Speaker A
Good day, dear friends. Vladimir Anatolyevich Lipekhin, a veteran of Russian politics. Greetings. Hello, Vladimir Anatolyevich. Right now, all the talk is about peace negotiations.
Vladimir Lepeshin discusses Russian peace negotiations, elite motives, and the complexities of the Ukraine conflict from a political insider perspective.
Key Takeaways
- Russian leadership seeks a peace agreement that can be portrayed as a victory, focusing on territorial control.
- Peace negotiations are largely performative with no real concessions made unless core Russian demands are met.
- Western political actors use manipulation and deception, making genuine peace talks difficult.
- Internal Russian elite politics restrict truthful discourse and maintain a facade of power and control.
- The conflict and peace process are deeply influenced by geopolitical and economic interests beyond Ukraine itself.
What the video covers
- Vladimir Lepeshin analyzes ongoing peace negotiations involving Russia, the US, and Ukraine, highlighting repeated stalled talks.
- The Russian leadership desires peace only if it can be framed as a victory, particularly regarding territorial gains like Donetsk, Lugansk, and Crimea.
- Negotiations lack substantive progress because Russia insists on territorial recognition as a condition for peace.
- Western politicians engage in deliberate, sophisticated deception, complicating genuine peace efforts.
- Russian political elites often conceal the truth due to internal power dynamics and risk of speaking openly.
- The official Russian narrative is controlled tightly by Putin and his inner circle, creating a disconnect between rhetoric and reality.
- Peace talks are hindered by external actors like NATO and European leaders who have vested interests in prolonging conflict.
- Lavrov’s attempts to raise issues such as the status of Russian speakers in Ukraine are suppressed within the Russian leadership.
- The video critiques both Russian and Western political posturing and the use of propaganda in the conflict.
- Lepeshin emphasizes the complexity of elite motivations and the challenges of achieving a realistic peace settlement.
Chapters
Full Transcript — Download SRT & Markdown
Speaker A
First, the CIA director suddenly flew to Moscow, then Putin met with Xi Jinping and other SCO leaders. In general, Modi was there too, and he also said it's time, time to end the war, and so on. And in the end, Trump
Speaker A
says: "My guys will bring a peace proposal to Moscow." So, Witkoff and Kushner are in Moscow. We are recording this right on Saturday evening.
Speaker A
Negotiations are happening right now, but we have already seen enough of these negotiations. We have already had the likes of Duncornidge, and Witkoff, and Kushner here, how many times now, this is probably the fourth or fifth visit. And it just keeps stalling and
Speaker A
stalling. The main arguments revolve around the fact that, as far as I can see, all your questions hinge on one cornerstone. Does Putin really need peace, do the Russian elites need peace, or do they want to keep fighting? And
Speaker A
there are arguments that everything is great, we are reviving the USSR, and then there's a bunch of arguments that no, no, no, this means the war must continue. Some say Putin would be glad to accept any opportunity, as long as
Speaker A
it's realistic and it leads to peace. And so we keep finishing, keep finishing. Putin himself would be glad to. It’s Zelensky who is being stubborn. What is your assessment, really, for the Russian elite, regarding what is happening now in
Speaker A
terms of hostilities and negotiations, do they need it or do they want the war to continue?
Speaker A
Ah, well, Pavel, there are several questions in one here. Let me start with the simplest one. Does the Russian leadership need peace? Ah, peace is needed, but a conditional peace. That is to say, a peace in the process of
Speaker A
which the special military operation would look like a victorious campaign. Therefore, all these details related to who gives what to whom, some conditions there, well, for Russia, only those aspects matter that allow the Russian side, the Russian leadership, to
Speaker A
interpret the end of the war as a victory for the Russian Federation. Therefore, naturally, the territorial aspect is of interest. That is, the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, Crimea.
Speaker A
Well, and preferably two more territories, as well, ones acquired. So the principle here is not that the territory is needed, right? But the principle is that when there are significant occupied territories, one can say that victory has been achieved.
Speaker A
There. And it wasn't for nothing that we fought, it wasn't for nothing that people died. So, we have probably noticed, and in principle, everyone who is seriously interested sees that there is actually nothing of substance in this negotiation process. That is, they
Speaker A
meet, all the shuttles arrive, and so on and so forth. Then everyone starts guessing what was discussed there and what questions were raised. No fundamental questions were raised at all. Why? Because whatever questions come from the Western side, if they do
Speaker A
not concern the main and sole, well, truly the only interest of the Russian leadership—that is, the end as a victory—then, naturally, our leaders do not make any concessions and do not advance any negotiations if there is no desire to discuss precisely that. That
Speaker A
is, the territorial acquisitions of the Russian Federation and, accordingly, what follows from this, meaning the demarcation line and so on and so forth. It is no coincidence that the Russian side, Lavrov tried a few months ago to
Speaker A
specify it a little, but apparently, he was told not to get into this sphere, as it is not his business at all. To specify the formula for a ceasefire, that is. Yes. So it is not being discussed. Just the other day, Lavrov
Speaker A
poked his head out again and stated something, for which he possibly got slapped on the wrist. Yes. Although this is not a fundamental issue for our leadership, Lavrov feels a certain discomfort. He raised the issue of the Russian language, Russian speakers, and
Speaker A
so on. Since the goal was set for denazification and demilitarization of Ukraine, yet in all the negotiation processes, this issue was never seriously discussed even once, right?
Speaker A
That is, the situation of Russians and Russian speakers in Ukraine, Russian schools, the Russian language, Russian culture, and so on, as well as Russian and Soviet monuments. So, this is why Russia has very simple considerations, specifically, the president has very
Speaker A
simple considerations. If a peace agreement looks like, or can be presented as, a victory for Russia, then we can meet halfway. And since Ukraine is resisting and saying that the territorial issue as posed by Russia does not suit Zelensky, then no
Speaker A
progress in the negotiation process is possible. Again, considering if, for example, the negotiation process were a three-way affair—say, Zelensky, Putin, and Trump—the whole game is being spoiled by European politicians, NATO leaders, and so on. They have seriously
Speaker A
set their sights on a new military economy and, accordingly, on strengthening the hardline in intra-European politics. And so, everything there is burning and falling apart for them. And in this sense, they have to justify their failures by saying that Russia is the aggressor,
Speaker A
trying to attack, causing trouble, and so on and so forth. And in this sense, well, Trump is forced to take that into account. But we understand what Western politics is like. Not a single word. I mean, I understand, for example, if our
Speaker A
elite—I’m always saying we need to understand the motives and the genesis of this elite, and so on and so forth.
