the ambassador has the opportunity to stand up for iraqi political prisoners, well, you 're back at it again, we have no right to interfere in the internal affairs of another state, this is a violation of diplomatic protocol. and if

there is chaos in the country, especially since we are here to protect our citizens, if we violate relations with the president or the government, when some situation arises for one of the russians, we will not be able to protect our citizens, you understand, then why are we needed here, well, there must be some way out, there must, not necessarily, we have to find it, then you won't be able to get them out, listen, i'd be happy to, but kartuzov won't go for it, hello, finally back. and i've already started, remember oleg? yes, of course, congratulations, you've done a great job of serving saddam. tanya, what? i noticed that it's very fashionable among prosperous people now. to worry about the fate of the world. do you want to reproach me for insincerity? no, rather praise me. for following fashion. and this is not fashion, this is. listen, i'm sorry, she doesn't

always control herself, it's just that i work all day long, she somehow doesn't do it herself with the children it's all good, and what is she doing? nothing, there are some things to do at the embassy, ​​but nothing serious, you know, we all hoped that she would get pregnant, so she's angry, excuse me, "hello, yes, a second, yeah, you haven't liked saddam for so long that it's time to move from words to deeds, yes, i would be happy to, only what can i do, uh. you know

baghdad and could find us a good office for employees. and what does saddam have to do with it? that's the point, that it has nothing to do with it. mr. nesterov, it turns out that you, a subtle politician, are striving strengthen ties with the ambassador? well, no, then no. i didn't say that.

check your personal belongings. everything seems to be in place, what were you doing here?

petya, petya, the photo is gone, the photo, yes, it was right here, i wonder why he needed your photo, he could have taken a photo of you from an angle, you didn't even notice, in any case, you need to change the number, it will be safer. by the way, what kind of photo is this? yes, an ordinary photo, me with my girlfriend.

we are broadcasting a special analytical edition of the big game, we will now talk to professor jeffrey sachs, a professor at columbia university and... i'm afraid to say, one of the most authoritative international economists and political scientists, professor sachs is currently in austria, but we will nevertheless talk primarily about the united states. jeffrey, welcome, thank you for your willingness

to appear with us. yes, dmitry, thank you, i am always happy to participate in your program. jeffrey, there is a russian expression: to take the bull by the horns, that is, to start right away. and there trump is significantly behind, he has 46%, vice president harris 50, is this just a mismatch in methodology, or is there some big meaning here, maybe these

key states are not typical. 45% for victory, i think that bookmakers are the best indicator, naturally, no one can say anything in advance, the country is divided approximately in half, but personally i

think that harris has slightly better chances now, this is very interesting, again looking from...

that barin may not live to see november, fall down the stairs or something else will happen, and approximately this happened, then, what happened at the debates, in fact... he fell down the stairs, everyone saw that he couldn't perform the duties of the president , much less run for another term, that's how his place went to harris, now we have a situation where a sixty-year-old candidate is running against a seventy-eight-year-old, and accordingly looks much younger, much more advantageous. now trump looks like a very old man, not a young one. against the background of harris, but this is all so, you know, on the surface,

in reality everything will depend on political strategists, how they will manipulate, all this, key important issues are not discussed, no one talks about important things, no one discusses what state policy should be, no reasonable conversation is conducted, everything is built around image, pr and so on. she smiles, does not say anything in essence, apparently she will win because she looks younger, that's all, it's absurd, but in essence everything is exactly like that, many observers, american, not only american, say that trump's worst enemy in this election race, himself donald trump, that he lacks discipline, he lacks.

for the us, well, i'm saying this very superficially now, it's like the second season,

nobody likes the second season, trump suddenly looks old in the eyes of people, i'm not saying that he can't win, there is such a possibility, but there are, trump has people who support him, and there are donors who are ready to give serious money to his company, but uris too. such people, so now they look at some superficial things, who sneezed where, who coughed where, who smiled and so on. i say again, no one is discussing serious, truly important issues, it turns out that haris will win because she looks younger, and trump does not look very attractive, not like he did in 2016, he is already older. everyone will constantly emphasize this, and he is really old, not as

old as biden, of course, and he is in better shape, but still, still quite an old man, and in order to run for president, this is probably not very good, but to tell the truth, let's say, he really is an old man. yes, there are such incompetent statesmen, and there are people,

they used to talk about them, people in black suits, with blue ties, who actually press all the buttons, who actually control everything. this also concerns relations with russia, you probably know this very well, if we go back to the times.

