TV show: Evening with Vladimir Solovyov. Page 25

... and we keep saying"... no, international law! We appeal to your conscience!" There, instead of conscience, the dollar rose.

That a cold war is going on with us, we said, I don’t remember since when. If you enter the ring, you have to fight. And standing just closed is pointless. Because you miss the blow and you will be carried away. Or stay out of the ring. There are things that you just don't need to participate in. There must be a strategy for what we can do in return. If we stand in the defensive posture all the time, we will not resist and will miss the blows. My thought is simple: if you are involved in a fight, you must understand where to hit. And another very important point - we are very much losing in the cultural influence.

I consider it a matter for an idiot to say that he is an idiot, for this person will die and never know how he lived his life or who he really was.

For me, a very important point is the theory of corruption in Russia. Everyone in Russia is fighting corruption. Since when did corruption appear? It became systemic from the moment when people appeared who could take a Russian official or his representative by the hand and bring him to a law office, buy him an offshore company. Then go with him to a decent Western bank and open an account for this offshore campaign. Give out the members of the board of directors and make it possible that after several iterations no one asks where the money is from. Therefore, the West brought systemic corruption to Russia in the 90s. Who was the main beneficiary. Thanks to this, these floodgates were opened through which trillions poured out of the country. Because if the West wanted to fight corruption in Russia, this is done simply - the accounts of corrupt officials are blocked through which money is transferred to the West and who do not return to Russia, and from London, for example, bankers who have fled from Russia are issued, who are great at this earned.

We are in strategic isolation. And getting out of strategic loneliness is one of the most important tasks of foreign policy.

I will return to the thoughts of S. E. Kurginyan. I'll clarify my understanding. S. E. said that there are two Wests. I believe that there are not two Wests, but two Europes. There is Western Europe, and there is Eurasian Europe. Since I agree with this line of Eurasians - Trubetskoy, Gumilev.
The Russian Empire has always been on the defensive. And that was the point. I believe there were two types of empire. Some were created as defense empires, i.e., to repel external threats. Such were in Europe, for example, Austria-Hungary. It was created to defend itself from the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire, too, in turn, was created from defense. At one time, it was a Muslim population that accepted the Ottomans as an opportunity to resist the Crusaders. Then it degenerated into an aggressive empire, occupied part of the Balkans. And there are empires purely colonial. They were created for the purpose of enrichment, and I agree with S. E. Kurginyan, it came from the traditions of Rome. These are the British Empire, the Dutch Empire, the Spanish Empire, the French Empire. The meaning of these empires was expansion. And empires from defense, like Byzantium, like Russia, created a kind of state. Therefore, for Russia, the meaning is in defense. In the defense of the Eurasian space that it occupied.

Corruption is a matter of redistribution. You understand that if there had been no corruption in the Soviet Union or in the 90s in Russia, then teachers, doctors, and entire layers of people would have died out. Corruption is not a category of socialism at all. Corruption is a category of man and material and technical relations. In any system, you will always have corruption. It doesn't matter what you call it. Is there no corruption in America? It's ridiculous to say. Look at how Trump and Biden talk. Every time they try to slip us corruption, it's a hoax. This is the use of base emotions in order for everyone to shout about corruption and not see the essential things, the deep. It's like when oncology, and you are told: the main thing is that when metastases came to the skin and the pimple appeared, and let's make up the pimple.

Yesterday the question was discussed: what did Russia give them? It seems that the population is small. But they are well aware that the number of people does not matter. All great empires were created by a very small number of people. Mongols, Romans, Spaniards, British... Let me remind you that Moscow, which became an empire, well, how many were in it ... There's something else about it, something that pushes. I think there are two points here. First, good organization. And the second point is what Lev Gumilev called passionarity. This is the presence of people who are ready to sacrifice themselves for the sake of an idea, a goal. There aren't many of them. But if they are in the nation at a certain point, they move.
Passionarity is nurtured. To do this, you need to engage in culture.

- They educate those who should be conductors of neocolonialism.
- On the example of B. B. we see that they succeed. I must say that B. B. skillfully acts. What is the characteristic of the scene that just happened? What happened? It was about A. We discussed." what will happen. At this time, B. B. masterfully translated this situation in a completely different direction. First, he got a large audience, because he reigned on the screen. Without a moment's hesitation, he introduced some things that don't seem to need to be proven. For example, authoritarianism... You just keep quiet, it will not pass with me, I am the director! The second is kleptocracy. There is a serious struggle with this now.
But it doesn't matter to B.B. He doesn't talk about nuances, he just throws in... And it stays. And it's maturing. And someone will see: well, yes, really...
And in fact, the program is already dedicated not to A., but to...

There is a version. This was recorded in an official document. We have been declared who we are, from their point of view, a revisionist power. We are auditing the historical process. Indeed, in the 90s an unprecedented event in world history happened. The Western world has finally defeated Russia. This was the first time they had such a joy. After that, Russia had to, licking its wounds, crawl into the bushes and there ... And turn into a dozen little bears. Which are convenient to eat. But in the 2000s, it began to become clear that we refused to die, to divide into a dozen cubs, and moreover, we are going to live on. And ensure your safety. So this is revisionism! Russia wants to revise the historical process. It is unacceptable! Therefore, they will care about us until everything is finally clarified. Here's the version.

And here the question arises: what did they "dodded" before us? Why are we so unfaithing to them? Seemingly... At the same time, if we talk about the question of values, then our declared values are not socialist, we are not ruled by the Communist Party. <... > Why did we stand up so across their throats? Can someone explain this to me?

Something I do not share your optimism today. Probably ate something ...

War is the main test for the military-political leadership of the country. After a lost war, sometimes the state disappears, the ruler disappears, at best he turns into a political corpse. And often - and in the physical.

We are constantly talking about color revolutions at the suggestion of Western journalists. This term appeared when Ukraine began to boil. But the events that took place and are taking place in the post-Soviet space have nothing to do with the revolution. A revolution is a change in the project, it is a colossal involvement of the masses, it is a proposal for a new system. What are color revolutions? This is the technology of the coup. The name is beautiful - color revolution. Like a symbol of the struggle for freedom. But in fact, these are the main beneficiaries of these coups - external players.