[000:00:00;00] with your lovers, i mean, some guy asked you, he introduced himself, what he looked like, why are you yelling at me, i stopped by today and a neighbor said that you are not in moscow, why did you take your daughter away without my knowledge, but you care, valeria. everything is fine, that's it, i have to go, excuse me, husband, ex, you ran away from him to us, right? you

can leave, valeria, i’m just... please, ivan karodich, we have a problem. lala, mom, well, you don’t have to take everything so literally, what happened, nikita, that means it’s all right with us

things get better, we'll go. peter, give me the phone, uh-huh, just a second, yes, i’m aware of your incognito and the topic of your doctoral dissertation, you understand, you understand that with this lie you put not only me, but our entire department at risk, and what will it take to figure it out? question of dismissal. what's happened? are you being called back to work? it seems i don't have a job anymore. a la. a special analytical

edition of the big game is on air. and we begin the program with a conversation with the deputy chairman of the federation council, konstantin kosachev. greetings, good evening. i must say that in the past you headed the international affairs committees in the federation council and in the duma, and that you are a professional diplomat, and that you worked very closely with yevgeny maksimovich primakov, this is a fact of your biography, but i uh. i just know from primakov that he had a truly special respect for you, as always happens with great people, from their point of view you were close to pribakov, you never boast of this, but nevertheless, this is a fact in this case, that's why you are especially important to me ask, as a person with such a biography,

with such experience, what do you think? about the death of henry kissinger and what a figure he really was , i usually get up early, i saw the news about kissinger’s departure, early in the morning, i immediately sat down to write comments on this topic, and i think i was one of the first to do so in our country, and in this case i, there are situations when i would like to consult, but about the tone, about the content, so kisinger, i had the honor of meeting him personally, i, of course, repeatedly participated in his meetings with that the same yevgeny maksimovich primakov, with other russian diplomats and politicians, so yes, i had a personal relationship with him, but of course, this is not the main thing, the main thing is the perception of him as a figure

who largely determined the contours... of the second half and the beginning of the 21st century, its influence on world politics is indisputable, yes, there were advantages. and the disadvantages are completely obvious , i think that he himself understood that he was far from sinless, and he quite often, but in any case often, corrected himself, i can’t to say that he was stubborn in his desire to prove to everyone that he possessed the truth in the last instance, he would defend it to the end, when he felt that something was going wrong, he was ready to somehow correct this line and this in itself arouses respect, but you know, if...' to determine my attitude towards his role in world affairs as it relates to our country, the russian federation, i imagine, well, probably pretty standard meetings in the oval

office or somewhere else, i suspect that before as long as mr. kissinger participated in these meetings, without a doubt, he was not a friend of our country, he was a friend of the united states of america, he was the united states, and of course, everything he did, he did in the interests of the united states of america, but uh, i suspect that when it comes to some actions of the united states in relation to russia or in a more global context, he probably always, but what will the opposite country say, or think, or do about this, in this case the russian federation, not in the sense that he i wanted to somehow adjust us policy to the actions of american opponents. but in the sense that he always calculated american actions several steps ahead, and he always, probably, suggested to all those with whom he spoke to take into account the possible actions of opponents.

so, uh, i think that the crisis in relations between russia and the united states, well, perhaps, conditionally speaking, came at the moment when henry kissinger stopped participating in such meetings, i repeat again, i’m talking about this in the conditional subjunctive mood, when stopped participate in henry kissinger with his question, what does russia think or is going to do about this, and when one day during the next discussion this natural question arose, someone in this oval office said for the first time, what difference does it make that we will pay attention to this russia, we are strong enough to act without taking into account what our opponents will say, think or do about this, at this... moment, from my point of view, the collapse in the effectiveness of american foreign policy began, because to act only on the basis of the logic of the first step, for another, for any country, even as strong as the united states of america, and so henry kissinger, from my point of view,

was, i repeat once again, despite disagreeing with many of his concepts, he was a great diplomat, because that he always considered many stages ahead, and he always tried to stand on... so that where there were still paths, and this is, in fact, the essence of diplomacy and in this sense, i certainly respect him, well, thank you very much, and if i may, what you said about kissinger, i would not be afraid to say about collective kissinger, i mean about his generation of foreign policy realists , there were people there, kissinger, president nixon, president chirac, the chancellor in the consequences of his actions, always wondered how russia would respond to this, not how russia will like it, yes, but how russia will respond to it

