.
48:36
>> That's it.
48:39
There is no basis for this. There is no
48:42
even that monstrous simple explanation
48:44
that existed in the 30s of the 20th
48:47
century in the Third Reich. They say the
48:50
theory of racial superiority there.
48:52
There is no such thing now.
48:56
Now their concept of historical
48:58
correctness borders on an absolutist
49:01
belief system
49:04
which gives them the right to be
49:06
exclusive not to obey international law
49:09
to attack, to be aggressors, to bomb,
49:12
destroy, kill and does not give us the
49:14
right to follow even the norms of
49:16
international law and to protect and to
49:23
just preserving your dignity, you
49:26
This is just it's not difficult. They
49:29
naturally have a historical right to
49:31
this and in fact they invented the right
49:33
itself. We are thieves for them. But
49:36
they
49:37
>> Another question is who is Ren here?
49:39
This is very interesting. Wait this is
49:41
very interesting. Did they wipe it out?
49:43
They're right that
49:46
so it was for them Romans, ancient Rome,
49:49
Roman ancient civilization because not
49:52
only of course Rome but everything that
49:55
existed and before Rome how much
49:57
everything was accumulated.
49:59
They destroyed it. They destroy it
50:01
before our eyes.
50:03
>> They invented it. They destroyed it.
50:05
This is the right as they say for whom
50:06
the right is needed. We will have to
50:08
change it.
50:09
>> That's the point. They understand
50:11
everything perfectly. They mimic the
50:14
situation. They use every opportunity to
50:18
make us believe that they don't
50:19
understand something. They understand
50:21
everything perfectly. They don't want to
50:25
lose this selfappointed right to be
50:27
better just because they think so. And
50:30
when you say, "Wait, let's compete.
50:32
You're for free competition." Yes. Let's
50:34
see. They say yes. It could be that
50:38
you're the first here. And it could very
50:40
well be that you're the first here, but
50:42
that's just the exception that proves
50:45
the rule.
50:50
Or for example, we gave you this
50:52
opportunity to express yourself. Okay?
50:55
You say, "Wait a minute, but here, for
50:57
example, but here, for example, space."
51:01
Well, for example, because they are not
51:03
in space to the extent that a modern
51:06
world superpower should be.
51:10
As Zalinski said,
51:13
discussing May 9th, correct? I told
51:16
Zalinski I'm allowing them to hold a
51:18
parade. Is that okay?
51:22
As if there is nothing to comment on
51:24
here, but this is the same logic. Why
51:26
are we talking about neo-Nazism?
51:29
And because they wear swastika tattoos
51:32
and because they have these wolf-headed
51:34
dogs on chevrons from the times of
51:36
collaboration and because bandera and
51:39
shukovich and because they destroy
51:43
memory of true heroes of course all this
51:46
in combination but also because this
51:48
basilus of selfappointed superiority
51:52
without grounds dominates and has become
51:55
a state ideology. That's why neo-Nazism,
52:00
that's why this diplomacy is western.
52:02
It's no longer about diplomacy. It's
52:04
exactly, by the way, the same thing
52:06
about democracy. What kind of democracy
52:09
is there?
52:12
What are you talking about? Not because
52:15
I believe that everything is bad or
52:17
there is nothing good there, nothing
52:19
like that, but because they took a term
52:22
that has uh a global, so to speak,
52:25
promotion, historical background and
52:27
rehashed it
52:29
>> told people they had the same rights
52:31
too. And of course,
52:33
>> the same thing happens unfortunately
52:35
with diplomacy. They serve these are not
52:38
even national interests. They serve the
52:41
momentary, conjunctural, sometimes
52:44
terrible interests of a tiny group, not
52:47
even communities, but individuals,
52:49
refining all international legal norms
52:52
under this specific task.
52:57
What's left of global dialogue isn't
52:59
even a dialogue any longer. It's been
53:01
reduced to pmics, like a prayer service
53:04
on counterterrorism.
53:10
The 2000s embodied an overarching idea.