Speaker A
And in this sense, you can’t believe a single word our politicians say. Those people in the elite who are ready to tell some truth from time to time—well, it’s clear they’re forbidden from doing so and are taking a huge
Speaker A
risk. That’s why even from decent people in power, or say, "conditionally" decent people, we sometimes don't hear a word of truth, or it’s in a very veiled form. Right. And the official line is as follows. Only one
Speaker A
person is allowed to state the official line. Right. And accordingly, it is formed under the influence of his inner circle—the shadow power, these very shadow clans. And so it is schizophrenic, motivated by things that aren't close to our people or society,
Speaker A
but are close to and necessary for this specific clan. But as for—well, this is, conditionally speaking, the first level of lying, the kind of lying conditioned by certain technology or metaphysics, where in modern Russia, reality is strictly separated from
Speaker A
posturing, from the facade. The substance is separated from the form and the rhetoric, where, I don’t know, a kind of Soviet Newspeak is still present, just with new cliches. Right.
Speaker A
And hypocrisy, yes, and above all, this posturing. To put it bluntly, they are constantly creating the impression of a superpower, of noble goals, and so on and so forth. In reality, there is profiteering everywhere, and everything is pathetic. That is, by and large. Now
Speaker A
, as for Western politicians, that is level two of lying, or even level three squared and cubed. It is sophisticated, carefully prepared, deliberate lying, deceiving everyone using manipulative techniques, for Jesuitical, inhumane purposes. And them, you absolutely cannot believe at all. So, when some
Speaker A
Kushner comes here, supposedly to negotiate again, to restart the peace process, well, it’s 99.9% certain that it has absolutely nothing to do with reality.
Speaker A
And who can we even negotiate with then? With whom? Zelensky? With whom? No, I mean, you can pretend to negotiate with anyone you want, and so on. Well, how does our head of state think, for example? He is ready to
Speaker A
negotiate, but only when he sees genuine movement toward the requirements or, let's say, the requests formulated by the Russian side; that is, to actually launch a peace process, to start negotiating, but while taking into account the needs of
Speaker A
the Russian side. That’s exactly the point: in words, everyone t
Speaker A
Exclusively leading us by the nose, setting constant conditions, playing tricks, and so on and so forth. Then why did, for instance, this CIA head, Burns, come to Moscow? Well, reports say he came to save the situation, because—well, Western media mostly
Speaker A
write this, and our idiots repeat it— that Russia is supposedly ready to attack NATO, and so on. Burns warned that under no circumstances should we do that, because there would be a response from the West, and so on, and
Speaker A
so on. A real peacemaker, a shitty peacemaker, if you’ll excuse me. It’s clear that this is some kind of game played in coordination with Trump.
Speaker A
Trump, in turn, pretends that, well, yes, our negotiation process has stalled, and we need to resume it. So, Burns went there specifically to restart the negotiation process, yada yada. But we clearly understand that this self-serving operator, who is
Speaker A
bogged down in Iran—just imagine, in a situation where Israel is carrying out a genocidal war against the Palestinians, and all over the world, it’s understood that a huge number of people see it exactly as genocide, as the direct killing of an entire nation
Speaker A
by Israel, or rather, the elite that has come to power in Israel. Trump, in this situation, starts a war against Iran, effectively providing support to this very Israel, the international terrorist. And yet he tries to portray himself as a peacemaker. Even though we
Speaker A
see what his actual key interest is in Iran. To control the Strait of Hormuz and communications in general, to control global oil prices, supplies, and so on and so forth. It was the same thing in Venezuela. And now, it’s
Speaker A
happening in Iran and so on. And anyway , what kind of good intentions could he possibly have? There can be no good intentions from this scoundrel. Meaning , from the international terrorist Trump. Oh, everyone is doing stuff, diplomacy, but in Russia, we have
Speaker A
snot-nosed diplomacy. Friends, you know better than I do how a busy pace of life and a growing pile of problems take a toll on our health.
Speaker A
Sedentary work, excessive strain, stress, deadlines—all this leads to chronic fatigue, apathy, insomnia, and morning neck and back pain that ruins your day from the start. In the end, we spend money on massage therapists, osteopaths, sedatives, and sleep aids,
Speaker A
but the effect is short-lived, the root causes aren't gone, and the symptoms return. You have already heard many times about the renervation method. I tried it on myself, too, and felt the beneficial effect. The fact is that stress and sedentary work cause our
Speaker A
occipital muscles to spasm, disrupting blood flow and causing the brain to send distorted signals to the body.
Speaker A
During the procedure, these tensions are released with the help of gentle microcurrents. The brain itself, without medication, triggers a self-healing program from the very first session for everyone without exception. And if you add the Revagus course, which works delicately on the
Speaker A
vagus nerve, your apathy, stress, and insomnia will disappear very quickly within a week. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the symptoms will not return. Renervation and Revagus eliminate the root cause itself. The methods are fully certified and are
Speaker A
even suitable for children. The course consists of only three to five procedures. This will significantly save your resources at the Brain clinic in Moscow and Saint Petersburg. Click the link in the description, sign up for neuromuscular diagnostics, and feel
Speaker A
a significant improvement in your condition from the very first session. Again, there were reports about Britain saying we reserve the right to a mirror response. But in reality, what happened after Redcliffe? Immediately two large-scale provocations, or rather, small, petty European provocations, but
Speaker A
in the spirit of what Britain and the United States have done throughout their entire political history: create a provocation, interpret it as an attack on them, and in response, launch large-scale military actions. Just like how the Vietnam War began, how World
Speaker A
War II began—well, the war with Japan that the States started, right? Provoking the Japanese so that, well, it’s clear, there would be an attack on Pearl Harbor. You see, that’s how the fascists, the Hitlerites, acted when they dressed their own soldiers in
Speaker A
Polish uniforms and attacked their own border base, interpreting it as an attack by Poland. There you have it— the formal beginning of the Second World War. I wrote a comment on Telegram regarding the underlying reasons for Pistorius's visit and so on
Speaker A
. And what do we have just a day later? A day later, we have an unidentified drone in Germany, in Leipzig. I mean, in theory, just some unidentified drone . It’s clear that all sorts of things are flying around nowadays. These
Speaker A
processes are happening everywhere. But Germany, the German leadership, blew it up to enormous proportions, baselessly accused Russia, and so on and so forth.