he was president, that's exactly how it was, there were other people, for example, john bolton, who decided everything and did as they wanted, they cheated, i remember very well, the beginning obama administration, together with the belfer center at harvard, the center where i worked at the time, the center for the national interest in washington, we

created a public commission on the national interest, we...

there were people in the clinton administration, but what's interesting is, as soon as this debate started, the hardliners always ended up winning, what's amazing is: the hardliners always win . there was a lot of debate about whether nato should be expanded, there was talk about an agreement on ballistic missiles.

yanukovych, so by all measures it turns out that obama also pursued a fairly tough course, a tough policy. can we say that nothing depends on the president ? i think not, some things do depend. i think that the president should keep his foot on the brake pedal, restrain the war machine.

on the brake pedal, he tried to negotiate with opponents, he tried to negotiate with khrushchev in 1963, he tried to end the cold war, and i think that is why he was killed, he was killed by hardliners course, and then johnson came along and everything changed, the vietnam war started, there were a few times, a few moments in our history where people tried to push the...

after he overthrew yanukovych, i think it was a disgusting act, a disgusting decision, victoria played a role in that too, but then he said, let's not do that. but then biden came along and tore up that deal, it fell apart, and the pro-israel lobby

naturally had a hand in that, it all goes to show that there are always some secret forces, presidents try to do something, try to negotiate peace, but then some behind-the-scenes forces, they derail it all. trump, he did not bring peace, yes, he did not start new wars, but the problems in ukraine, they worsened under trump, and the situation in the middle east also worsened under trump, in venezuela the problems worsened under trump, so i personally do not think that trump is the president of peace, and he cannot resist. then baidin, of course, is even worse, baidin, on the contrary, helps these secret forces, and trump is neither here nor there, when you look at this whole situation from

moscow and listen to what you, professor sachs, are saying, the question involuntarily arises: is it worthwhile in moscow to be particularly interested in this election campaign and the results of these elections? well, you know, i think that we have such a situation in the world now that

it is not worth going into confrontation with the usa, as for russia, i think that diplomatic efforts are needed with the brics countries, india, china. the african union, the persian gulf countries, the countries of asia, with these countries diplomatic dialogue is necessary. europe is in big trouble now, because europe is simply following the lead of the us. and the us is taking an absolutely unreasonable position. we just said that the us has been pursuing a hawkish course for the last 30 years. there was some progress in europe when merkel was chancellor in germany, they tried to resist, but now that's it, now they are simply following biden's instructions, and this is,

of course, very bad. and for europe, and for the whole world, and for ukraine, so personally i think that russia needs to concentrate its diplomatic efforts in the brics countries, in other friendly countries, and the us, where this secret government is in charge, it is unlikely that it will be possible to do anything, i don’t know if these people will ever understand that the policy they have been pursuing for the last 30 years has only weakened our country, they have made it stronger, but russia will not be able to convince them of this, they themselves must realize this, they themselves must understand this, but for now they do not understand this, in short, what i want to say is, yes, i don’t think that from the point of view of from russia's point of view, it does matter who wins the elections in november, yes, something depends on the people, but neither harris nor trump

are capable of becoming a reliable partner for russia in this dialogue, well, now trump and vance are saying something about agreeing on peace in ukraine, but regarding china, but they are expressing absolutely crazy ideas, and in general they sometimes say some very strange things, so i think that now we just need to remain calm, avoid escalation, avoid a catastrophe, try to prevent it to establish partnerships with those who are ready for it, to remake the us, at the moment it is hardly realistic, it has been going on for 30 years already, and it does not give any results, neither in ukraine, nor with china, nor with india, nowhere, this tough course does not give results, over time, changes will definitely happen. but

this will not happen due to the fact that russia will insist on it, it will not happen somehow suddenly, it will happen gradually, the us must eventually realize that they have found themselves in isolation, for example, look at what is happening in the near in the east, now the us is isolated, only the us supports israel and the vile things it is doing now. and the americans must see that there is no one left with us, no one supports us anymore. the same thing may happen with ukraine, with taiwan, where the us is trying to pursue a tough policy. all this creates a very dangerous situation. what do you find in austria now? austria has been an example of a neutral country for many decades, absolutely free when it comes to their domestic

policy, but avoiding building independent relations with western europe, independent from the united states. and so, if i understood you correctly, you believe that russia could now build some independent relations with europe. in moscow, many proceed from the fact that good old europe, that...