53:13
>> You
53:14
>> have you heard anything in the last I
53:16
don't know couple of years on
53:18
international platforms from their
53:20
western and not only western leaders.
53:23
Have you heard anything about countering
53:26
terrorism?
53:28
>> So the story about Trump allegedly being
53:31
targeted in Ankara by Iranian terrorists
53:34
surfaced, didn't it?
53:36
was not even supported by anyone. That
53:39
is, it remained locally at the level, so
53:42
to speak, of his rhetoric.
53:45
After all, no one abolished the UN
53:47
structures that were created
53:49
specifically to counter terrorism. No
53:52
one abolished and did not sew up the
53:54
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Western
53:56
countries where a significant segment is
53:58
associated precisely with countering
54:00
terrorism.
54:02
>> Well, international cooperation in the
54:03
struggle.
54:04
>> No, no one canled it. Have you heard
54:05
anything?
54:06
Maybe some marches were held somewhere
54:08
in Europe. There is no terrorism or of
54:11
course
54:13
that's it. Do you see what it says? This
54:16
suggests that this has nothing to do
54:18
with diplomacy. These are people who are
54:20
specially trained so that under the
54:23
guise of diplomacy they do not even
54:25
carry out any other activity. Now there
54:28
reconnaissance, gathering information
54:30
and so on.
54:33
and who sharpened, excuse me for this
54:37
jargon, sharpened to use the system to
54:41
justify the crimes that are being
54:43
committed against you. Not because,
54:46
well, as we said, we need to, you know,
54:49
quickly sprinkle something there. So,
54:51
not not somehow powder something of your
54:54
own, somehow say it. No, because
54:59
they think this system has to completely
55:01
mutate under them, you know, but at the
55:04
same time remain kind of the same. That
55:07
is they are not abolishing the United
55:09
Nations now since they abolished and
55:12
dismantled the League of Nations. They
55:15
tried to do this in the early 2000s.
55:17
They didn't succeed and suddenly they
55:20
realized that perhaps they will even
55:23
need it more to legitimize crimes.
55:25
That's all.
55:27
>> This is already happening now. I only
55:30
have one moment. We must play according
55:32
to their rules on their field.
55:36
>> Well, we're just trying to prove to them
55:38
all the time that they're wrong. They're
55:40
wrong. Um, in some eternal process of
55:43
exposing historical fakes, we're trying
55:45
to explain that black is black, white is
55:48
white. Maybe we're already somehow that
55:53
>> I'll tell you we had a moment when we
55:55
didn't do this. It was called the end of
55:57
the 80s, the beginning of the '9s when
56:00
we didn't counteract this, when we
56:02
didn't doze them and didn't correct
56:04
them.
56:05
We have come to the fact that uh in our
56:07
universities and in the universities of
56:09
the first uh the first five, the first
56:11
10, what does this mean? That is those
56:14
that have already been tested by time.
56:16
Those that formed there like mushrooms
56:17
after the rain as you remember private
56:19
universities and so on. Namely those
56:21
that are our own universities.
56:24
Their literature began to spread.
56:26
>> Ah I understand that is we got the
56:27
effect domestically.
56:29
>> Of course we began to listen in the form
56:31
of lecturers to absolutely people as
56:34
they call them with their narratives.
56:38
>> The other side never seized their
56:40
actions. of course with anti-historical
56:43
narratives and most importantly we got a
56:46
galaxy of these so-called German
56:48
ambassadors who don't even know about
56:50
their own history. Why? And no one told
56:54
them that there was an alternative to
56:56
their mainstream fake. No, this cannot
56:59
be done under any circumstances.
57:00
>> Some kind of stalemate then results. By
57:03
the way, I have this question directly
57:04
from your professional field. This is
57:07
the word narrative.
57:10
I only use the term sarcastically when
57:12
referring to it in this way.
57:16
>> Notice now it's also entered the
57:18
language of grand diplomacy. Like when
57:20
you speak the truth, some claim you
57:22
promote Kremlin narratives suggesting
57:25
you avoid saying it.