Speaker A
Essentially, they got a casus belli, they organized a casus belli themselves to escalate actions against Russia. At the same time, Norway detains a Russian ship, and not just anywhere in the Baltic where they are deployed, but near Spitsbergen. And that is a much
Speaker A
more strategic matter. Why, for instance, is the situation in the Arctic being discussed at the Eastern Forum right now, with our side again acting overconfident, saying we will develop the Northern Sea Route, ports, Vostok Oil, those super-projects, a
Speaker A
trillion, or rather, a million rubles in investment, and so on? The fight for the Arctic. There. So, escalation is underway. Europeans are strictly tuned toward this very escalation. NATO is focused on it; yes, for them, this is an economic project, a
Speaker A
politico-economic project, and a very serious one. Why? Because Europe is, in a way, sliding in economic growth, in an economic decline, so to speak. And how to prevent that? Well, there are no ideas. To restructure the economy somehow. Nobody is really prepared for
Speaker A
that. Just like here with us. Other than the exploitation of resource-rich countries and those nations that are in colonial relationships with Europe and the West, there are no other ideas. Oh, they push for so-called innovations, artificial intelligence, green energy,
Speaker A
and all that. And of course, the military industry, which they use to justify everywhere that the transition to the seventh technological paradigm is possible through what? Well, through a priority interest in IT technologies.
Speaker A
And, accordingly, the development of these very new IT technologies, including in the military sphere or with military objectives in mind.
Speaker A
Therefore, well, nobody is interested in this, among the ruling structures, among these global power centers.
Speaker A
Nobody is interested in putting up a block here and stopping this movement. Everyone in the world is obsessed with it right now. We see that technocrats are forming technofascism under the guise of technofuturism, yes, and such a collective antichrist is being formed
Speaker A
precisely on the basis of artificial intelligence control. This whole Trump team, yes, led by Vance. Europe is also trying not to fall behind, and China is trying not to fall behind. And our people, just watch what’s on TV
Speaker A
lately, from morning till night. IT, IT , you know, digital, digital, and so on . Going crazy. And it’s clear that our digitalizer Nikiforov turned out to be involved in the theft of 5 billion and long ago disappeared. He left for
Speaker A
Israel. He was a Deputy Prime Minister, or whatever he was, a minister or deputy, an exemplary digitalizer.
Speaker A
Well, he’s neither the first nor the last. Moreover, a limit has been reached now, because our leadership also follows this method in terms of searching for additional reserves for economic growth, meaning they have no intention of changing the economic
Speaker A
model. And that means the ruling clans, our shadow mafia ones, are looking for sources of funding. And they keep making the same attempts, just at a higher level. There was an attempt at re-privatization about half a year ago,
Speaker A
yes, it even started a year ago, in early 2026, when under the pretext that the defense industry needed certain enterprises, they began to re-privatize some things. But the clans won't profit from this because these companies aren't highly profitable, meaning they
Speaker A
need state orders, and you can’t make much money off that. So, for the future , they started re-privatizing, but it fizzled out. And now there is a new wave. Take Presidential Decree 604. A new wave, where you can privatize just
Speaker A
about any enterprise under the guise that it isn't protected, that the owners haven't ensured defense against drones, for example. You could privatize any private household with that. This wave is going to spread now, and the authorities everywhere are
Speaker A
going to privatize everything. Actually , land privatization is already happening on the ground, under the pretext that it isn't being cultivated; they fly drones around to see what state the plots are in. If a plot of land isn't mowed, well, that thing
Speaker A
grows, what's it called? That well-known weed. And it starts hogweed. Soon, if someone forgets to register their chickens, they'll be declared a terrorist. Well, just about anything, yes. Biosecurity is under threat, privatizing everything for themselves, raking in all these land plots and so
Speaker A
on, and so on. And so a serious redistribution started between the clans. I mean, take Vostok Oil, what kind of project is that? Today, for example, it was being presented, and the TV was playing Sechin all day, uh,
Speaker A
him speaking there in Taimyr, you know, presenting this project. Well, Sechin secured a trillion rubles. That is, in a situation where the budget is clearly crying, when money is needed for, you know, completing the SMO and so on, the
Speaker A
shadow oligarchs have no intention of, well, addressing these urgent tasks. They are busy with how to improve their own affairs. That is how they start improving them. I mean, the most classic, perhaps, of recent cases is, of course, the sharp creation of a
Speaker A
gasoline and fuel shortage, which was largely artificial. I am absolutely certain of that. Why? Because along the way, a whole series of tasks were solved, and there were very prominent beneficiaries. I mean, in principle, the oilmen also squeezed out a trillion
Speaker A
, essentially, over the last year in various kinds of compensation. Well, for setbacks, for the fact that, well, obviously, exports are being cut off, oil companies are suffering losses, and so on. Plus the dampers. Well, overall, they’ve already, you know, squeezed
Speaker A
out a trillion. That is, roughly speaking, the budget didn’t, you know , didn't receive about a trillion because, well, obviously, oil exports are falling. There. Well, they compensated for this by taking it from that same budget, right, for themselves
Speaker A
. So, you know, a sort of double profit . Plus, naturally, they ensured a price increase for fuel on the domestic market, right, so it went up sharply.
Speaker A
They are, naturally, the beneficiaries in this case, the oil companies. And they also privatized more than 2,000 gas stations there. Well, a monopolization of this industry has finally occurred, yes.
Speaker A
I don’t understand, who ended up being the beneficiary in the end? Rosneft, Lukoil, who? No, several oil companies. Well, of course, Rosneft is at the center, since they have access to the main body, Sechin’s. And Transneft too. No, well, Lukoil is just
Speaker A
on the sidelines, but in principle, it could also be among the beneficiaries. We don't really know the exact relationships or what kind of pool has formed there. We can assume there's a pool close to the head of state—the
Speaker A
St. Petersburg group, Tokarev, Transneft, and obviously Surgutneftegaz , Rosneft, and various entities like Gazprom Neft, and so on. As for those that are more or less independent, like Lukoil, it's hard to say what they've acquired. When the industry as a whole
Speaker A
rises, and regulations apply across the board, if fuel prices go up, everyone in the sector becomes a beneficiary.
Speaker A
So. Moving on to Gazprom. Gazprom also seems to have found something. It’s not being talked about much yet, but I know it's being actively discussed as a promising direction for Gazprom, which would allow them to exit their loss-making state within a few years
Speaker A
and strike a massive vein. The vein is actually very simple. Gazprom should have dealt with this long ago, but since they were getting easy sales of gas in huge volumes, they didn't bother . The thing is, the automotive industry
Speaker A
exists primarily in two technologies. It's either petroleum products—fuel, gasoline, diesel, and so on—or what China has now achieved with its breakthrough in electric vehicles. It wasn't the Americans or the Europeans; it was the Chinese who made this breakthrough. Russia was meant to start
Speaker A
an automotive project 25 years ago, using gas. I mean, there were attempts to acquire Opel and use their Western automotive technologies, but they wouldn't let us buy it.