leading politicians told me that chancellor merkel knew about the autonomy of this region of bolzano, in fact, they took this as a basis when they agreed on the minsk agreements, because the united states does not understand anything about this, they hate neutrality, this idea of ​​neutrality seems absolutely alien, for the us you are always either with us or against us. and today i am in austria and indeed, if you look at the history of austria, there was an agreement between austria and the soviet union that austria would

maintain neutrality, the soviet union would withdraw its troops from there, since then there have been very good relations, there was no threat from the soviet union to austria. history, but unfortunately, in recent years, we see that everyone is oriented towards the us, as the us says, so everyone does, i look at germany, for example, personally. i believe that scholz is a very bad chancellor, because this war does not serve the interests of germany, the blown up nord stream, for germany only harm, but scholz sided with

biden and carries out his instructions, look, before there were kohl, schroeder, merkel, after all , under such leaders, germany pursued a more or less independent policy towards russia and much more constructive, so this is possible, after all, it cannot be said that the us completely dictates its will to europe. we see that now, of all the latest chancellors, scholz is the toughest. remember, there was willy brant, then there was schmidt, then there was helmut kohl, then there was schröder, then there was merkel. everyone was set on cooperation with russia, so in this sense i would not lose hope yet. the last 4 years have been a rather strange situation, because biden was president, and i think

he pursued an absolutely wrong foreign policy course. in europe, too, everything was very bad, but i think things can change for the better, there is hope, and italy can pursue more. germany, you said, that they in europe can behave differently if it is their choice, and can you imagine making such a choice? well , this has happened before. of course, schmidt, willy brant, helmut kohl and angela merkel, all these people, they were all ready to cooperate with russia, schroeder and merkel

advocated for the construction of nord stream, it was the us that protested and said, no, it should not be built under any circumstances, but...

in the ability to think more clearly, more precisely, over the past 30 years only the us. on the international stage you hear that there is

hope, and in relation to old europe, good old europe, of course, such a gratifying feeling arises, well, i will say so, like negative feelings, gratifying feelings also sometimes need to be kept under control, thank you very much again, we are going to commercial, we will be back in just a few minutes.

volleyball, as you have not seen it yet? the first channel cup, live broadcasts on weekends on the first, in the new season on the first, come on, come on, come on, come on, well, can i ask you, of course. i met a woman happened, that i her i love you, i've loved you for a long time since school, do you have hair? it's wet from the heart on the back of your head, there's lipstick on your collar, we're the perfect couple for everyone

, i don't want to be a thief, you know, yes, but it seems to me that you yourself, and your wife asked me to, left for another, why don't you go after her, don't fight, don't bring her back, i 've gone out of my way for him, do you even know how much they cost, you weren't asked, and i'm doing you right now, properly, that... chorus, premiere of a multi-part film, coming soon to the first channel, a special analytical edition of the big game is on air. now we let's talk to a leading military expert, a professor of higher.

well, in principle, capitulation without this and but after what happened a week ago - the invasion or as you very colorfully described on monday as a raid by ukrainian armed forces on the kursk region , of course, to negotiate, at least at the moment, has lost all meaning and the president said so. and polyansky in the un security council, i think this is not his initiative, polyansky is the deputy permanent, the first deputy permanent representative the russian federation in the united nations, i think, received the relevant instructions and voiced them, that

there will be no negotiations with ukraine in the foreseeable future, so i think that the fact that they took this step, and without hesitation in saying that this is some kind of leverage in order to put russia in a position where it is forced, so to speak, to defend its own territory, so ukraine allegedly improved its negotiating position, i think that, well, firstly, everyone knows that the president putin does nothing under pressure, i...