57:27
>> This replaced the word manual.
57:30
It's kind of a little higher
57:32
>> slightly more academically elaborated so
57:34
to speak.
57:35
>> What is a narrative? That is it's like a
57:38
narrative. It may be a constructed
57:40
falsehood or it may be the truth
57:42
entirely in itself. But
57:44
>> this is the word narrative which implies
57:47
and means some direction of thought,
57:49
ideology, ideas, thesis, thesis. Please
57:55
specific aimed at significant promotion
57:57
and dissemination.
57:59
Simply put, avoiding literal
58:01
interpretations in restricted terms
58:03
might provide broader understanding.
58:06
Indeed, many perceive this entire
58:08
cognitive conflict, one we discuss often
58:10
with Simeon, as a clash of competing
58:13
narratives developed by opposing forces
58:16
such as the Kremlin versus the West. The
58:18
critical challenge lies in determining
58:20
which storytelling platforms dominate
58:22
and present better resonance globally.
58:27
>> Well, you see, again, I well, I tried to
58:29
avoid that, but you invited me to this
58:32
part of the discussion as well.
58:39
Life constantly wrestles between truth
58:42
and falsehood.
58:45
In everything in absolute evil, I will
58:48
never tire of repeating this. In
58:50
absolute evil, there are different
58:53
appearances. There are different names
58:55
in different languages of the world. One
58:58
of the names sounds and translates. And
59:01
in Russian, it seems to position itself
59:05
as a sly, a deceiver. In our modern
59:09
language, sly seems to be like this, you
59:12
know, well, such as cunning, such as
59:15
rogue, and so on. In fact, sly is
59:18
talking about a deceiver, a liar.
59:23
This is not one of the hypotheases of
59:25
absolute evil. This is its essence, the
59:28
essence of absolute evil in lies.
59:33
And in changing the truth, in
59:35
influencing the truth on the truth in
59:38
such a way that it itself from the point
59:41
of view of evil must become a
59:43
distortion.
59:45
Peace stands on this that is peace
59:48
stands on the struggle between good and
59:50
evil.
59:52
Light with darkness truth is difficult.
59:55
Your answer is that in no case should we
59:57
stop at this position and also turn into
1:00:00
propagandists. We must stand on the side
1:00:03
of the truth at any moment no matter
1:00:05
what so to speak narratives they bombard
1:00:08
us with. No, I do not consider
1:00:11
propaganda and truth to be antonyms.
1:00:14
These are not antonyms. Propaganda is
1:00:17
promotion. It is a story. It is
1:00:19
informing. It is insisting
1:00:23
on the truth. In this particular
1:00:25
situation, I find no evidence of any
1:00:27
contradiction.
1:00:29
If May 9th, 1945 is seen as victory day
1:00:33
in the Great Patriotic War, why is it an
1:00:35
issue? This recognition is undeniably
1:00:39
rooted in propaganda, but it holds
1:00:41
historical truth.
1:00:47
This serves as the most effective
1:00:49
counter to false narratives filling the
1:00:52
present. How can we not champion it? The
1:00:56
critical issue lies in recognizing the
1:00:59
financial and technological power
1:01:02
including advanced AI being wielded to
1:01:06
perpetuate lies and misinformation with
1:01:09
impactful precision.
1:01:15
When I hear that artificial intelligence
1:01:17
and emerging technologies pose an
1:01:20
unprecedented challenge to the world in
1:01:23
recent years, I can't help but reflect
1:01:26
that humanity has faced such
1:01:28
transformational moments before. Think
1:01:31
of the era when the world encountered
1:01:34
the atom and its use in various often
1:01:36
conflicting purposes.
1:01:39
There were also hydrogen bombs. There
1:01:41
were chemical weapons that were talked
1:01:44
about.
1:01:45
There were pandemics. There were gerbles
1:01:48
propaganda. There were
1:01:50
>> most recently there was COVID and in
1:01:52
connection with it the topic of
1:01:53
bacterological.
