1994: Agree to defend Ukraine
2014: Back in the USSR
2015: Seize that you want but do not touch us!
.jpg)
2019: deal to escalate Dvizhuha
2022: Realpolitik
2025: Extend the Dvizhuha to North America
2019: deal to escalate Dvizhuha
2022: Realpolitik
2025: Extend the Dvizhuha to North America
Questioner (Researcher): Excuse me, could you answer a few questions?
Responder: Yes, of course. What are you interested in?
Q: Do you feel personally responsible for things that happen in the United States, or for things done with the participation of the United States?
IRespondent: Personally? No. I'm just an ordinary citizen.
Q: But you vote?
R: Yes.
Q: Pay taxes?
R: Yes.
Q: Have political opinions?
R: Of course.
Q: Support the government?
R: If I agree with it.
Q: And if you disagree with it?
R: Then it's not my fault.
Q: What do you think of a memorandum signed by the United States in the last century?
R: Depends what memorandum.
Q: Suppose it contains commitments made by the United States.
R: Well, agreements are important.
Q: Always?
R: Circumstances change.
Q: So an agreement is binding until it becomes inconvenient?
R: That's not what I said.
Q: What did you say?
R: I said circumstances change.
Q: What is Realpolitik?
R: Dealing with reality instead of fairy tales.
Q: Does that mean the strong have more rights than the weak?
R: Not officially.
Q: Unofficially?
R: The world doesn't work otherwise.
Q: And legal nihilism?
R: Laws are good, but you can't let laws destroy your national interests.
Q: Whose laws?
R: Ours, obviously.
Q: And international law?
R: That's more complicated.
At this point the respondent has already reproduced one of the essential mechanisms of your Russian original: he invokes rules, but reserves the right to suspend them when they become inconvenient.
Q: What does “Make America Great Again” mean?R: Strong economy. Strong military. Respect.
Q: How much territory would America need to acquire to become great?
R: We don't need to conquer anybody.
Q: What about Canada?
R: Canada is different.
Q: Why?
R: We're practically one country already.
Q: Does Canada agree?
R: That's a technicality.
Q: Would you go to Canada to fight for annexation?
R: Me? No.
Q: Why not?
R: I'm not in the military.
Q: Would you support Americans who did?
R: Sure.
Q: How many American deaths would be acceptable?
R: I don't like that question.
Q: Why?
R: Because people are going to die.
Q: How many?
R: I don't know.
Q: Ten?
R: Too many.
Q: A thousand?
R: That's horrible.
Q: Ten thousand?
R: Nobody wants that.
Q: Would you pay an additional 10% of your income to finance the war?
R: Absolutely not.
Q: Five percent?
R: No.
Q: One percent?
R: Why should I?
Q: But you support annexation?
R: I support America.
Q: Did Canada ever announce that it intended to annex the United States as the eleventh province of Canada?
R: No.
Q: Would you like the idea?
R: Of course not.
Q: Why?
R: It's our country.
Q: What if Canada said it needed strategic depth?
R: That's ridiculous.
Q: What if Canada said American territory historically belonged to Canada?
R: Still ridiculous.
Q: What if Canada said that American military power threatened Canadian security?
R: They'd have to prove it.
Q: What if they said that the United States was simply too powerful to be left independent?
R: That's insane.
Q: I see.
I know I promised to lower prices, but hear me out, how about we annex Greenland instead?
Q: What about Greenland?
R: Greenland is strategically important.
Q: Should America acquire it?
R: It could be useful.
Q: Would you go there to fight?
R: No.
Q: Would you accept a special tax?
R: No.
Q: Would you accept Danish or Greenlandic opposition?
R: They should understand the strategic situation.
Q: And if they don't?
R: Then we'd have to negotiate.
Q: And if negotiations fail?
R: I don't know.
Q: Would you accept another country saying exactly the same thing about Alaska?
R: That's completely different.
Q: How?
R: Alaska is American.
Q: Do you think Ukraine should stop attacking Russian oil infrastructure?
R: Yes. Attacking oil facilities is dangerous.
Q: Why?
R: It could escalate the war.
Q: Suppose the oil infrastructure supplies the Russian military.
R: That's different.
Q: Why?
R: Then it's part of the war effort.
Q: So it can be a legitimate military target?
R: Potentially.
Q: Suppose Russia invaded the United States and occupied part of American territory. Would American forces attack Russian oil facilities supplying the invading army?
R: Of course.
Q: Even if those facilities were far from the occupied territory?
R: If they supported the war, yes.
Q: Would you consider that terrorism?
R: No. That would be self-defense.
Q: What would you call the same attack if Russia did it to American oil infrastructure?
R: Terrorism.
Q: I see.
Q: Suppose Ukraine concludes that conventional diplomatic pressure is insufficient. What stronger “cards” could it use?
R: I don't know.
Q: Attack Russian diplomatic facilities?
R: That's dangerous.
Q: Assassinate diplomats?
R: Absolutely not.
Q: Attack American factories that import Russian uranium, titanium or aluminum?
R: Why would they attack us?
Q: Suppose they regarded those imports as American financial support for Russia's war effort.