, i repeat once again, do not be mistaken about the true motivations of the intentions of certain politicians of the kisinger generation, but this was the time of the cold war and before that a lot... there was a bet on victory over the enemy, now we see exactly the opposite; that generation is gone, the current generation is no match, forgive me, please, is not suitable for those who determined the face of the world during times of confrontation, and i can say there is only the deepest regret about this, because what is happening now in the world, and this is a severe shock, comparable, well, i don’t know with the cuban missile crisis with some other complete collapses in international relations, this current situation, threats to all humanity, all this is generated by those who have stopped asking the question, what will the other side say about this? this is what i mainly want to talk to you about, we will return to the issue

of kisennichali at the end of the program, but now i wanted to talk to you about the rest of the world, what is sometimes now called the collective south, sometimes called the world majority, well, here you are a country. the main countries, i’m not afraid to say, the world majority, in india, where there was the so-called g20, although more accurately called a group of twenty. they are not always the biggest and not always the most intelligent, well, plus you were in china, tell us what you heard, what you saw and how do you most importantly assess russia’s relations with these two very important powers? you know, when a special military operation began and the so-called collective west relied on... russia is already at home,

economically, politically, socially and humanitarianly, it seems to me that the collective west was guided ideas of thirty years ago, when russia opposed the west in its claims to world hegemony, almost alone, at that time neither china, nor india , nor other centers of power came to the fore, they probably sympathized with the russian effort, but they were not included in this fight, the collective west, a year and a half or two years ago, probably had the same feeling that russia was still alone, that there was no need to respond to its messages, that’s two years ago, i mean december twenty-one , russia's proposal to the united states of america and the north atlantic alliance to agree, what to negotiate, what difference does it make, what about this?

russia thinks, we will go forward and do what we consider necessary to do, in our interests, that was the dominant logic, and so they showed that such a perception of russia and such a perception of the situation in the world is obviously outdated , because in addition to russia, other active centers of power, which, just like russia, saw all those risks are direct threats to their own interests, their own national security, which carries with it... the so-called unipolar world, read the collective west, and of course, in a radical way, china’s position is without a doubt, while india’s policy is still intensifying and becoming more clear, i wouldn’t wishful thinking here, there are nuances, of course, but we are absolutely sure with eddie and our other brix partners that we find a common language in the same way as we

find it with china, and now that’s up to you.. . v china and india and this is what i continue to see in more and more countries , yes, the so-called world majority, in most situations is quite aorphic, it is not an organized structure, it is not some kind of discipline that we see in the same north atlantic alliance, but this is a phenomenon that is already quite definitely... felt, as they say, on the fingers, which has its influence on events, plays its role in international affairs and which is not in a static position, it is dynamics, the world majority, uh is taking shape, a core is taking shape within the world majority, yes, this is, first of all, russian-chinese interaction from my point of view, and interaction on equal terms, which is fundamentally important to emphasize, because russia and china have absolutely coinciding... interests here, we are on the side chair, but

an increasing number of countries are beginning to join this position, including the same india. kissinger has repeatedly written that he does not believe in a deep and some kind of long-term, well, alliance, not an alliance, but some kind of understanding between russia and china, he thought too much of them, verbal... history, well, and most importantly, different cultures, and he repeatedly said that if , in general, you talk with russians with chinese officials, then they are united, in what the concept of the fiction wrote , contempt for each other, when i look at the situation now, this is exactly one area where it seems to me, indeed, because history is very complex, right? very difficult. how did it happen that this