1:01:54
>> I believe this is another substantial
1:01:56
challenge distinct but no less impactful
1:01:59
than what we've endured before.
1:02:02
Ultimately, humanity and its resilience
1:02:04
remain at the core of navigating such
1:02:07
storms. By harnessing historical
1:02:10
context, we can understand and resist
1:02:13
the spread of false patterns.
1:02:16
Those deceptive narratives undermining
1:02:18
trust. Truth must guide us. Armed with
1:02:22
facts and integrity, we can stand firm
1:02:24
against obstacles. Is our truth
1:02:27
sufficient for this test?
1:02:29
>> We have truth. I'm going to paraphrase
1:02:31
power and truth a little bit, but our
1:02:33
truth has enough power. Well, it's, you
1:02:36
know, into another program.
1:02:38
This is where the people with the glass
1:02:40
ball sit. Lay out the cards. Lay out the
1:02:43
cards. Our task is to work. Our task is
1:02:46
to move forward. Our task is to perform
1:02:49
functional duties and do it for real
1:02:52
with soul improving professional skills.
1:02:55
And most importantly at this stage now
1:02:58
this is very important with full
1:03:00
dedication. This is so that when you
1:03:03
return home, you understand that you
1:03:05
have done everything.
1:03:12
That's all I could. That's all. And you
1:03:14
should reboot. Have time until tomorrow
1:03:17
to come again and start again. Well,
1:03:20
then everyone has their own front.
1:03:24
>> But here there is another trick of our
1:03:26
paleface brothers. why their narratives
1:03:29
go so well in general far beyond the
1:03:31
limits of the western world. Firstly,
1:03:34
they believe that the social and
1:03:36
information networks that they have
1:03:38
built penetrate everywhere
1:03:42
and secondly that they learn to simplify
1:03:45
people. Well, this in general, it was
1:03:48
also recorded by Budyart in the 70s that
1:03:50
a person is a consumer, especially a
1:03:53
digital consumer. He's always in the
1:03:55
state of a teenager, even an adult
1:03:57
teenager.
1:03:58
And in general, he can he really isn't
1:04:01
interested in it. That is this you can
1:04:04
swing on emotions. He can swing on
1:04:06
emotions. But in such a situation, he
1:04:08
sees as an argument what is brighter,
1:04:11
what that catches him. Reals, shorts,
1:04:16
thrills, shorts. Yes. And in this sense
1:04:20
considering that we have chosen a
1:04:22
similar model of our society. Well that
1:04:25
is consumerism has been a central trend
1:04:28
for 30 years and a significant part of
1:04:31
our society is already susceptible to
1:04:34
their narratives and in general that
1:04:37
format to say more well format. Yes.
1:04:40
>> I visited my parents house and the
1:04:42
channel was airing something intriguing.
1:04:45
There was a girl showcasing her skills
1:04:48
by playing piano music for about an hour
1:04:50
straight.
1:04:54
I think it was Beethoven.
1:04:58
Most likely it was Beethoven. She didn't
1:05:00
have the score in front of her eyes.
1:05:03
I don't understand how this is possible.
1:05:05
I don't know how it's done. An hour.
1:05:08
Well, probably maybe there were some
1:05:10
kind of breaks as a young girl.
1:05:15
And for example there are very good
1:05:17
videos that tablets Shahidi made. He
1:05:20
recorded in good quality made videos
1:05:23
like little kids 5 7 years old 8 years
1:05:27
old and did it under the name Russian
1:05:30
Piano School. They have already
1:05:32
performed the most complex pieces
1:05:34
without a score. I don't understand how
1:05:37
they do it.
1:05:40
Yes, some people simply take their
1:05:41
phones, set them down and create basic
1:05:43
content like that. And they sit all day
1:05:46
and can only type with their finger, not
1:05:49
even on the keys, but on the screen.
1:05:51
There are those. And there are those who
1:05:53
can take the phone and all day typing
1:05:56
with their finger on the screen, enter
1:05:58
some incredible formulas, come and talk.
