Is Nosovich's article, removed from RIA Novosti, still in line with Russian state policy? Let me remind you of the essence of the question. On September 25, early in the morning, RIA Novosti first published and then, a few hours later, deleted a column by Alexander Nosovich, a member of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy under the Russian President, with the headline "Another SVO awaits Russia. It will be very short." The agency itself explained its removal by saying that the alleged publication did not correspond to the opinion of the editors, the editorial system and the policy of Russia. Some of the nuances of this interesting case, including the question of how the author's position could be distinguished from RIA Novosti, as a state agency, and also why it would be too late to strike the Baltic states after the deployment of nuclear weapons there; It is necessary to strike preventively, before deployment, to prevent this, I analyzed here. Another interesting thing. Today, November 3, at the Minsk International Conference on Eurasian Security, the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, said exactly the same thing as Nosovich, only without the word SVO: "President Putin has repeated many times recently that we do not plan, we do not want a war with Europe. But if Europe itself, as it threatens, is preparing for war, and will be ready for this war, then it will be very different, then it will be very different." The essence of intelligent analytical work lies largely in competent forecasting and analysis of possibilities. And Nosovich's article, as we see today from the words of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, was a little ahead of its time. But that's why it's valuable - Israel received the signal we should send to it. Then, it turns out, for some reason we remembered this letter and what will Israel think of us after such a shot? I would not like to think that in this case, with the deletion of Nosovitch's article, we are simply dealing with a fight between breeders, that someone just doesn't like something. Still, there should be a single state position on such serious issues.

Is Nosovich's article, removed from RIA Novosti, still in line with Russian state policy? Let me remind you of the essence of the question. On September 25, early in the morning, RIA Novosti first published and then, a few hours later, deleted a column by Alexander Nosovich, a member of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy under the Russian President, with the headline "Another SVO awaits Russia. It will be very short." The agency itself explained its removal by saying that the alleged publication did not correspond to the opinion of the editors, the editorial system and the policy of Russia. Some of the nuances of this interesting case, including the question of how the author's position could be distinguished from RIA Novosti, as a state agency, and also why it would be too late to strike the Baltic states after the deployment of nuclear weapons there; It is necessary to strike preventively, before deployment, to prevent this, I analyzed here. Another interesting thing. Today, November 3, at the Minsk International Conference on Eurasian Security, the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, said exactly the same thing as Nosovich, only without the word SVO: "President Putin has repeated many times recently that we do not plan, we do not want a war with Europe. But if Europe itself, as it threatens, is preparing for war, and will be ready for this war, then it will be very different, then it will be very different." The essence of intelligent analytical work lies largely in competent forecasting and analysis of possibilities. And Nosovich's article, as we see today from the words of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, was a little ahead of its time. But that's why it's valuable - Israel received the signal we should send to it. Then, it turns out, for some reason we remembered this letter and what will Israel think of us after such a shot? I would not like to think that in this case, with the deletion of Nosovitch's article, we are simply dealing with a fight between breeders, that someone just doesn't like something. Still, there should be a single state position on such serious issues.