rapprochement that we now see, that in general it works quite well, is better, than many authorities, including kitingel, predicted, well, in history, the modern history of soviet-chinese, then russian-chinese, relations, of course, there were several periods of harsh confrontation, jealousy for the obscure ultimate truth for loyalty, the ideas of marxism, leninism, for who will be the first in this future world, where the communist idea will win, then, when the soviet union ceased to exist and... russia appeared, i think that at a certain stage these same ideological principles started us continued to be taken away, but for other reasons, the chinese were offended at us for abandoning the idea of ​​marxism-lenism, with the ease with which we abandoned them, and we, on the contrary, were offended at china for

continuing to demonstrate commitment to those ideas that russia seemed to reject, but in any case in its then majority, this was also an internal story, but it seems to me that then... including through the efforts of people like kissinger, they began to artificially push our heads together outside of this ideological such the goal is absolutely completely different and here you know, i remember the story of 2005 18 years ago, when i, in the state duma , had the honor then to head the committee on international affairs and was responsible for the ratification of the state duma of the last in a series of agreements on the delimitation of the border, the state border between russia, and china, this was the last disputed section, there are approximately 375 km in the then chetinsk region in the khabarovsk region, ultimately this disputed section was divided approximately in half, but i remember very well what

there was resistance to the final agreement between russia and china, on this issue within our country, inside china, each side believed that it was losing, that not an inch of land could be given away and that everything... this is this space, all these 375 km, these are our ancestral lands for the invasion, i know this thoroughly, i’m not speaking now in the mode of assumptions, it was actively fueled from the outside, in the russian case and in the chinese, in order to leave us in a situation of an unresolved border dispute, and just imagine on second, that now in 2023 we continue to exist in a situation of an unresolved border dispute, as if this would be pulled out over and over again in any hundred more and as if over and over again they would continue to push our heads together, but look, the russians have chopped off your territories , on the other hand, on our side they said that the chinese chopped it off, that was the decision at that time, it was very complex, but it was the only correct one, because we closed the territorial issue once and for all,

and the border that now exists between russian federation and china, delimited, demarcated along its entire length, is colossal... which continues to unite our parties, and not separate them, and the same thing happened on a number of other issues, our cooperation in the military-technical sphere, very delicate topic, our cooperation in the scientific and technical sphere, including space , a very delicate topic, our cooperation in any other spheres of the real economy, where in theory we could also collide and compete with each other, and we we still collide and compete, but this is pure economics , i don’t know... from food to forests, yes, everywhere we find a balance of interests, which ultimately works to mutual benefit, we have learned from each other agree, this is a big surprise for the generation of henry kissinger, for those people who considered our contradictions eternal, this is, of course, the factor that, from my

point of view, now determines the state of international relations, significantly the relations of the united states with its nato allies in europe, that's it. everything is already in the past somewhere, but what is happening now in relations between russia and china, between russia and india, between russia and our other partners, in brix, in the shanghai cooperation organization, between them within these organizations we know the degree of contradictions between india and china, and we understand perfectly well that india and china still continue to be separated, including people from the generation of henry kissinger, and so, who are represented in them, including our country, including the russian federation, from my point of view, is now becoming... but if not dominant, then one of the key facts stabilizing, and not destroying, international relations. a few months ago, at kissinger’s request, i spent an hour with him on skype