Speaker A
Well, there were attempts, at least the idea existed. And secondly, Prokhorov was doing something with the Yo-Mobile —I can't say for sure now—but they even looked into hydrogen fuel, so various technologies were discussed, but no serious steps were taken, while
Speaker A
look at what the Chinese did. They completely transformed their entire automotive industry with these electric vehicles. It involves a colossal amount of technology and all sorts of charging infrastructure. Then there’s the electronics, and so on and so forth.
Speaker A
Lithium, lithium batteries, raw materials, and the like. Right. So, you can't turn things around with just some local project here. Well, Russia has cheap gas, and now there’s even more justification for it, since the cost of gasoline, diesel, and so on has risen
Speaker A
sharply. But our gas is going to waste, right? So let's use it for the domestic market, let’s develop it, but the infrastructure isn't there. That is to say, it’s a colossal project that no Miller could handle; it's biting off
Speaker A
more than he can chew. Right. But nevertheless, such discussions are taking place within Gazprom. And in general, if a pool is formed, not just Gazprom, but also Sibur, Novatek, and so on, and so on, well, perhaps then...
Speaker A
Let me ask, let me ask directly, Vladimir Anatolyevich: there are rumors that the CIA director—and it seems he wasn’t alone—brought the Kremlin proposals for very profitable investment projects for Russia, saying that one could earn a lot of money
Speaker A
there. What kind of projects could those even be? Is it that famous bridge between Alaska and...? But that's an expense, not income. Maybe they need to lift sanctions on us first, or how would that work?
Speaker A
No, Pavel, there are no investments. It’s all absolute nonsense and rhetoric. It’s that rhetoric they wrapped everything in during the early nineties: that the main source and driver of development is investment, preferably foreign. The money that comes here, say, to open some
Speaker A
businesses—the money that was coming here—it’s not investment at all; it’s just the cheap privatization of assets that are already here. They keep confusing the concept of who is actually investing and where. Real investment is when, clearly within the
Speaker A
framework of a state plan, state banks under certain conditions truly invest money, provide low-interest loans, and so on, without becoming the owner. Of that enterprise, or a co-owner, depending on what kind of investment was made. But the banks that call
Speaker A
themselves investors just leave every enterprise hanging in the sense that the enterprise leaves its assets as collateral with that bank for that very loan. And then the bank becomes the owner. And then we look to see who the
Speaker A
owner of the bank is, who is actually managing things there in that bank, in that Russian bank, and so on. All foreign financial companies operate in exactly the same way. And the structures that come here are not investors at all; they are people
Speaker A
coming to profit from the Russian market. For example, I was in Khakassia about seven or eight years ago, there was some kind of conference. Khakassia is a very interesting region from an archaeological point of view. So. Well, we were holding a conference. That's it
Speaker A
. And, well, the authorities were there , the leadership of the republic. And they were all fussing over some Chinese guy, a young Chinese man, and everyone kept saying, "investor, investor." I asked, "Why are you fussing over him?
Speaker A
He doesn't speak Russian, he has nothing to do with the subject matter, he's just some businessman, and our topic is entirely non-commercial." This is about archaeology, geography, history. "No, he's an investor," they all said with bated breath. I started
Speaker A
looking into it, and he's just an ordinary trader. A trader, meaning someone with no connection to industry or any kind of production, someone who just sells equipment. And what does he sell? He sells Chinese equipment, pushes Chinese equipment for aluminum
Speaker A
plants in Russia. So, in reality, he is doing everything to ensure that these aluminum plants in the Irkutsk region, the Krasnoyarsk Territory, and so on, switch from domestic equipment to Chinese. So he’s not an investor; he’s someone destroying a whole line
Speaker A
of Russian, our domestic, production, pushing the Chinese product here, replacing our domestic product. That is why all these rumors—journalists just write all sorts of nonsense. They weren’t sitting there next to that Radcliffe. Some sort of...Yes.
Speaker A
Furthermore, there is a Kremlin directive for everything to sound positive. The Americans arrived, everything is positive. We are reaching some agreements, we continue to negotiate. The Americans are treating Russia with bated breath, they’re interested in cooperation, they’re proposing projects—hell, they aren't
Speaker A
proposing anything, they are just dragging us into all sorts of schemes again. Well, Putin has a kind of instinct, he has this line I already mentioned. The special military operation began, as it were, with an ultimatum, a Russian ultimatum—an
Speaker A
ultimatum to whom? To the West and NATO , right? That you imposed economic sanctions against us, you are blocking our economic activity everywhere, including exports, and accordingly, you have started an anti-Russian policy in Europe, an energy policy, and so on and
Speaker A
so forth. Well, that is the motive. Meaning: you can't treat us like that. That was the directive. You can't treat us like that. We are a great power, after all, and so on and so forth. You need to talk to us. That is what the
Speaker A
2021 ultimatum consisted of. Talk to us , let’s make a deal: what piece of the world economy are you giving us?
Speaker A
where can we still freely, you know, continue to, well, funnel stolen money? there was a belief, among other things, that Ukraine would remain in our sphere of influence, that it was a piece of our territory, part of what was later
Speaker A
called the "Russian world." No, honestly, what kind of belief? Where would that belief even come from?
Speaker A
It's just another propaganda trope: that we need Ukraine because it's part of the Russian world—yet they didn't lift a finger to ensure Ukraine remained part of the Russian world.
Speaker A
That's why all this grandstanding goes on, along with various rhetorical constructs that just obscure the truth.
Speaker A
I know Ukraine well; I worked there intensively during the first Maidan, more than any other Russian, more than any "Moskal." I spent six months in Ukraine at Yanukovych's headquarters, then the Donetsk guys cleared us out, and they steamrolled right over me.
Speaker A
They blamed me for setting Yanukovych up. They sent me a bill for 70,000 dollars, and the Donetsk bandits started putting the squeeze on me. And that's how they wiped out our Moscow group. I saw everything from the inside
Speaker A
, like how the CIA worked in Yanukovych's headquarters, for example. I bring up this example all the time.
Speaker A
headquarters of this. Yes, well, of course, of course. They controlled Yushchenko's headquarters entirely; the whole scenario was Western, so to speak. And they placed a supervisor in Yanukovych's headquarters . That's it. And so on, and so forth.
