Macron’s plans: war with Russia or defense of Ukraine? Shootout in Moscow: who ordered?

In today’s analysis of world events:
– Will France send troops to Ukraine: plans and scenarios for Macron
– shooting in Russia: versions about the customers of the terrorist attack in Moscow’s Crocus City Hall
– Return of the death penalty in Russia: real or not?

💥The hottest news, analysis and commentary from the heart of Russia on our Telegram👉see the link on the main page of the channel and in the comments

#france #russia #usa #ukraine #ukrainerussiawar #ukrainewar #ukrainenews #macron #war #warukraine #russian #geopolitics #worldnews #analytics #worldnews #news

Greetings! Today in our issue we will review the main events   of world politics and present analytics on them. What topics will be touched upon?  One of the main topics remains the consequences  of the terrorist attack in Crocus, Moscow.  Today, special attention is paid to the  question of the possible customer of this crime. 

There are two main versions, but the  press secretary of the Russian President,   Dmitry Peskov, said that it is too early to  draw conclusions on this matter, and the details   of the investigation will be known later. Nikolai Patrushev, secretary of the Russian   Security Council, made an important statement,  pointing to possible Ukrainian involvement. 

So far, the president himself has  not expressed his point of view.  All of Vladimir Putin’s statements  have been fairly restrained,   with a hint of Ukraine in the first address  and a mention of the U.S. in the second.  We’ll also look at an excerpt from his speech. Later, we will discuss five possible scenarios  

For a French invasion against Russia. The topic of bringing back the death   penalty has once again become a hot topic in  Russia after the horrific tragedy in Moscow.  Politicians who made statements in  the State Duma today hinted at a   possible return of the death penalty,  although the question remains open. 

Various statements by Mironov,  Zyuganov, Slutsky and Volodin,   as well as the position of the Constitutional  Court, indicate a serious discussion of the issue.  In our today’s issue we will also discuss the  possible use of the death penalty in Russia.  We will also consider the issue of organizing  a terrorist attack and its customer. 

The Americans are confident that they know  everything about this event from the very   beginning and do not doubt their conclusions. The Americans continue to claim that the executor   and the customer is the same terrorist  group banned in Russia, known as ISIS.  I suggest you watch the video  to discuss these claims.

The first statement is supposedly based on  logic: Ukraine claims that it is not it,   but ISIS, which supposedly confirms  the veracity of this information.  However, there is no official source through  which ISIS could have made such a statement.  In turn, Ukraine’s statement  is not sufficient evidence.  Nevertheless, the Americans keep repeating it,  

As if by the seriousness of their  words they can change reality.  It reminds of a situation like “2 plus 2 equals  5” – just believe us, because we are Americans.  The second claim is that Russia  has not provided any evidence. 

First, the investigation is still ongoing  and no one is going to produce evidence yet.  The question that the Americans do not give an  answer to remains open – why were the terrorists   heading towards Ukraine in the first place? For example, one could assume something,  

But they chose to simply ignore this question. Furthermore, how could the Americans have been   so quick to draw conclusions without  investigating based only on a statement   that was supposedly released on behalf  of the ISIS terrorist organization?  It is worth remembering how long it usually  takes to get to the bottom of complex situations. 

One could conclude that it has not yet been  established who is behind the incident.  From the beginning, together with  Macron, Scholz and the Western press,   they started actively spreading the idea,  quoting Goebbels’ principle that a lie   repeated many times becomes the truth. Now they are actively spreading the  

Information that ISIS is behind  the terrorist attack in Moscow.  Macron is stepping up security measures  in France because of fears that ISIS could   carry out a similar act on French territory. The goal is to reinforce the idea in Western   society, especially in French society, that ISIL  was involved in this horrific terrorist attack.

The argument of the Americans is  that they were warned in advance,   therefore ISIL is behind the attack. However, perhaps the warning was given   because it was known about the preparation of  the terrorist attack, and the responsibility  

For it will be placed on ISIS, not on Ukraine. No facts are given here, only questions that   inevitably arise in everyone’s mind. On the part of Russia, a version   of this has already been expressed. This version was offered by the Secretary   of the Russian Security Council, Patrushev. Patrushev usually tries to avoid statements  

Preceding presidential statements. However, in this case, he answered   a question from a Shot channel journalist. To give you a chance to see for yourself,   let’s watch this video segment. We are talking about the situation in Ukraine.  In addition, I want to show  you the second version. 