R: That's absurd.
Q: Why?
R: Because we're not the enemy.
Q: So economic participation does not make a country a legitimate target?
R: Of course not.
Q: Even when the same argument is made about Russian economic infrastructure?
R: That's different.
Q: How?
R: They're fighting a war.
Questioner: Since our previous conversation, the situation has changed considerably. Do you still believe that your principles apply?
Respondent: Of course.
Q: Even when the United States is conducting a war?
R: Especially then.
Q: Do you feel more personally responsible now?
R: Why would I?
Q: Do you pay taxes?
R: Yes.
Q: Do you support the government?
R: Yes.
Q: Do you support the war?
R: Yes.
Q: Would you fight?
R: No.
Q: Pay more?
R: No.
Q: Accept casualties?
R: That's what soldiers are for.
Q: Accept higher fuel prices?
R: Absolutely not.
Q: But you said the war was necessary.
R: Necessary doesn't mean I have to pay for it.
Bomb Iran - Oil rises - sell oil - say «peace is close» - oil drops - buy oil - bomb Iran - oil rises..
Q: Who benefits economically from the war?
R: The oil companies, defense companies, maybe investors.
Q: Can those people influence policy?
R: Of course.
Q: Does that prove they caused the war?
R: No.
Q: Does it make conflicts of interest worth investigating?
R: Sure.
Q: Would you investigate them if the same thing happened in Russia?
R: Obviously.
Q: And in America?
R: Well... you can't compare the two.
This should, in my opinion, echo the nuclear ending of the Russian interview.
Q: Should America retain separation of powers?
R: Absolutely.
Q: Even if Congress obstructs the president?
R: Congress should not obstruct the president when he's doing what's necessary.
Q: What if the courts obstruct him?
R: The courts shouldn't interfere with national security.
Q: What if the president remains extraordinarily popular?
R: Then the people should be able to keep him.
Q: Permanently?
R: If they want him.
Q: What if elections become unnecessary?
R: That's ridiculous.
Q: Why?
R: Because America is a democracy.
Q: What makes it a democracy?
R: Elections.
Q: What if there are elections but only one acceptable candidate?
R: That's different.
Q: What if Congress exists but cannot oppose the president?
R: That's different.
Q: What if courts exist but cannot restrain him?
R: That's different.
Q: What if the Constitution is amended whenever it obstructs him?
R: The Constitution can be amended.
Q: What if the amendments are designed to keep the same person in power?
R: If the people support him...
Q: At what point would you say America had ceased to be a constitutional republic?
R: When they abolish the Constitution.
Q: And if they keep the Constitution but remove everything that prevents the leader from doing whatever he wants?
R: That's impossible.
Q: Why?
R: Because that's not America.
Q: Thank you.
R: You're welcome.
Q: I have one last question.
R: Go ahead.
Q: When you say «America», do you mean the country, the government, the president, or yourself?
R: What's the difference? It is the same!
Q: «L'État, c'est moi»?
R: Perhaps, in French this means the unity of the nation, is it?
Q: Yes, kind of.. It had been formulated in this way a century before the French Revolution.
R: Hence, we have a century ahead; we have nothing to worry about..
Q: I think, I understand you. Thank you very much for your explanations..
2011.oo.oo. https://www.rulit.me/books/monday-starts-on-saturday-read-498213-45.html Monday Starts on Saturday Страница 45 .. They spoke strictly in turn and at first I thought they were talking to each other. But very soon I realized they were talking to me, although neither of them had even glanced in my direction. ..
2026.03.12. https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2026/03/operation-epic-fury-decisive-american-power-to-crush-irans-terror-regime/ Operation Epic Fury: Decisive American Power to Crush Iran’s Terror Regime The White House March 12, 2026 Under President Donald J. Trump’s unwavering leadership, the U.S. Armed Forces are executing Operation Epic Fury with overwhelming power, lethal precision, and unbreakable resolve.
2026.08.08. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz7dy8gq99eo Child among three killed in Russian missile attacks near Kyiv // 8 August 2026 Harry Sekulichand // Dan Johnson.
2026.09.16. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIvc4-6O1Wo Professor Jeffrey Sachs: The Iran War Will Break America // Cyrus Janssen // Sep 16, 2026 #iran #trump #usiranwar Professor Jeffrey Sachs joins me to discuss the Iran war, Donald Trump, and America’s declining influence around the world. He explains why the United States needs to leave Iran..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test .. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donroe_Doctrine The Donroe Doctrine, alternatively styled as the Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, is an interpretation of principles of President Donald Trump's foreign policy in the Americas. An adaptation of the historical Monroe Doctrine, it describes a perceived desire by the second Trump administration to assert American predominance in the Western Hemisphere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movements_for_the_United_States_annexation_of_Canada (Redirected from Annexation of Canada) .. After winning a second term as president in the 2024 election, U.S. president Donald Trump said Canada should become the 51st state of the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iran_war#Names (Redirected from Epic Fury)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_United_States_acquisition_of_Greenland .. In the 21st century, Donald Trump proposed acquisition of Greenland during his presidency. ..