Speaker A
That’s why having Chernomyrdin as ambassador was absolute stupidity. His task was to be the overseer of the gas transport system. That's it, so that some Rosgaz, for instance, wouldn't privatize it. That's it. And they just drank all the time there, threw parties
Speaker A
at the embassy, had tea parties, vodka parties, and so on. That was the extent of the work. Complete primitivism. And we see that when Yanukovych began to wobble, they couldn't even form an adequate assessment of the situation in
Speaker A
the Kremlin. It wasn't anti-oligarchic, you know, like against the "golden loaf " and all those oligarchs like Yanukovych, Akhmetov, and so on. No, it was an absolutely Russophobic thing, anti-Russian, under the control of Western intelligence services. That's it. And our guys couldn't even pull off
Speaker A
a well-executed special operation regarding Ukraine as a whole. Well, the annexation of Crimea smoothed that over in a good way, right? It was a sort of compensation for a geopolitical defeat, well, a serious geopolitical defeat for Russia. that situation when Russia was
Speaker A
on the verge of changing its economic model, and this change had to begin with moving away from being a hyper-dependent raw material appendage to Western Europe, as the division of labor had developed, gradually breaking out of colonial dependence, and
Speaker A
creating its own zone of division of labor, its own free trade zone, namely the Eurasian Economic Union, which was announced, but Nazarbayev was the bigger initiator. Well, in fairness, I must say that Putin did support it in 2000, accepted it, well, as an idea.
Speaker A
But the work was not really being done. We even created an institute in 2010 specifically to provide ideological support for Eurasian economic integration. And we know how all this went in all the countries. Everyone ended up in total schizophrenia,
Speaker A
because on one hand, Russia joined the WTO, essentially subordinating itself to WTO guidelines in global trade, while on the other hand, it formed the Eurasian Economic Union, where different regulation should be aimed at sovereignty and ensuring sovereignty.
Speaker A
Naturally, everything stalled. All the projects—the single ruble, the common currency, and so on—stalled because the officials are sitting there and don't understand: should we develop international legislation in Russia according to WTO guidelines, or create something new, our own, Eurasian, that
Speaker A
protects this space from the WTO and other international things, including the economic sanctions that began on a large scale in 2014. That is why Hillary Clinton set herself the task of blocking Eurasian integration. She spoke somewhere and said that this
Speaker A
Eurasian project is an attempt by Soviet Russia to restore the Soviet empire. And therefore it must be blocked everywhere. And I remember we prepared a certain conference in the States on the Eurasian topic. They shut it down for us.
Speaker A
Well, many still assess it that way, that Putin is simply...how would you respond to this theory, version, or perspective?
Speaker A
No, well look, there are the privatizers, right, the privatizers, these profiteers, profiteers. I note that according to the statement by someone, the Deputy Finance Minister perhaps, Russia will receive 500 billion rubles this year. from the privatization of state property. This
Speaker A
is not back in the nineties, this is now. Well, Pavel, Russia will receive nothing. I am telling you, we are coming back to the ruling class again.
Speaker A
Let's try to be a little bit sociological, shall we, a little bit sociological. Sociology is dead in our country; really, only polls are being conducted. Bogus ones, meaning they are falsified. Sociology shows that there are certain characteristics of this
Speaker A
ruling class, which came from the Soviet era and was reborn in the post-Soviet period—essentially a collection of mafia clans. Yes, nobody talks about this, nobody knows anything . And why a mafia, and so on, and so forth. I mean, there is a mass of
Speaker A
research on this, isn't there? They came into the new era and privatized everything. Since they privatized everything, and their motive is to maintain and strengthen power, assets, and property, then everything they say, situationally and reactively, is still subordinated to those motives. And they
Speaker A
privatized everything: the Great Victory, May 9th, traditional values, and so on and so forth. And then this sludge begins, talk about patriotism, which they have privatized and interpret in their own way, supposedly restoring the Soviet Union for Putin.
Speaker A
Well, who is this meant for? For the marginalized who are supposed to believe what he supposedly stated once, that it was a geopolitical tragedy, but he meant something else—not that the Soviet system collapsed, he meant that an empire, a big country, collapsed.
Speaker A
Meaning a powerful, influential country collapsed. There. And they haven't moved an inch toward actually being softer toward the Soviet period, the Soviet system, or pro-people internal policies. There. But where it’s rhetorically profitable to use it, well , that's how the "SMO" started. But
Speaker A
it’s quite obvious, since there's an SMO, we have to boost morale so people defend their homeland. I mean, the ruling class won’t say "defend this," "forward for Putin," or "go on the attack"—they won't say that, naturally. So they are constantly
Speaker A
singing about the motherland. But what kind of motherland is it, if the motherland has been privatized?
Speaker A
Naturally, anyone who isn't a fool on the front lines understands perfectly well why they are there. And, in principle, this is clearly visible now before the elections, in terms of being told how Moscow has improved, what hospitals and clinics we have, how
Speaker A
we are gradually developing and rising from our knees. Meaning, this is concern for the citizens. United Russia , well done. Since Sobyanin is in our top five for United Russia, well, one of the leaders of the United Russia
Speaker A
election campaign, he was awarded today with a medal or the title of Hero of Russia, or Hero of Labor of Russia, whatever it's called now. It's clear they are boosting him. I watch NTV, and they run commercials for Sobyanin from
Speaker A
morning till night. Well, that's obvious. So, if a person sits in front of the TV and believes all of this, well, that's wonderful, good for them.
Speaker A
I also love the Moscow Metro, all those wonderful stations that are appearing there. Yeah. But nonetheless, there are more systemic and fundamental things that don't have much of a positive side , and even a negative one is visible.
Speaker A
With all the fact that Moscow sits on a colossal budget, which the rest of Russia, in general, other regions, doesn't even dream of. Yeah. And so, you have to be something else entirely to just steal this entire budget, right
Speaker A
? You have to do something for the Muscovites. Well, whether it's done for all Muscovites, for ordinary Muscovites , and so on, that's another question.
Speaker A
Yeah. So, how should I put it, the time has come, and it is understood by a fairly large number of people, that you cannot believe the television, nor the Russian press, and you cannot believe social media, because there's just a
Speaker A
different level of rumors, chatter, and so on. And even more so, you cannot believe official statements. That is, one must treat everything critically.
Speaker A
Until we understand the essence of the situation, that we are moving toward collapse. The country is moving toward collapse, and in all directions, almost in all directions; there is a systemic degradation happening. Yeah. And, accordingly, one needs to look ahead.
Speaker A
That is, what could be the consequences of this very degradation in all directions. Yeah. And if something is stated somewhere about the good intentions of the authorities or official structures, well, you need to divide it by ten and look for the
Speaker A
ulterior motive; nothing is done just like that. They won't do anything for nothing unless they are getting excess profits from it. Yeah. Because there is no interest in developing the country, doing something for the people directly , and so on. People are, clearly, just
Speaker A
raw material to be used, oppressed, and so on. And every day, decisions are made that are directed against the people. Every day there are some new fines, new restrictions, this and that.