Statements were also made by Dmitry Medvedev. On the same day that the president released an   address on the terrorist attack, there was mention  of Ukrainian interference across that very border.  But there was also another statement by the  president, which I think many people looked past,  

Because the devil lies in the details, and it is  important to pay close attention to every word.  I want to show you this fragment. Let us watch it together,   starting from the very beginning, as it is  important for our analysis of this block.

This atrocity can only be a link in a  whole series of attempts by those who,   since 2014, have been at war with our country  by the hands of the neo-Nazi regime in Kyiv.  And the Nazis, as is well known, have never  been squeamish about using the dirtiest and  

Most inhumane means to achieve their goals. All the more so today, when their much-publicized   counter-offensive has completely failed, and  this has already been recognized by everyone.  It is not disputed that the Russian armed  forces hold the initiative along the entire  

Line of contact, and all the measures taken by the  enemy to stabilize the front are not successful.  Hence the attempts to enter and gain a  foothold in our hillside territories.  Shelling, including using multiple-launch  rocket launchers, of peaceful neighbourhoods,   civilian objects, including energy infrastructure,  in an attempt to launch missile strikes against  

The Crimean bridge and the peninsula itself. Bloody acts of intimidation, such as the   terrorist attack in Moscow, fit  quite logically into this series.  The goal, as I said, is to  sow panic in our society. 

And at the same time to show our own population  that all is not yet lost for the Kiev regime. So, at the beginning of his speech, the President  poses the question: “Who benefits from this?”.  He emphasizes that the terrorist attack committed  by radical Islamists can only be a link in the  

Chain of actions of those who have been attacking  our country through the Kiev regime since 2014.  Putin emphasizes this key point. The question is whether the   perpetrators were truly committed to the  ideology or did it only for material gain,   which is perhaps very likely. According to recent reports,  

The sum of 500,000 is also mentioned there. Let us not return to these aspects.  It is difficult to convey the  complexity of the situation.  Even the term “animals” does not fit, because  animals could not commit such a horrible crime. 

However, the key point here is that  Ukraine is seen as a tool in the hands   of those who committed this crime. Since 2014, Ukraine has been in   hands that are far more influential. This indicates a connection to the   United States of America. Therefore, doubts arise. 

We must consider whether a middle  or higher version is being used.  If one states that the responsibility lies with  the Americans, that would be the highest level.  For now, we are considering the possible  consequences of such statements.  It is possible to take responsibility  for the actions of, for example,  

The U.S. without violating diplomatic  relations, which, let me remind you, exist.  It should be remembered that there are open  contacts with the CIA, and this continues,   that is, the two countries are in contact. Trade between the U.S. and Russia continues,  

They buy titanium and other goods from us. Whether we would take such a   step remains an open question. I think it is unlikely at this time.  Therefore, the most likely version at this  point, based on Patrushev’s statements,   is that there is no guarantee that the president  will not take a completely different view.

We have dominance in the information space,  especially in the context of Ukraine,   where they serve as the main customers. It’s too early to draw conclusions at this point,   but that’s probably the main theory. Let’s move on to the next topic.  Before discussing important information  about the death penalty in Russia, let’s  

Return to the issue of sending French troops. Then we will move on to the discussion of the   death penalty in Russia in the third block. Whether it will be reinstated or   not is the question. I want to remind you   that our channel on Telegram is the main  platform for publishing news and events. 

It is a source of news. You can always keep up to date with all   current events by getting news, analytical reviews  and lots of videos in our Telegram channel.  In addition, large issues are  available for download right there.  If you’re interested, just follow the link  in the video description to subscribe. 

Now back to discussing the topic  of our block, the French invasion.  Apparently, the French continue to discuss  it extensively on French television.  Today we’re going to look at five French invasion  scenarios, from the Parisians’ perspective.  Let’s familiarize ourselves  with the first scenario.  I’m going to turn on the  program in the background,  

And we’ll briefly discuss the proposed options. Scenario number one assumes that France sends its   specialists to build military plants in Ukraine,  including the participation of French engineers.  Scenario number two involves the French military  doing demining and training Ukrainian soldiers. 

In scenario number three, French troops could  be involved in the defense of Odessa and the   installation of air defense systems. The French military could be involved   if the missile is shot down and  the French themselves are harmed,   which could lead to France entering  the conflict on the side of Ukraine.

