The third more

The British viewers who followed BBC TV tonight saw such an interesting scene, and Marven, the TV host who originally wanted to make the Soviet Foreign Minister embarrassed, was red-faced and speechless by the other party's rebuttal. And Shevardnadze has always refuted the other party in an unhurried tone, like an author who has seized the initiative and can refute the other party unscrupulously.

Perhaps, as Shevardnadze told the audience when he first took the stage, "I just want to talk to everyone casually, and I am very happy to answer other political questions within my ability." I've heard that the host of the British Radio and Television station is very sharp in asking questions."

Originally, everyone expected to see a bureaucrat from an authoritarian empire refuted by the righteous British Radio and Television, but in the end, it turned into a TV host from a democratic country who was refuted by the bureaucrats of the dictatorship with righteous words. This is different from the script that was said to be good, hey.

And why is it that we are clearly enumerating the shortcomings of the dictatorship-state, and why are the two sides talking at length about how the British government is anti-human rights, and why are we not the first country to advertise freedom and equality?

Of course, everyone knows that the so-called human rights are like that, British democracy is a joke, Lao Tzu is a bourgeois free world, and when we talk about equality, black slaves and other people of color had better shut up for me.

"We're running out of time, and now I'd like to ask one last question." Marven wiped the beads of sweat from his forehead, not knowing if it was because he was impatient or because the studio was too hot. And by this time he was almost speechless by Shevardnadze's refutation, no matter how he enumerated the black history of the Soviet Union. Shevardnadze has always been able to refute the more unsightly history of Britain.

"Since your systems and theories are much more advanced than ours. Why is the standard of living of your people so different from that of Britain and the United States? You must know that after 1989, there were long queues to buy bread in the Soviet Union. Can you create the world's most unique system of heavy industry, but you can't solve people's living problems? ”

"What's so strange about it, the British would rather pour milk into the Thames than share it with the poor when the economy was at its worst, and we think it's unbelievable but you think it's a very common thing." Shevardnadze asked rhetorically, "If you talk about the standard of living, the Soviet Union had a welfare system that allowed the entire Western society to be in the 70s and 80s. ”

At this point, everyone fell silent. Many people enjoy government benefits without thinking about why the capitalists, who controlled poor workers with low wages in the early twentieth century, have been transformed into benevolent philanthropists in just a few decades.

"I am even ashamed to say that the West has the current welfare state solely because of the influence of the Soviet Union. Please think about it when you insult us for being a dictatorship, that we are not free, that we are not democratic? Guevara said that they would build schools and hospitals for you, and they would raise your wages, not because they had a conscience, nor because they had become good people. It's because we've been here. ”

High welfare systems and workers' rights in Western countries. It is not a sudden discovery of conscience by the capitalists, nor is it the work of so-called liberal democracy. Rather, it produced the fruits of the struggle in the high welfare of the Soviet Union at that time, the communist revolution that burned all over the world, and the workers' movement.

As soon as Shevardnadze finished speaking, there was a round of applause in the studio, which was an affirmation of what the staff had said, and the working class who received just enough food and clothing every day, who were anxious for the crowded subway, and who were burdened with heavy loans, were deeply touched by the words of the Soviet foreign minister. No one expected that it would be officials from socialist countries who would finally speak for the British people and speak their minds.

And the host Marven looked dejected, and the original plan to make Shevardnadze embarrassed had been completely aborted. And tonight's performance on TV will also be imprinted in the minds of the people. But he still maintained the pride of an English gentleman at this time, shook hands with Shevardnadze and said, "It is a pleasure to communicate with you, Minister Shevardnadze. ”

Shevardnadze shook the other party's warm and thick hand and said with the same smile, "It should be said that this is a pleasant debate match. I think there is still a lot of room for improvement in the performance of host Marven. I also hope that next time you can perform at a higher level. ”

Shevardnadze's subtext: I'm sorry, you're a weak scum with five combat power in front of me. Marven of course heard the mockery and disdain in the Soviet official's tone, and he just helplessly squeezed out a smile at the other party. The current Soviet Union is no longer the brutal Soviet Union that lost the kitchen debate in the United Nations leather shoes knocking on the table. In Marven's eyes, the leaders of these Red Empires have become cunning and hypocritical, and there is an evil heart hidden under the cover of politeness.

The next day, photographs of Shevardnadze during the interview appeared in newspapers on the streets of London, and the British press saw it as a new consciousness-morphology debate between East and West. It was also the culmination of debate after the kitchen debate in 1959. It's just that when Khrushchev desperately praised the communist system, Shevardnadze perfectly used the social and institutional differences of Britain to perfectly set off the advantages of the Soviet Union. This incident was also called a TV debate by the media, which can be compared to the kitchen debate.

This time, everyone thought it was the Soviet Union's Shevardnadze who won the debate, and Marvin acted on TV like a middle-aged man with a prostate problem staring at the urinal in a daze. Other TV presenters unceremoniously declared that I had never seen such a substandard British debater.

This is the end of the trip to the UK. In Yanayev's view, no matter how strong Britain tried to be, it could not hide the slow pace of a twilight empire, a naval fleet that demolished the east wall and repaired the west wall, a Lafayette who controlled the government, a prince who had been waiting for more than 40 years to succeed to the throne, a plasterer's central hall, a group of wolves and tigers, and a bunch of revolutionaries=orders in Ireland that were divided all day long...... History is always strikingly similar......

Yanayev stood at the door of the plane and waved goodbye to everyone, and the trip to England ended successfully, Yanayev and the empire on which the sun never set reached a huge order for the trade of goods, and some unspeakable secret deals that only the leaders of both sides knew about. All in all, apart from some small frictions in private, this visit can be regarded as a symbol of success.

"Farewell, Great Britain."

Facing the slowly sinking sunset on the horizon, Yanayev waved his hand and whispered goodbye. (To be continued.) )