1:06:02
And I proved everything, told
1:06:04
everything, created everything. Please
1:06:07
adults take it. I use it and there are
1:06:09
those who are not interested in the
1:06:11
phone so that you don't do anything with
1:06:13
them. They take and play this fantastic
1:06:15
music.
1:06:17
Let us admit a little of the divine into
1:06:20
our lives. Let us still remember that we
1:06:22
do not know everything and will never
1:06:24
know everything and that we must do
1:06:27
everything that depends on us.
1:06:29
And there are also such things as
1:06:31
miracles. I really believe that when a 3
1:06:34
four year old child sings but no one
1:06:37
sings at home but he sings a moment
1:06:44
hitting the notes exactly and no one
1:06:46
taught him and he may not even have a TV
1:06:50
but he just sings. I think that this of
1:06:52
course is some kind of miracle. Probably
1:06:54
it's explainable but we just don't know
1:06:55
how to explain it yet. And there are a
1:06:58
lot of such things around. And when
1:07:00
there were already the darkest times,
1:07:03
today we have already talked about a
1:07:05
number of them both in world history and
1:07:08
in our history. And suddenly from
1:07:10
somewhere,
1:07:13
man, do you understand? Yes. We lived
1:07:17
through the times of the '9s when the
1:07:19
then forming, for example, the young
1:07:22
generation of journalists knew the main
1:07:25
rule. Well, a kind of commercial
1:07:28
approach to business. Not everyone, but
1:07:30
they were raised that way and they were
1:07:32
raised in this environment.
1:07:36
Yes, this is good material. This
1:07:38
material may be more
1:07:41
even better. Yes. And unfortunately,
1:07:44
yes, they were brought up in an
1:07:46
absolutely commercialized environment of
1:07:48
the information field.
1:07:52
This is suddenly
1:07:54
who went through [snorts] everything,
1:07:56
who went through Syria, who went through
1:07:59
Donbas, who is now going through the
1:08:01
front line, who became a hero of Russia,
1:08:05
apparently without being a military man.
1:08:08
And there was no case when he would have
1:08:11
saved a child, would have taken someone
1:08:14
out of a burning hut.
1:08:26
Not just for braving bullets, but for
1:08:28
the unwavering trust he inspired.
1:08:32
Countless individuals recognize him as
1:08:35
their voice of truth, their unwavering
1:08:37
representative.
1:08:39
but because he restored faith in the
1:08:41
fact that such a profession exists and
1:08:44
that not everything is measured by
1:08:46
money.
1:08:48
Can you explain where all this
1:08:49
originates when it seems impossible?
1:08:54
I really don't know. Do you understand?
1:08:56
I genuinely can't answer it. Let's
1:08:58
suppose there are significant challenges
1:09:00
to face. Many of them unfortunately are
1:09:04
derived from human activity. Monstrous,
1:09:06
terrible. Many apparently are given to
1:09:09
us. Maybe just as a test, maybe as a
1:09:11
punishment. I don't know how it happens.
1:09:14
But these are these challenges. Our task
1:09:16
is to overcome them. How will it be
1:09:18
there? Let's see. Well, still about
1:09:21
miracles, I can't help but comment that
1:09:24
comrade prophet Muhammad in surah number
1:09:27
29, Alain Kabut said exhaustively that
1:09:30
you who expect miracles from Allah
1:09:33
cannot understand that the world itself
1:09:35
as it is created is a miracle.
1:09:39
It is already miraculous in itself. A
1:09:42
bee flying to a flower is a miracle.
1:09:45
>> You know, I recently passed the lake
1:09:46
near Moscow, Lake Sin.
1:09:51
And suddenly such an idea is disgusting
1:09:53
me. My god, if only for example, I don't
1:09:57
know, the Hubble telescope or some
1:09:59
satellite or some intergalactic mission
1:10:02
would fly to some planet and there would
1:10:04
be some red brown clay slurry and
1:10:07
suddenly in the center of this slurry
1:10:09
there would be a lake like this.