, during this conversation he said that he had russian-chinese understanding, but he said, of course, here to moscow... beijing was lucky, because what it did washington pushing these two powers towards each other defies any geopolitical logic, but nevertheless, the biden administration did this regularly, it was a factor with your point of view, of course, yes, of course, yes , even without external influence we would have coped with the task of bringing our two countries, our two economies closer together, but there would have been no happiness until... happiness helped, in this case in the role of the messenger of misfortune the united states of america came forward, they actually tried to play on two chessboards there, conditionally. speaking, in chinese , in russian, and in both cases, using the most brutal tactics, they are clearly losing, because besides the fact that neither china nor russia

flinched, both for russia and for china, these arrogant actions , arrogant, aggressive, actions of the united states of america towards us, have become, well, if you like, such an additional revealing moment , the moment of the true intentions of the united states of america in relation to us, there is no here. there is no love of art here, there is the naked national interest of the united states of america, and the naked national interest of the united states of america is to be the only great power in the modern world, this construction, the usa as the only great power, it may suit some germany or great britain, but by definition it will definitely never suit either the russian federation or the people's republic of china. thank you, two questions.

regarding russian diplomacy, narrowly diplomacy, i think it is correct that russian diplomats, like president putin and foreign minister lavrov, are increasingly saying that the united states and nato are not former colleagues, they are not, not even just rivals that these are opponents, and sometimes they say enemies. absolutely certain a couple of days ago that a hybrid war is being waged against russia by the collective west, and he added not only a hybrid war, but at the same time i regularly heard from russian officials calls, calls - to washington and brussels, to do this and that, or not to do this or that, but is it even normal to make calls to your enemies? well , first of all, if i’m not mistaken,

we have never used the term enemy in any of our official doctrinal documents in relation to western countries, they this term is used in relation to russia, but this is still a topic of, let’s say, political rhetoric and, without a doubt, this is an assessment of the actions that we observe from the west towards us, they talk about the desire to inflict a strategic defeat on russia, of course, these are hostile actions , but i would like to remind you of one more part of political rhetoric in the good sense of the word from the russian side, because we constantly say that we do not consider these countries hostile, we do not consider these peoples hostile, we consider politics hostile elites, the current leadership of these countries, from my point of view, these are the calls that you just talked about, they are addressed, well, if you want, to a historical perspective. they are addressed to people, they are addressed to the population of those

countries that form the leadership of these countries, and it seems to me that if we were now to take the path of, well, some completely radical actions with the enemies, so to speak, we would not talk, we would not shake hands with them , so to speak, well, everything connected with this, we would not actually bring it closer, but move it away the task of normalizing relations with these countries, because there is no alternative , sooner or later, we will be able to normalize our relations, it’s just that the main thing for us in this is not to sacrifice our own interests, so from my point of view, when we send impulses of this kind, including at a high political level, through diplomatic channels, we count on the fact that they will be heard by the population of the respective countries, who will stop believing the political rhetoric of their own leaders that russia is the enemy, russia is a threat, russia is a danger, and sooner or later they will consider it true for themselves. from the point of view of their national interests, abandon these leaders, abandon the policy that these leaders are pursuing in relations with russia

, insist that any new leadership of the relevant countries act in the interests of these countries, and therefore go towards normalization, which is happening with russian-american relations, more specifically, with the lack of serious negotiations, as they say in moscow, solely due to the fault of the united... well, i i will say that the russian embassy in washington, from my point of view, is simply persecuting and humiliating, i have every right to say this, i told the white house staff about this, i told them that whatever comes back, it will respond, in this context, with one amendment , they are trying to humiliate, completely, as a great power, we will never allow humiliation towards us, they are trying. now, in this context, the question of course arises,

what is the goal, what are the possibilities, of russian diplomacy in relations with the united states, several times over the course of the last weeks, high-ranking russian diplomats even talked about the possibility of severing diplomatic relations between russia and the united states, but it was explained that if this happened, it would only happen on the initiative of the united states, and russia. case, he is not going to sever these diplomatic relations, my, my question is what, i agree that severing diplomatic relations with the united states, it may turn out to be more expensive, my question is again about tone: is it necessary to let the united states know in advance that they can do what they do even