Speaker A
Vladimir, I really don't want to interrupt you, uh, but I am forced to do so. Back at the beginning of your explanation, I was interested in a question: if the authorities can, in principle, make any decisions, and regularly make anti-people, unpopular
Speaker A
decisions, then why put on this performance, for example, regarding negotiations? Why pretend at all?
Speaker A
It’s like, you know, why go to such lengths? Why bother, if the people are controlled, silent, and patient. No, well, they are mostly controlled. The post-Soviet people are primarily controlled by manipulative technologies . Not because people are afraid—
Speaker A
though, of course, fear is growing about tomorrow—but, overall, they are simply artfully deceived. And how are they deceived? They wouldn't say, "We started the war to preserve our super-profits." Well, a "special military operation" to, you know, somehow restore order in Ukraine and so
Speaker A
on and so forth. No, they formulate this very motive, these very goals, at the level of everyday consciousness.
Speaker A
Meaning that it's a fight against the West, the West that is conducting a Russophobic policy. Accordingly, we must protect our sovereignty. The common people don't ask, they don't dig any deeper. For example, every day they talk about sovereignty, that Russia is
Speaker A
striving for this, that we are ensuring it. But ask the question: where is even one document? Not even a concept for ensuring sovereignty, just one document where you can read that the authorities made a decision based on some sort of
Speaker A
development plan. This is a serious matter. Sovereignty is a concept, a political-philosophical concept, a political-economic concept. So, we then define this phenomenon, or this concept , this category, and say: "Sovereignty is, let’s use the simplest definition for now, liberation from dependencies,
Speaker A
from external dependencies." Then, consequently, serious work must be carried out to analyze these very dependencies. Look at how dependent we are on transit states, on transit routes, on, you know, the European Commissions that set the prices and terms for the sale of our raw materials
Speaker A
, on foreign consumers, right, on global prices that we don't set, and on Turkey, how we’ve become completely dependent, with that hub where our pipelines pass through, and on Belarus —our wonderful unified union state— yet half of Belarus's budget is still
Speaker A
formed by Russian raw material policy. And so on, and so forth. So, consequently, once we’ve realized all these dependencies, we then develop a plan for how to minimize or eliminate them, to reach an independent mode of operation, or to carry out this import
Speaker A
substitution, and so on. These are serious matters. Sovereignty is not just technological sovereignty. I mean, even the premise that the discussion is only about technological sovereignty.
Speaker A
That is just complete, well, complete demagoguery. Yes, we do need to replace certain technological things that have been lost. For example, we used to produce aircraft; the Soviet Union accounted for 10%, maybe even more, of global aircraft and spacecraft
Speaker A
production. Now it’s near zero. And it's clear that we lack the components, right, we aren't producing them. We buy them in China, we used to buy them in Europe, and so on and so forth. We need , you know, to somehow learn to produce
Speaker A
them ourselves and so on. Well, okay. The line is clear, but how realistic is technological sovereignty in this area?
Speaker A
So, this is what Putin and Sechin are pushing for right now, speaking today, you know, in Taimyr. And he says, "Here is this super-project, Vostok Oil, and we are [developing] new fields, dozens of new fields, you know? There’s the"
Speaker A
SMO, "and Russia's oil exports are blocked, well, effectively blocked. Until recently, the talk was always about how we need to somehow, well, not increase, at the very least, production , or rather, oil extraction, because it has to be stored somewhere since we
Speaker A
can't sell it all, and so on and so forth. And here, it's about opening something like a hundred new fields.
Speaker A
And most importantly, what is the motivation behind this? They motivate it by saying we have started producing our own equipment for the oil industry, including equipment for oil extraction.
Speaker A
And so, this, well, a mass of this equipment that we are producing ourselves, we will now be installing at these new, you know, fields. The question arises: who checked if this equipment is actually ours, or if the labels were just swapped, and so on and
Speaker A
so forth. So, therefore, uh, it's a very complicated situation, and any position stated officially needs to be weighed ten times over. When we start weighing and analyzing, it turns out that—well, I just mentioned gasoline —but what, for example, is going on
Speaker A
with Wildberries? What’s this about someone intercepting all the revenue accumulated over the years and dumping the sellers?
Speaker A
Or those internet blockages. People are furious and feeling uncomfortable. But if you look at it from the perspective of public administration, the money spent is catastrophically large, yet the efficiency...
Speaker A
Well, that's exactly right, which is why I hadn't finished my point. And the state will end up bailing out Wildberries. Well, the state, the state budget, will bail it out. These private shadow clans will simply use the budget
Speaker A
under the pretext that Wildberries is hurting, they’ll dump another trillion into it, and then split the loot. The same thing is happening with Ozon right now. Exactly. And we see the Kerimov clan and a whole chain of associates working with Ozon at the
Speaker A
signal of the state’s leader. And Ozon, in essence, is going to the Kovalchuk-Timchenko team, yes, a different clan. The same thing, following a signal. Right. So, Sechin has already received the go-ahead for the Vostok Oil project. With that
Speaker A
signal, he wants another trillion; he wants to start rare earth metals and is asking for 700 billion as well.
Speaker A
Accordingly, the defense industry will naturally receive even more money in the near future. In this sense, there's no need to come up with any special projects. They already have everything lined up. So, this is the latest redistribution of assets. The
Speaker A
redistribution isn't about privatizing enterprises to raise their management standards or anything like that. That's just a bonus. The main thing is that the budget needs to be carved up among" their own. "And it’s clear that social programs will suffer, naturally,
Speaker A
first and foremost. Yeah. And there will be a budget deficit, of course. And how will that budget deficit be covered? Well, apparently through the sale of resources. In that sense, Dmitriev, Ushakov, Abramovich, and whoever else has joined them today alongside these
Speaker A
negotiators are all working on it. Vladimir Anatolyevich, there is another point. You mentioned that even from decent people in power, we won't hear a word of truth unless it's very veiled.
Speaker A
How does that even work? I mean, for example, a professional becomes...what level can you reach if you remain a professional and a decent person? Let's say Pasha Ivanov becomes head of the education department and says," This is bad, this is bad, this is bad. "I'm not
Speaker A
allowed to talk about problems, even in a bureaucratic report. How does that work anyway?
Speaker A
Well, everything is known. We have wonderful scriptwriters who write crime dramas, where all the dynamics between security agencies, the bosses, the St.