1:10:17
Finally, we discovered such a beautiful
1:10:21
picture in the universe as this lake.
1:10:23
And it's just next to us. Well, 30, 40
1:10:27
kilometers from Moscow. People walk,
1:10:30
swim, catch crayfish, ride on boats.
1:10:33
Well, this is everyday life. As soon as
1:10:36
I imagine, for example, some butterfly,
1:10:39
flower, lake, forest, field located on
1:10:41
another planet
1:10:45
and I imagine that we're getting the
1:10:47
footage from there. And what a thrill
1:10:49
it's going to be. I realize how
1:10:51
incredibly lucky we are and what an
1:10:54
incredible planet we got. Nowadays,
1:10:58
people rarely perceive it from that
1:11:00
perspective.
1:11:02
Before at school they always told us
1:11:04
exactly what a beautiful planet it is,
1:11:06
how lucky we are, what kind of foxes,
1:11:09
rivers, mountains there are.
1:11:11
>> How important is it to save it for the
1:11:12
next one?
1:11:13
>> And what is most important? You know,
1:11:15
returning to the topic of diplomacy,
1:11:18
international relations and all our
1:11:20
global challenges. We have never been
1:11:23
told that somewhere is ugly, that it is
1:11:26
beautiful only in our country.
1:11:34
But others have such and such and such
1:11:36
and such and such and such. We learned
1:11:39
this through history, through literature
1:11:41
and at school and by the way in
1:11:43
kindergarten too.
1:11:44
>> Yes. And when he said when he flew
1:11:46
around the earth what a beautiful planet
1:11:48
it is and how important it is for us to
1:11:49
preserve it.
1:11:50
>> Of course that is there was no
1:11:53
disgregation that look this is ours but
1:11:56
this is what is not ours. this is bad
1:11:59
but if it is also ours then it will also
1:12:01
become good.
1:12:04
We have always been educated and
1:12:06
educated. Not only educated but educated
1:12:08
through education to love to the planet
1:12:12
as an amazing and wonderful phenomenon
1:12:15
again. Well, I see such manifestations
1:12:17
for example in China now uh one way or
1:12:20
another through the concept of this
1:12:22
interdependence
1:12:24
there one belt one road common
1:12:27
responsibility destiny humanity. Still
1:12:30
there is this element and still a
1:12:33
billion one and a half. This is a
1:12:35
significant part of humanity which is
1:12:38
also beginning so to speak to actively
1:12:40
think in this direction that we are not
1:12:43
alone here and here we have had
1:12:46
something that it would be good to save.
1:12:49
There are others though
1:12:51
>> and the narrators don't feel sorry for
1:12:53
the planet it seems. Although it seems
1:12:54
that the Club of Rome, the Davos forum.
1:12:57
>> No. Well, it all came down to Greta
1:12:59
Tunberg. They're like that. That's all.
1:13:01
Their characters are periodically chosen
1:13:04
often in a manner lacking any true
1:13:06
consideration or fairness.
1:13:09
And I, if you look, didn't say her name
1:13:12
until she unfortunately began to cause
1:13:15
more pity than delight in everyone.
1:13:22
They applauded. I tried to kind of yes
1:13:24
avoid this topic because I understood
1:13:26
how monstrous it was, what was
1:13:28
happening. They took a child obviously
1:13:31
with very let's call it with problems.
1:13:34
And this child becomes just some kind of
1:13:38
well some kind of toy in the hands of
1:13:41
adults who having played enough and
1:13:44
changed the scenery simply pushed it
1:13:47
away and then simply began to rub and
1:13:49
mock.
1:13:52
Oh, and it seemed to me that it was not
1:13:54
just bad tasty but precisely godless
1:13:57
that I tried not to touch it at all, not
1:13:59
to comment on this topic. Remember as
1:14:02
Vince said in Munich, "Yes, you scoldled
1:14:05
us behind the mask and we were forced to
1:14:07
listen to your Greta for 10 years."