more, and russia, in general, will still not react to this... with some very very serious diplomatic demarche. well , first of all, there is a well-known maxim, never say never, and i think that it certainly remains in the arsenal, this thought remains in the arsenal of our possible actions. there is probably some extreme point beyond which we will have no choice but to sever diplomatic relations. now, if i were a diplomat, i still wouldn’t have this prospect i would rule it out 100%. but i agree with the current russian statements. diplomats that now in the current situation this is not worth doing, at least on the initiative of the russian side, because the disadvantages simply outweigh the advantages in this case, we are losing a fairly large number of opportunities to still hold on to those issues on which we still have contacts with the united states of america, well, in the zone of at least some minimal control, well, there is the topic of strategic stability, yes, it is clear that there are no negotiations, but

probably, if god forbid , red lights come on somewhere. we should still have the opportunity to pick up the red telephone receivers, so to speak, to relieve the tensions that arise, god forbid, something happens in syria, god forbid, something happens there, i don’t know, in the context of the ukrainian conflict there in nagorno-karabakh, the last resource that must be adhered to in order to prevent a catastrophe, but i will repeat once again, if it turns out that this resource is meaningless, if it turns out that a catastrophe is all the same is developing, i would not exclude such a possibility, i emphasize not yet in the current situation, but for the future, americans must clearly understand that there are those same notorious red lines that they should in no case cross if they want, well , if, if you expect these words from me, to continue to live in the world in which we live now, you know, mr. deputy speaker , it is always a pleasure for me to talk with you, but it is very difficult, very difficult,

because i usually agree with you so much, that organizing a dispute in general is not it works out very well, but organizing an artificial dispute is, as it were, not within the framework of tradition, that it was necessary to argue, i would be ready to throw in something, this means that again very soon we will ask you to take part and let’s try to argue, i’m sure that we will succeed with great pleasure on my part, thank you very much , thank you, thank you, we’re leaving for advertising, we’ll be back in just a few minutes. united colors of olivier toscani, there are some things that are not usually looked at, that are not it's common to discuss, and my job is to get people to look at these things. advertising is only needed to make a person think, understand, laugh,

cry, united colors. the end of the century according to gotfrey reggio. metaphysically, we are from different worlds, but we feel much the same. i want to say that our world is turning into one big disneyland, into something artificial, we need more crazy people who could reflect this more clearly, convincingly, clearly. matador, tomorrow on the first. product stellar group season premiere, re-sing the star, on sunday on the first. and now with us on skype is christian whiten, senior adviser

to the state department for administrations. george w. bush system, this is not a career diplomat, but this is a person appointed by the president who plays a really serious role in the direction of policy. employee of the center for national interest in washington, thank you for inviting me, henry kissinger , unfortunately, died, he was 100 years old, he had a very serious, full and multifaceted life, but he had not only supporters, only admirers, but there were also people who had serious questions about his foreign policy tactics, i know that you

had some questions and doubts about him, not on a personal level, in terms of his line , and you just published an article in national interest magazine about this? and you know , before, as a person who grew up during the time of ronald reagan, and i perceived myself as a supporter of ronald reagan, a supporter of conservative views, i was quite skeptical about kisinger, in in particular regarding his position regarding china, when he said that we should forget about taiwan and start interacting with china, what he said about vietnam, what he... said about détente and rapprochement with the soviet union, this is to me i didn’t really like it, i was more interested in politics , which ultimately led to the collapse of the soviet union, but everything that happened in

recent years, the last 20 years, when the united states faced serious problems in countries such as iraq and afghanistan, it became clear that getting involved war is very easy, here it can be very, very difficult to get out of it later. and maybe now the same questions arise about ukraine too, the decision to get out of this conflict, ah, when he said that marxism needs to be resisted not in asia, in europe, and everything that kissinger did in this regard in relation to vietnam, his diplomatic decisions, and of course, the bombing, korea, cambodia, and kissinger's decision to open up towards china, about a more open position towards china, all this caused me

