Page 27 of The Bratva's Sextuplets
“I’m aware of that.” Zita settles into the empty chair at the foot of the table, directly opposite my position. “I’m also aware that the matters being discussed affect my safety and my future as much as anyone’s in this room.”
Whispers ripple around the table in multiple languages, none of them complimentary. I see outrage building in several expressions, confusion in others, and something that might be amusement in Alexei’s features.
This is a disaster. In thirty years of leading this organization, my father never allowed wives to participate in strategic planning. His father never allowed my grandmother to be present, and noBratvaleader would do so. The separation between family business and domestic concerns is absolute and designed to protect everyone involved.
Now, my wife has violated that separation in front of every important lieutenant in our organization, and my response will determine whether they view me as a leader who can maintaindiscipline or someone whose authority can be challenged by his own household.
“Zita?” I keep my voice level despite the anger building in my chest. “Perhaps we could discuss your concerns privately after this meeting concludes.”
“My concerns are directly relevant to the discussion you’re having.” She opens a leather portfolio and pulls out what appear to be newspaper clippings and printed research materials. “Particularly the debate about military action versus patience.”
Dmitri’s face flushes red with obvious fury. “Mrs. Belsky, with respect, you don’t understand the complexities involved in organizational security decisions.”
“I understand military action against the Federoffs could expose us all.” Zita’s response is delivered with confident analysis that suggests she’s done substantial research. I’m not sure where she got her information, but it appears she’s good at covert extraction. “Media attention from gang warfare could undermine political relationships that took years to build.”
The accuracy of her assessment startles everyone else at the table, including me. She’s not just interrupting our meeting out of curiosity or defiance. She’s prepared substantive arguments based on genuine understanding of our operational challenges.
“Where did you acquire this information?” Viktor’s tone suggests professional respect despite obvious discomfort with the situation.
“Public records, newspaper archives, and federal court documents that are available through standard legal research.” She spreads her materials across the table like she’s making a business presentation. “It’s amazing what you can learn aboutcriminal enterprises when you have a Northwestern business degree, an iota of common sense to make connections, and access to comprehensive databases.”
She’s been conducting her own intelligence analysis of our organization’s vulnerabilities. While I’ve been focused on immediate threats from the Federoffs, my wife has been studying the broader political and legal environment that affects our long-term survival. She must have picked up some conversations around her to know where to search, but she’s implemented business management intoBratvaoperations.
“What conclusions have you reached?” I ask, genuinely curious about her perspective despite the inappropriate circumstances of this discussion.
“I’ve concluded your father’s methods were effective for building power but counterproductive for maintaining it.” She stands and walks to the whiteboard mounted on the far wall, picking up a marker with confidence. “Escalating violence will create more problems than it solves.”
She begins drawing a timeline that shows the correlation between majorBratvaconflicts and subsequent federal investigations over the past two decades. The pattern is clear and troubling. Every time our organization has engaged in high-profile warfare, law enforcement attention has intensified significantly.
“Your father survived thirty years by being more ruthless than his enemies,” Zita continues, adding data points that support her analysis. “Survival isn’t the same as prosperity, and prosperity requires stability that constant warfare makes impossible.”
The presentation is impressive despite being completely uninvited. She’s identified patterns that I’ve noticed but haven’t yet had a chance to address at the first official meeting, and her analysis suggests strategic thinking that could contribute meaningfully to our decision-making process.
She’s also just humiliated me in front of every important member of my organization by demonstrating my wife doesn’t respect the boundaries that separate business from domestic concerns.
I stand and move toward the whiteboard, signaling her presentation needs to end. “Your research is thorough and your analysis is insightful. However, this isn’t the appropriate forum for these discussions.”
“Why not?” She turns to face the room directly. “If these decisions affect my life and my safety, why shouldn’t I have input into how they’re made?”
“Because you don’t understand the full context of our operational constraints.” Georgi speaks with barely controlled anger. “This organization has operated successfully for decades without input from wives who think academic theory trumps practical experience.”
“Academic theory backed by comprehensive data analysis,” Zita corrects smoothly. “Which suggests that practical experience without planning leads to short-term success and long-term disaster.” The insult is subtle but unmistakable.
“Enough.” I step between Zita and the increasingly hostile faces around the conference table. “I appreciate your interest in our family’s welfare, but these matters require specialized knowledge and experience that research alone doesn’t provide.”
“Specialized knowledge like understanding that federal RICO prosecutions increase dramatically following high-profile gang violence?” Zita’s challenge is delivered with the precision of a surgeon making a critical incision. “Or perhaps I need to be a specialist to recognize media attention from warfare makes it impossible to maintain the political relationships that protect our operations?”
She’s absolutely right, which makes her intervention both more valuable and more dangerous. The men around this table need to hear these arguments, but they also need to respect my authority to control when and how such discussions occur. “Your points are well-taken,” I say carefully. “They will be given appropriate consideration in our final decision-making process.”
“When will that consideration take place?” she asks, clearly not satisfied with vague promises.
The solution comes to me in a flash of inspiration that might be brilliant or catastrophic.
“The strategic implications will be weighed immediately.” I make a decision that will probably change everything about how this organization operates. “My wife has raised important considerations that affect all our interests. Her boldness in bringing these concerns directly to this council demonstrates commitment to our family’s success that I value.”
I turn to face Zita directly, holding her startled expression with my own carefully neutral one. “My wife’s desire to participate in our planning reflects her understanding that this organization’s prosperity affects everyone connected to it. Her research shows initiative and analytical capability that could serve us well.”
The reframing catches everyone by surprise, including Zita herself. I’ve just transformed her embarrassing interruption into evidence of loyalty and strategic thinking. I’ve made her defiance look like dedication rather than insubordination.