1:14:11
>> Yes, but in fact they could have
1:14:12
answered him that it was more yours than
1:14:15
ours because the agenda was purely ultra
1:14:19
democratic. The beat of this agenda of
1:14:22
course came from Washington so to speak,
1:14:25
Obama Biden. So it was by no means
1:14:27
Western European. They just picked the
1:14:30
right person.
1:14:33
They conveniently slotted into ranks
1:14:36
helping the Washington regional
1:14:38
committee as well.
1:14:40
Without their involvement, there would
1:14:42
have been no presence for her at crucial
1:14:45
platforms like the capital or UN
1:14:48
headquarters. No podium for her voice,
1:14:51
though I can't recall if she was
1:14:53
actually at the capital. She stood
1:14:55
amongst top US leaders garnering
1:14:58
attention she wouldn't have received
1:15:00
otherwise.
1:15:04
It was like once there is such a thing
1:15:07
unfortunately Anglicism was accepted. It
1:15:11
was approved by them. It was verified by
1:15:13
them and very much even it was theirs.
1:15:20
Maria Vladimirna we are already running
1:15:22
out of time. We know that you are a very
1:15:25
busy person. At the end of the
1:15:27
discussion, well, this is a small
1:15:30
conclusion to sum up based on the
1:15:32
results of the conversation.
1:15:37
Do you think it will be possible to
1:15:39
preserve all the good things that have
1:15:41
been in the history of mankind? I mean,
1:15:43
and our beautiful planet.
1:15:48
>> It's okay.
1:15:50
>> Nothing. Now you asked without once
1:15:53
again needing to remind our Western
1:15:55
partners in quotation marks that there
1:15:58
are still things more important than
1:16:00
what they are now putting on a pedestal
1:16:03
without resorting to any radical methods
1:16:06
but without resorting to another war.
1:16:09
>> As you see, no altars were prepared for
1:16:11
others any longer.
1:16:16
For decades now, they refuse to offer
1:16:19
themselves. Instead, sacrificing the
1:16:22
futures of their own children on the
1:16:24
altar.
1:16:28
Well, it's kind of an indicator of not
1:16:30
just degradation,
1:16:33
but this very edge that is when not just
1:16:36
discussions began, but experiments on
1:16:39
their own children.
1:16:42
And look, some of the so-called stars,
1:16:45
their representatives of show business,
1:16:48
the so-called American soft power. What
1:16:51
did they do? Children were adopted,
1:16:55
adopted, brought from other continents.
1:16:58
And they were kind of encouraged to all
1:17:00
these experimental ones,
1:17:03
terrifying occurrences.
1:17:05
>> Total loss of humanity is happening.
1:17:07
>> And then they started doing the same
1:17:08
with their children.
1:17:10
That is if the family seems to be
1:17:13
without a transgender person and life is
1:17:16
in vain. They had such an ideology they
1:17:19
say you don't fit in. They say you need
1:17:21
to dig deep into yourself. Look for it
1:17:24
within yourself. And not only that,
1:17:27
finding stimulation. This, excuse me,
1:17:29
this.
1:17:33
Yes. We will now turn again to Crimea
1:17:36
and to marriages between, so to speak,
1:17:39
family members. And not only family
1:17:42
members, but also various others.
1:17:48
>> We remember how it ended.
1:17:50
>> We remember how it ended. And we
1:17:52
remember what replaced it.
1:17:56
So here's the pressing question.
1:17:59
How much of this monstrous whirlpool is
1:18:02
it no longer only dehumanization? It is
1:18:05
precisely being beyond the boundary.
1:18:07
Because experiments on one's own
1:18:09
children are everything.
1:18:14
There is nothing more terrible to agree
1:18:15
on. That is when the object of the
1:18:18
experiment after they have been carried
1:18:21
out with everyone on the perimeter
1:18:22
becomes one's own children. Precisely
1:18:25
physiological disfiguring experiments.
1:18:28
Yes, of course. Of Hugo in Humplin
1:18:31
described experiments on children who
1:18:34
were raised either in barrels or had
1:18:37
their mouths cut made of them from the
1:18:39
very person who laughs. But these were
1:18:41
those children who were considered
1:18:43
children according to the theory of
1:18:45
class inequalities as if not their own.