Speaker A
Petersburg and Moscow factions—it's all described perfectly. So, here’s a recent concrete example. There’s a guy named Klepach, he was Deputy Minister of Economy. I don’t know if he held a higher position or not. He always had a reputation as a more or
Speaker A
less decent official who maintained good relations with Glazyev and other more or less independent economists.
Speaker A
His last place of work was Vnesheconombank. You must have read that news, seen it. He spoke somewhere and told a bit of the truth, more or less. About the situation not being great. He said it in May, but the
Speaker A
fallout hit him at the end of August. Well, of course, that’s just inertia. So, the fallout reached him one way or another, right? The press wrote about it because he's a well-known figure.
Speaker A
That's how it happens. If someone speaks the truth somewhere, criticizing something, it’s not without a reason.
Speaker A
For instance, when a person isn't fired and isn't persecuted, it means they’ve become the mouthpiece for a certain clan, which, in competition with others, voiced something to frame their rivals. There are countless cases like that. Exactly. But even then, they
Speaker A
are cautious, because why would a person in a high position, say a minister, get involved in a clan conflict? It’s clear that all ministers are lobbyists or fixers for some clan, and they are used one way or another. But if they ever say anything
Speaker A
and include elements of truth regarding any competitors, they will try to make it vague. Exactly. Otherwise, obviously , they will be the scapegoat when things start getting sorted out at a higher level. Why, for instance, did Chemezov's people go after Rotenberg's,
Speaker A
or vice versa? These lobbyists and fixers are exactly that because they understand such things perfectly well.
Speaker A
And that is why you will never hear the truth anywhere. Everywhere there is verbal, well, this highest degree of demagoguery, right? Or Look, I want to understand: are they lobbyists and fixers because they are lobbyists and fixers who got their
Speaker A
hands on power? Or can even a professional stay there only if they become and turn into a lobbyist and a fixer?
Speaker A
Well, the story can be different. I mean, lobbyists and fixers are people who grow up or get attached to some corporation. For example, it could be a former deputy. For instance, while working in the State Duma, he showed
Speaker A
his necessity and importance. Well, for example, he worked in the privatization committee and went there specifically to get noticed. He built connections there with companies interested in privatization, started serving their interests, got noticed, and formed solid relationships there. Or a person
Speaker A
simply works in a company, but works in their field—say, public relations, analytics, or information work, and so on. Well, he accordingly grows into a professional lobbyist, that is, he first ensures the company's ties with the state, and then moves directly to
Speaker A
work in the government system as a lobbyist for that very company. Right. Therefore, let's say, there is such a machine for turning votes into parliamentary or government seats—a machine designed to actually make policy: a political party. But with us,
Speaker A
since it's a fiction, an imitation, there's no real training for people there. There is no personnel turnover, that is. Because, as is usual in European parties, students come in, start doing some public work they are given. Accordingly, the more you show
Speaker A
your activity and professionalism, oratory skills, and so on, you get promoted: you become a leader of some party cell, regional, then you grow to the central committee, or to a parliamentarian—the party sends you directly. But what about here? It's not
Speaker A
the party that sends them. Well, maybe the Communists to a greater extent, where the party mechanism still works.
Speaker A
As for the other four parliamentary parties, it's clear to us who forms those lists. Exactly. And it doesn’t matter at all whether a person has any qualifications or anything else. All that matters is their place in the system, their background—the criteria
Speaker A
are actually completely opposite to, let's say, serious personnel management . Meaning qualifications don't matter, and having an impeccable reputation doesn't matter either. What matters is if the person is in uniform, great, that means they can follow orders within the management system. Or,
Speaker A
accordingly, which clan they represent, whose relative they are, right? Accordingly, whether they paid for their position or not, and if they are ready to keep paying and financing those higher up. Those are the criteria that work. So, once again, if a person
Speaker A
is ready to obey because they are in uniform, or maybe there is compromising material on them, I don't know, and if they are ready to pay—meaning they are comfortable living in a corrupt environment—then it suits them. Cool.
Speaker A
Cool. What interesting career criteria. Well, you mentioned Pavel Ivanov, that he was elected somewhere or advanced.
Speaker A
Well, try, for starters, say at the municipal level, try getting elected as a municipal deputy, and then try, while interacting with the prefecture, to move to some position in the Moscow government while maintaining an independent stance. How far will you
Speaker A
get? They'll stop you at the gates because they'll say," Oh, Pasha is a good person, a wonderful guy, of course , but he's not one of us, he doesn't follow the rules of the game, right? " So, the rules are transparent: you've
Speaker A
been placed in a certain post. And what does the post give a person? It gives them the opportunity to abuse their official position. That is their capital. Therefore, they are obligated to abuse their official position in current conditions, since the whole
Speaker A
system implies it. And when you start pretending to be honest, or just being honest and doing your duty, well, you don't really fit into the system. Once again, watch those police TV series, our wonderful screenwriters who correctly build the reality, like" Cop
Speaker A
Wars "or the series" Nevsky, "and so on , and so on. It's a vent for people who don't directly criticize the authorities but show in cinema how things actually exist today in Russia.
Speaker A
Vladimir Anatolyevich, unfortunately, we rarely get to record broadcasts with you. Allow me to ask a very broad question. What is your forecast for the post-election period?
Speaker A
Vladimir Vladimirovich promised us there would be no new mobilization. There will be no freezing of bank deposits. We are getting closer to the end, to the conclusion of the special military operation. And what is your assessment for October, November,
Speaker A
December of '26 in the near term? Well, look, the point is that no drastic steps will be taken, right?
Speaker A
Well, nothing that would be noticeable. For example, mobilization is already happening, it’s just not called mobilization, right? No one declared it . Accordingly, after the elections, they won't declare mobilization either, but, uh, the, let's say, sharpness of these steps will increase, it will
Speaker A
intensify, right? The current Russian government doesn't learn from the lessons of history, doesn't engage in any conceptual development, but they have learned a few things. What have they learned? They have learned to react to problems as they arise, in the
Speaker A
simplest way: through repression, all kinds of tricky, devious combinations, and so on and so forth. So, in fact, there will be mobilization, the budget will be bled dry, there will be a betrayal of Russia’s interests in the negotiation process, and a lot more,
Speaker A
and consequently, there will be a collapse, and money and deposits will be frozen. It’s going to be the full package. But they did learn, for instance, how he said that raising the retirement age would only happen over his dead body. Well, they raised it,
Speaker A
and the people grumbled. And at the same time, he asked everyone to show understanding. It will all happen in roughly the same style, where the press and our propagandists will write that Russia has no choice but for everyone
Speaker A
to rise up to defend the motherland against, and so on and so forth. So, it will seem like the government has nothing to do with it, even though all the decisions will have been made. We can see that classified decrees are
Speaker A
already being issued, the contents of which we can only guess at. I mean, there was Decree 604, then immediately 608. And what were the three decrees between those two about? Their contents are hidden, yes, these very decisions.