great doubts, it is clear that at that time there was some tension between moscow and beijing, and of course i don't think china became a threat to the united states as a result, that happened much later. and these were the sixties, and these were the times of the oil embargo, the story with nixon and so on, the united states was quite weakened by all these events, therefore , taking into account all the events of that time, kessinder acted quite competently, i have a question for you about the current election campaign, despite the fact that you occupied serious position in the trump administration, you have expressed doubts, repeatedly, as to whether trump is the best candidate for the republican party, but now

a new one is appearing in the republican party , politically, if you like, haley, she was the american ambassador to the united nations, under the president trump , now she is literally on... supported by a very important, well, if you want, a very important financial network, billionaire charles coke, we must take seriously her opportunity to become a candidate of the republican party instead of trump? you know, no, i don’t think so, you know that i personally supported trump, only on a personal level i’m different from him, as for nikki haley, it

seems to me that she represents the wing to which bush, mccann, and so on belonged further, now this wing is not very popular in the party, and people have rejected them, that is, they say that confrontation is needed. and i think that donald trump will easily win the primary, because so far all opinion polls indicate that he still has a very large lead, governor of florida, and you 've talked about him several times as a possible, well, i would say, promising republican candidate, he's

been having problems lately. in order to increase your popularity and gain new influential supporters. does it seem to you that he is still in the game, so to speak, and that he is the most likely alternative to trump, if such an alternative is needed. yes, it seems to me that indeed, this is the person who has the greatest chance of being the chosen ones. and we have price coming up in iowa, and this is that a representative of such a school , which we call retail politics , that is, retail policy, when politicians pay a lot of attention to personal communication with people, and desantis traveled to all 99 administrative districts in this

rural, farming state. devotes a lot of time to communicating with people, but of course, in order to defeat trump, he will need to show a very good result in new hampshire, too, so he still has some chances, despite the fact that trump, of course, she is in the lead by a huge margin, including in iowa, but recently the governor of iowa announced that she would support desantes, before that she said that she would remain neutral, but now she has decided that after all, she is. will support the landing force, and others, for example, leaders, christians, evangelists, have also spoken out in support of the landing force, so far the statistics , the numbers don’t look very good for the landing force, but let’s see, in moscow, there is an opinion, not an official opinion, but quite

widespread, that's american the establishment, the american elite, the deep... trump is so perceived as a threat to their own interests that they will stop at nothing to prevent him from returning to the white house, do you agree with this opinion and if you agree, if you agree, then , there may be talk about some political... you know , they are talking, talking about this, i probably, i think that in washington, of course, there are few effective organizations left, but the presidential security service, in my opinion, is still still works very well if you had it

in mind, when they started talking about... doing everything possible in this regard to prevent trump from winning, but accusations are now being brought against him that he took with him some secret documents, which, in principle, he could have secreted with a flourish, but this didn’t do it, took them with him at the federal level, if a person becomes president, then of course the federal authorities can no longer prosecute him, this is only possible at the level of individual states, i don’t think it will come to any falsifications

in the elections in 2020, technologies such as voting by mail were actively used, or the democrats collected some ballots in advance, filled them out for people, then sent them by mail on voting day, such dirty tricks may be used to defeat trump , but it will require a lot of effort due to the fact that he still has a very serious advantage. speaking of attempts to compromise trump or stop trump, there is one thing that is notable for its absence so far, namely. they deny that such interference exists, but if trump becomes a candidate, the democrats, the biden administration, will restrain

themselves from starting another hysteria about the russian role in american politics. i think. when there was constant talk about russia interfering in the american elections, although it is clear that this could not in any way affect the outcome of the elections, today there is even more money, even more assistance to ukraine, and the democrats are simply accustomed to thinking that, well, it couldn’t be so, so that people vote for trump if