1:18:50
They were bought, sold, and so on. He
1:18:53
even labeled it as brutal entertainment
1:18:56
back then.
1:18:58
And this work became like this. Well,
1:19:01
relatively speaking, a symbol of
1:19:03
perversion and boredom for several
1:19:06
decades of shooting people.
1:19:11
It often turns out that they maim their
1:19:13
own children who are also considered
1:19:15
exceptional and this mutilation implies
1:19:18
not only physiological
1:19:23
the damage that they cause and harm to
1:19:26
these children but both physiological
1:19:29
and mental and so on and so on at the
1:19:32
genetic level. Apparently I'm putting a
1:19:35
star here. I'm not very sure. But taking
1:19:38
into account those hormonal experiments
1:19:41
that follow with this, it is obvious
1:19:43
that these are some already terrible
1:19:46
consequences will continue.
1:19:51
That sums it up.
1:19:54
Rome already passed. The epoch described
1:19:57
by Hugo. the abuse of children they
1:19:59
considered children so to speak of
1:20:01
unworthy races
1:20:08
>> Dr. Dr. Mangel's clinic conditional.
1:20:11
>> Yes, absolutely. So all this has already
1:20:13
been accumulated and applied to their
1:20:15
own children. Therefore, now the
1:20:17
question is no longer about how they
1:20:19
will look at the world's flowers and
1:20:22
enjoy the world's ocean. The question is
1:20:25
not how much they will, so to speak,
1:20:28
take care of fish in reservoirs or
1:20:30
monitor the water level there in Niagara
1:20:33
Falls. The question is how they will go
1:20:35
out themselves. And there are many of
1:20:38
them in America. Excuse me, over 300
1:20:42
million people. How much does America
1:20:44
affect everyone? How, so to speak, does
1:20:48
she prioritize Western Europe? How much
1:20:53
Western Europe similarly impacts in
1:20:55
numbers?
1:20:57
That's the question. And to what extent
1:21:01
they this octopus of hell which so to
1:21:04
speak they spread ideologically around
1:21:07
the world in the form of so-called
1:21:10
narratives so to speak will be able to
1:21:12
re in
1:21:17
trumpet these tentacles in the form of
1:21:19
us aids in the form of corresponding
1:21:22
parades there
1:21:24
>> incidentally the rainbow flag flew
1:21:25
prominently
1:21:26
>> but the question is why did they do
1:21:29
They did this primarily because through
1:21:31
these structures their political
1:21:33
opponents domestically earned themselves
1:21:37
again political points domestically.
1:21:41
Do you understand? I don't want to say
1:21:43
that they were insincere in the struggle
1:21:47
for truth and so on. I don't know. But I
1:21:49
see the primacy of their motives. The
1:21:52
primacy was in the internal political
1:21:54
struggle, you know, and this is still a
1:21:57
history that has not yet been overcome
1:22:00
within the United States of America,
1:22:02
within the Western European coven.
1:22:06
No real resolution is visible yet,
1:22:09
suggesting the matter persists.
1:22:12
It is very early to say that they will
1:22:15
all join hands together and begin
1:22:17
dancing around the planet. The question
1:22:20
is to what extent they will not reach
1:22:22
the edge of this you know suicidal
1:22:25
philosophizing.
1:22:29
Got it. Thank you very much. Maria
1:22:32
Zakarova, director of the information
1:22:33
and press department of the ministry of
1:22:35
foreign affairs of the Russian
1:22:36
Federation was visiting us today. Our
1:22:39
presenters Alexa should political
1:22:41
scientist journalist Simeon Uralof
1:22:43
political scientist journalist writer.
1:22:45
Dear friends, thank you for watching
1:22:47
Purity of Understanding on VK on RTube.
1:22:50
Look for us on YouTube. We are waiting
1:22:52
for you to definitely like this episode
1:22:53
and write comments. See you.
#News