Speaker A
Again, it would be one thing if decrees and laws were being passed, but there is such a thing as a decision.
Speaker A
Decisions that are made, for example, by a single individual, right? And how legitimate is that decision anyway? If it is in no way connected to the legislative branch, for instance, then this decision could be completely shadow-based. There you go. Therefore,
Speaker A
we need to monitor how the government is actually reacting to problems, really reacting to problems. So, uh, what is she proposing? Well, apart from , uh, what's it called...in short, it’s basically manipulation, or some other word, a kind of Jesuitical
Speaker A
attitude toward everything, right? Like , for example, with the recent start of the school year on September 1st, there was a lot of talk and various publications showing all those" first bell "ceremonies and so on, and they kept droning on about a" new education
Speaker A
system, "when in reality there’s nothing new about it at all. They got tangled up in what was implemented back in the nineties and still haven't managed to get out of it. But they have to simulate that some real work is
Speaker A
being done in that direction. Like today, Vladimir Vladimirovich sat there for half an hour while Shmeleva told him about the Sirius educational center and how wonderful everything is there.
Speaker A
But we don’t know of a single actual success of this Sirius, really. We only understand that the system is leading to segregation, right? That is, for children of oligarchs and all those wealthy folks. It’s for them that they set up Sirius and Skolkovo, while
Speaker A
everything else is effectively collapsing. So, here’s one of the fresh imitations, just to laugh at it like a joke. They have to come up with something to confirm all those constant claims by Kravtsov and the Minister of Science, what’s-his-name, that they
Speaker A
are such innovators and that progress is supposedly happening in this sphere. So, they’ve started implementing an experiment in Moscow. Well, an experiment, or perhaps it's actually an Overton window, this idea of getting rid of the bell. It’s clear that for
Speaker A
many decades—I don’t even know when the bell was introduced in Soviet schools, or maybe it was even in the Russian Empire. Anyway, it’s our tradition. Bells ring, don't they, Pavel? Yes, the bells ring. It’s always a signal for something. It’s
Speaker A
clear that school bells evolved from those church bells. Bells. Now, instead of bells, we have bloggers announcing something alarming.
Speaker A
Yes, indeed. Now they’ve come up with an innovation, saying," Oh, the bell rings, it's just a bell. "But we have to move with the times. And so, instead of the bell, they’ll have songs. The question arises: who will determine
Speaker A
which songs? We know perfectly well that Novikov will be the one to decide. Well, I mean, the department of public projects, cultural and public projects of the administration—the ones, thanks to whom, that is, this department, thanks to this department,
Speaker A
Instasamka and Morgenshtern appear everywhere on VK at festivals, right, that same Milokhin was there at the forum, and Egor Kreed gives, you know, a lecture about the most important or significant things, and so on and so forth. So, these are the tastes. So we
Speaker A
understand, who is going to sing the songs? Shaman will be singing, most likely, or someone like Maydanov, who is, you know, sort of patriotic.
Speaker A
You are assuming, but those schools where this has already been introduced, they really do have Shaman singing.
Speaker A
Well, I see, I just heard a rumor, yes, that as for the repertoire, of course, I haven't heard the songs myself, I haven't been to the schools. That's it.
Speaker A
And I just, uh, I know the psychology, yes, of those very officials who are now, clearly, based on their own preferences, going to offer all sorts of junk. Well, Kadysheva will probably be there too, maybe, and so on, and so
Speaker A
forth. What is considered today, uh, patriotic, like, content, right, musical, well, that is, from their point of view, throwing a bone to the people. They imagine the people, after all, the people are benighted, wild, they like Kadysheva. Novikov himself
Speaker A
composes operas. He has probably staged about 20 of these operas already. Seriously? Yes. Yes. He is abusing his official position, in essence. Since he, you know, manages, heads this department, yes, of the presidential administration , why not use it for his own interests?
Speaker A
Whether he writes the libretto, I don't know, what, he writes the music, I don't know what. Well, then, administratively, you know, the play is staged. Well, not a play, but an opera.
Speaker A
There. So, and for the people, for the people, yes, something a bit simpler. Let Shaman sing there, let Maydanov sing, who else do we have who is simpler. There. And this is passed off as patriotic, you know, songs and such.
Speaker A
Uh, well, and as for the attitude of the viewers, for example, yes, the listeners, towards Shaman himself, we saw it recently when he performed at Luzhniki, what the attitude was. Well, for them, it's not important. It's important that they report to their
Speaker A
superiors, look, what an innovation, those outdated bells. Well, that's like yesterday's news, Soviet times, and now we have popular, popular melodies.
Speaker A
It's even strange that when Putin met with teachers before September 1st, they didn't tell him how happy they were with this innovation.
Speaker A
Well, those teachers who might be unhappy weren't even there. That's firstly. Secondly, this isn't happening everywhere across Russia right now.
Speaker A
Meaning, it’s being introduced in Moscow, probably in some of those elite , fancy schools to start with; they’ll see how it goes, polish up the content, you know, today one set of singers, tomorrow another, and come up with something else. I could understand
Speaker A
it, for instance, if it were like in Soviet times, if the Russian anthem, for example, were played, especially at the start of the school day, say, before the first lesson, well, that would be understandable. In the Soviet era, at 6:00 AM across the whole
Speaker A
country, since there were receivers in every apartment and house, those" Radio Mayak "ones, the anthem would blast at 6:00 AM. Well, at least the whole army got up, all the armed forces, yes, at 6 AM, to the sound of that very Soviet
Speaker A
anthem. But it's different when they start with this pop music, and well, any pop music is paid for. None of this is just for no reason. It means that like planting jokes during Andropov's time, right?
Speaker A
Yes. So it's not just an abuse of office in the sense that an official is just playing what they like, for instance. No, I'm announcing an unofficial competition, saying we can feature your singer. Producers, hey, get yourselves together. Here's the
Speaker A
rate. You want Shaman to be heard all over the country, then let's get you on board. The official has to have a cut, and we'll ensure Shaman or someone else gets played. Vladimir Anatolyevich, your deep understanding of how this
Speaker A
system works always moves and amazes me . Comrades, subscribe to Lepekhin on YouTube, Telegram, and Boosty to get even more content. Vladimir Anatolyevich, thank you. Until next time.
Speaker A
Yes, take care, Pavel.
Topics:RussiaUkrainepeace negotiationsVladimir LepeshinPutinterritorial conflictRussian politicsWestern deceptionNATOgeopolitics