trump won, which means that russia definitely had a hand, it can’t be otherwise, even if now, say, nikikheli wins, that means she will be called an agent of moscow, although of course, and there are countries that, by the way, are much more active in interfering in our elections, i don't mean, of course, fraud, direct fraud , but the use of influence, for example, china is interfering much more, thank you, thank you for your time, thank you for sharing your views with us, i hope we will again we can see you soon in our air. thank you, goodbye, off to advertising. we’ll be back in just a few minutes, come on, you’re really real friends, and we’re already writing, yes, evgenia medvedeva and your marusya, and i’m such a cat, now i’m totally crazy,

tell me, what else will be exclusive, many of the shots that were included in the film, i for the first time in my life i saw under what conditions it was, nowhere, i was not there, i disappeared. it was also difficult to dress somehow and to have self-esteem in life, i was always dissatisfied, each suit there took two to three months, that is, each small petal, but this is how many fashion houses started, i hold it and i really like it, i just can’t, they recently saved my leggings, i have two bridges in winter, you can’t come near me on a crooked goat, i believe it, podcastast lab tomorrow at the first, who is such torment, already 3 hours under the spotlights, here plus 40 , no less, it itches, i shouldn’t have put it on my naked body, my royal or imperial, attention, question, don’t make fun of me, colleagues, motor, camera,

the crowd started, more fun, keep the penguin gait, pay attention to the praguns, get ready, start, finally, our life is playing, a big game is on the air, now we will talk with ekaterina moore, with the op-cor of a businessman in the united states, to our great pleasure, regular participants in this program, welcome you, hello, dmitry, ekaterina, i asked you already repeatedly about what is happening with the help of ukraine, especially in the american congress, and more specifically in the house of representatives, i must admit to you, i’m already

a little confused, we heard that michael johnson, a resolute opponent of further assistance to ukraine, which he wants to separate. the question of aid to ukraine from the question of aid to israel, he managed, at least for a period of time, to avoid new aid being provided to ukraine, and now he seems to have stated that he is in favor of aid to ukraine, and that he hopes that this issue will be resolved before christmas. i understand that there are some nuances and some political games there, please explain, dmitry, you are absolutely right, this is what it is. this is a very undercover

political game, what is now trying to johnson is trying to bargain for his party, and the absolutely obvious gambit in this matter is to push through aid to ukraine, and the aid, well, let’s just say , is not even aid, but funding for the security of american borders, and there it is... very serious pitfalls, but the fact is that the democratic part of congress, and the democratic senate, they insist that the policy of so-called assistance, and cities of refuge, and providing illegal immigrants with some kind of social benefits, but the republicans are categorically against this, they just want... border protection, excuse me, but it was

an opportunity to strengthen the border guards, perhaps attracting some additional forces, and here they are now playing such a game, you know ping-pong with their amocratic colleagues, who say that we don’t want to deal with this issue, and, accordingly , the republicans say, well, if you don’t want to deal with it, then you won’t get ukraine and , accordingly, this is such a very difficult game, especially since we remember that we are talking about an election year, which is coming soon, and the republicans definitely need to show that they fought for the americans, and even there, if we remember macarthy, macarthy said basically the same thing , and there was some kind of deal with the democratic part of the house of representatives, so that if...' they financed the borders, then the republicans would open the way for help to ukraine, well, they

are doing this now, but this is a very difficult game, and i think that every country there will be a friend point a finger at a friend and say that well, look, we tried, they didn’t give it to us, well, maybe it will happen that no one will get anything, okay, although maybe not very well, but i talked to one official.. . face, and uh, i see that an increasing number of people who are familiar with your comments respect your opinion, so they told me, and you would have asked her, just in a simple way, they will give ukraine billions of dollars in military in the near future help, or they won’t give it, so i ask,