In scenario number four, the French army could  create a defense zone to relieve the Ukrainians   from defending the northern border. This, according to the French,   would mean moving to the level of an ally rather  than a direct participant in the hostilities.  Finally, the fifth scenario, which  is essentially the beginning of  

World War III, is a global conflict. There is confrontation on all front lines.  French troops are sent to different  points where they will join the Ukrainian   military in the trenches. What can we see here?  The French are still in favor of this idea. The most likely scenario we can discuss at this  

Point is not the same as those mentioned in the  new French report and previously discussed by us   based on Macron’s statements. Kiev and Odessa.  If there is a direct threat that  Russia could take over Kiev or Odessa,   the French could bring in their own troops. This scenario is extremely likely at this point. 

Let’s move on to the third block,  which concerns executions in Russia.  State Duma Speaker Volodin’s statement  on referendums is as follows:   “The court’s decision in this matter is more  than enough, referendums are not required.   Vladimir Vladimirovich, please comment that,  in fact, a referendum is indeed unnecessary.” 

Let’s take a look at the statements  made by politicians in the State Duma.  LDPR leader Mr. Slutsky, speaking, said:  “Today we must clearly state that the   moratorium on the death penalty, established  in 1996 upon joining the Council of Europe,  

Must be abolished. There is no other punishment  for such scumbags but the death penalty.”  It should be noted that the issue of the  death penalty requires a serious approach.  If the moratorium is lifted, the  death penalty will be used not   only in cases of eliminating terrorists  who committed terrible crimes in Moscow. 

Mironov of the Just Russia party proposes to  resolve the current situation by holding a   national referendum this September, allowing  Russian citizens to decide on the issue. CPRF leader Zyuganov emphasizes that those who  committed the crime do not deserve to live, but  

Also expresses his disagreement with politicians  focusing solely on terrorists in their statements.  He notes that the issue of returning  the death penalty in Russia should   not be considered on the basis of  a single terrorist attack alone.  Zyuganov emphasizes that the issue  of the death penalty is a global one,  

As lifting the moratorium on its use could  lead to its use in other situations as well.  He suggests the possibility of  bringing back the death penalty,   limiting its use to terrorists only. In other cases, the question arises:   does a pedophile maniac deserve  life and a terrorist does not? 

Thus begins the eternal debate  on the use of the death penalty.  We will consider the main  arguments of the parties later.  Volodin, speaker of the State Duma from the United  Russia faction, said, “No one has abolished the   death penalty in the Constitution and criminal  law. The Constitutional Court has postponed  

Such a decision. Therefore, a referendum is not  required. From the point of view of the law, this   is a fact. A referendum can be held to measure  public opinion, but it will have no legal force.”  This is also an important detail. The decision of the Constitutional  

Court in this matter is sufficient. However, until the Constitutional   Court has expressed its position, it  refrains and suggests to wait and see.  The Constitutional Court refrains from  commenting in this context, hinting at a   possible consideration of the death penalty. This point can be interpreted as a signal  

That the moratorium on the death  penalty may be lifted if there is   political will on the part of the president. It is important to note that in the past,   President Putin has spoken out against  the reinstatement of the death penalty,   and Dmitry Medvedev did not support the  proposal to introduce it for terrorists.

However, in connection with the suspension of  Russia’s membership in the Council of Europe,   in 2022 Dmitry Medvedev expressed his opinion  on the possible restoration of some important   institutions, which includes the death penalty. Now the question arises: previously this problem   was not in the foreground, because  our goal was to please Europe. 

If you look at countries, what is the situation? The death penalty is applied in major countries.  It is mainly applied in the Middle East  countries, with the exception of Israel, and,   you could say, in most countries in North Africa. The only country in Europe and in the post-Soviet  

Space where the death penalty is used is Belarus. In Asia, besides the US, China and India,   Indonesia, Japan and Thailand can be mentioned. In addition, in most of the South American   continent, 99 percent of countries do not use  the death penalty: only small island states,  

As far as I know, use this measure. The United States, China and India,   as the largest countries, are still the  countries where the death penalty is applied.  Middle Eastern countries such as India,  Pakistan and Afghanistan use certain methods.  Iraq, Iran, and the Philippines, as far  as I remember, also follow these methods. 

Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia –  you can look at the full list of   countries that use similar approaches. I can’t give you a complete and verified   list of countries, but guided by  my memory, I can list some of them.  However, the general trend is clear: Europe  has long ago moved away from such methods. 

We have sought simply to please Europe without  thinking about how it might benefit our country.  I want to invite you to consider  the arguments on both sides.  The main argument, which I think  makes further discussion unnecessary,   has nothing to do with humanity.  This argument is not based on  the principles of Christianity.

The point is not to follow an  “eye for an eye” but a purely   rational approach to the issue involved  in the punishment of murder or atrocity.  No system, I repeat, cannot rule  out error 100%, not even justice.  A person can make a mistake. The system can fail. 

This is the main argument of  opponents of the death penalty.  Once a country has the death penalty,  it is impossible to correct a mistake.  Once a person is executed,  they cannot be brought back.  Although the likelihood of a mistake is small  for the system as a whole, it is still a human  

Life that cannot be brought back. This is a basic argument for which   I don’t think there is any need  to look for additional arguments.  I don’t want to get into  the religious aspects here.  The point is that it is impossible  to create an error-free system,  

Especially when the cost of error is so high. Opponents of this position can make an argument,   but it will be more of an  “eye for an eye” principle.  It is the principle of the  possible escape of criminals.  Formally it is acceptable, even  though such cases are not frequent. 

In the case of the death  penalty, fleeing is pointless.  There is a possibility of amnesty for some  criminals who have committed serious crimes,   if the new government decides to do so. During the period of political regime change,   amnesty for those sentenced to  life imprisonment is possible. 

Thus, the punishment may be  mitigated in case of amnesty.  An example is the fate of Breivik in Norway,  where life imprisonment is not applied.  Despite the possible extension of his sentence,  the conditions of his imprisonment are considered   comfortable compared to the crime he committed. We realize that our country is not Norway,  

And that terrorists will not have access to  PlayStation and internet in conditions that,   sorry, no one will create, their stay  there will be a veritable hell on earth. After all, in the 90s, journalists did some  experiments where they interviewed various people. 

In the US, for example, there was the  case of a man who was sentenced to life   imprisonment rather than the death penalty,  and he stated, “America lost and I won.”  In interviews or simulated executions of people  being led down the corridor to the firing squad,  

But then it didn’t happen, the criminals  showed incredible gratitude for the   possibility of life continuing. Apparently, for them, life brought   much more joy than inevitable death. Once again, it is emphasized how complex   a moral issue this is, and how difficult  it is to make a decision in such cases. 

Everyone has to form their own  opinion and make their own decision.  I would recommend that you study  the basic arguments of each side.  In this case we have before us video footage  and evidence that is convincing to most people,   with the exception of conspiracy theorists  who may hold a different viewpoint. 

I’m sure the video footage will identify  the participants and the investigation   will take appropriate action. However, getting back on topic,   this discussion is forever with us. I would like to note that despite the   terrorist attacks in Beslan and Nord-Ost,  we have not introduced the death penalty. 

This is an important issue that requires  attention. What has changed now?  We are striving to calm society. But what  exactly do we need to calm the society with?  The actions of the intelligence services  and changes in migration policy.  There are now conditions favorable for  recruitment, and this is a cause for concern.

Just as I was recording the video, I  noticed several reports that Russian   Prosecutor General Alexander Krasnov said  that the number of crimes committed by   migrants in Russia has increased by 75% in 2023. When I previously discussed migration issues,   I raised the need to tighten  migration policies and adopt the  

Experience used in the United Arab Emirates. It should be studied how it is implemented in   Dubai, how migrants are perceived there,  how they behave, and what measures can   be taken without resorting to fiction. There is no need to invent something new. 

It is simply necessary to take the legislative  norms applied there and adapt them in our country.  There is nothing unique in the Arab experience  that would be impossible to transfer to Russia. And finally, the Russian president’s statement… It was quite calm.  The situation in the migration  sphere should be under control. 

But Krasnov’s statements suggest that  the situation is not under control,   since the number of crimes among  migrants has increased by 75% in 2023.  Unfortunately, this is the  current picture of events.  It is very important to start working  on this as quickly as possible. 

Well, our today’s issue has come to a close. I sincerely hope that you enjoyed it.  Take care. Until new issues and until new meetings.