you know, uh, even the most outstanding experts washington, and when making certain forecasts regarding ukraine, and constantly, you know, they get into overshoes, and i will say that i don’t guarantee the fulfillment of my forecast, but most likely they will give billions, but the question is how much they will give, and i i think that the 60 billion that biden requested, and this is definitely a non-starter for the democrats, that is, for the republicans, although of course the democrats want this, this is too much, but of course they will have to allocate some kind of help, because as far as we remember, now this little egg is already here the military, from which the pentagon continues to finance the needs of ukraine, it is practically exhausted, and even there the question arises, they went there and brought them the news that they were in kiev? that now we will give you 100 million dollars, but

if you remember how much, how much the former minister of defense estimated, and the daily, daily confrontation with russia, then this is about 100 million dollars, that is, they brought ukraine and money for one day, yes, the united states, of course, will not be able to just abandon its ally, but these gigantic appetites that joe biden has, of course, i think that he will moderate the senate and the congress as a whole and there will be help, but it will be much less, although of course we are talking about billions. and the last question: what will these decisions depend on, that is, it is clear, they will depend on some american internal political situation, on some kind of trade on many issues, you me, i you, well, that concerns... the situation on ukraine, first of all, military dynamics, but if

zelensky continues to have no serious success. and especially if he has any obvious defeats. how will this affect congress’s willingness to continue funding ukraine? and i think it’s catastrophic, because america loves winners, this is absolutely obvious, and uh , if vladimir zelensky now in the near future fails to show at least some effectiveness, and if he continues his policy, and in that vein, in in which he now continues that everyone around me owes me, but i don’t owe anything to anyone, yes, for example, let’s look at what he says about the elections, yes, he doesn’t want to hold elections for the americans, and for congress, this is an absolutely obligatory thing, because what they explain to the american voter is that they are fighting for democracy in ukraine, well,

how can you fight for democracy? ukraine, if, if there is no democracy there? well, these are the obvious things that strategists need to take into account and build a program accordingly, if, if there is such bullshit, and such a bullish policy, which the ukrainian authorities are now pursuing in relation to america, then of course there will be help from the united states they can't wait for the states. ekaterina, thank you so much, i hope to see you again on our air soon, goodbye, goodbye. today, early this morning, news came from the united states about the death of henry kissinger. let me remind you that on may 27 he turned 100 years old, he was a real centenarian, and he was very active, very eloquent, and

there were, from my point of view, no signs that his intellectual abilities had declined. there were no such signs until the last days of his life, and in this regard president putin expressed his condolences, and let's listen to what he wrote: an outstanding diplomat, a wise and far-sighted statesman who for many decades enjoyed well-deserved prestige throughout the world, has passed away . the name of henry kissinger is inextricably linked with the pragmatic foreign policy line that allowed in due time, achieve a detente in international tension, reach the most important soviet-american agreements that will help strengthen global security. i've had a lot time to personally communicate with this deep

, extraordinary person, and i will undoubtedly preserve the brightest. president putin is going to preserve the brightest memory of him, and from my point of view, it is absolutely justified, not because kissinger was a friend of russia, he was no friend except the united states of america, and of course, his own, they often talked about kissinger, about president richard nixon told me more than once that henry is the person for whom, in general, he always comes first henry. this meant that nixon had some irritation with kissinger, because they had a kind of rivalry over who was really

the chief architect of american diplomacy during nixon's presidency. but at the same time, kisinger was indeed an american patriot, he was born in germany, but there is not the slightest sign that he had any special sympathy in germany, and that his policies showed germany any special preference, kisinger came to america as a teenager, he i was 14 years old, how are you? guess, from fascist germany, he, a jewish refugee from germany, where a significant part of his family died in concentration camps, but he could not have any sympathy for germany, he fought in the american army, so he became an american citizen, he went to harvard university, receiving financial support from the state for the fact that he fought in the army, so there is not the slightest doubt

in my mind that he was a true american patriot, this is firstly, secondly, he was a very strategically thinking diplomat and he was ready to very energetically promote american interests and not always, in the interests of the soviet union, he personally had good relations with the soviet leadership,