practically the entire periodic table, moreover, which has the largest reserves of pressurized water, but they say brazil also has about the same, but... russia on the eurasian continent, it is the largest owner of pressurized water, which, as everyone

says, is the gold of the future, therefore , what nato wants is clear, another thing is that to attack russia now, which has, i will not even say, comparable nuclear potential to the united states, we the united states on... this particular at the moment we are ahead of them, we are ahead of them in terms of modernization of our triad, we are ahead of them in terms of modernization of not only the triad, but also nuclear warheads, we are ahead of them in hypersonics, that is, they need, they have plans, they have money, they are counting up to 1948, this was already indicated in 1988 under obama: the figure of one trillion 300 billion dollars for the modernization of all, so to speak, air, sea, and land

components of the triad, probably, and they can catch up with us, they will catch up, but we are also really on we are not standing still, and to attack a country with such a potential for tactical nuclear weapons , we are ahead of the united states there by about four to five times in terms of quantity. and even in terms of the qualitative state of our tactical nuclear weapons, therefore , it is impossible to attack us, this will be especially for the europeans, uh, because, well, the nuclear potential of france, it is incomparable there are about 300 warheads in great britain, even less, there are 270 warheads, they simply cannot compete with us, but even if we add here the potential of the united states, well then it will be just mutual destruction. i am not a supporter, and i do not believe that

there will be some crazy person in europe who will decide to attack the russian federation. and as for these predictions, spells that in another 5 years russia will attack the baltics, poland, and maybe even germany, i think that all this is not from great intelligence. you know. general, i lived in america almost all the time in washington for 50 years, and i knew several generations of american politicians and experts, that is what you said, that cannot be expected, that the decision is recommended and made by madmen, i would have accepted this as a matter of course before, but now i have a question for you, do you... do you not have the feeling that not only has the american elite in the area of ​​national security deteriorated, but

another very dangerous thing has happened for russia: washington and at nato headquarters in brussels, for many years, even decades, have convinced themselves, convinced russia, that nuclear weapons are no longer a factor in moscow , first, it seems to me, in the early nineties, mid-nineties, not even they immediately understood that this meant that they wanted to demote russia from the status of a great power, because in terms of its level of economic development, in terms of its then non-existent unions, well, russia could not, could not claim the status of a superpower, but in terms of nuclear weapons, it could. that 's when they created a new theory that everything, nuclear weapons, whether they exist or not, but

they still cannot be used, therefore you can ignore russia's nuclear status, if you want to put it out of brackets, you can do something about it, you know, not it will be possible to take it out of the equation, i will tell you more, that in the nineties the americans had a chance, and a real chance, in principle, if not to zero out, then to significantly reduce our nuclear potential, why? in ninety- one a treaty was signed, the first start treaty, a basic treaty that defined the parameters there, how many, how many carriers could be had, there were 1,600 carriers, warheads and so on, only... the treaty entered into force, in ninety-two the bush administration initiated new negotiations on concluding a new treaty,

why was this done? it was the end of this it was still under bush sr. yes, that is , the end of the bush sr. administration bush sr. yes, they conducted these negotiations very quickly and in general, well, it will take a lot of time if i tell the whole story of the negotiations, but - the basis of our triad is the ground component, the basis of our ground component, what the americans fear most is...

a mistake - in their, so to speak, policy towards russia, when they refused, ratify this treaty in a package with some restrictions on missile defense, and this treaty did not enter into force, if it had entered into force, our nuclear potential would have been cut in half, thank god, this did not happen, and after that

, so to speak, in the post-tsin period... yes, moreover, but despite all these shortcomings, in the nineties we managed to preserve our nuclear potential practically in the form in which it was, well, not like in the soviet union in the seventies, eighties, but in accordance with the provisions of the start-1 treaty, we preserved it, preserved it in that form, in that degree of combat readiness, despite, so to speak, the fact that we lost a significant part of the underwater component there.

but of course, when you talk about the theory of deterrence, it is important not only what you are capable of, but how another country sees it, i will never forget my conversation in a small group with margaretcher, who was then the british prime minister, it was a group of such, that's what they called themselves, young leaders, we would also meet with them, they there was an annual conference.

they have this feeling that they are uneasy, they protect themselves very carefully, and either pretend, create the impression, or have really convinced themselves that with the russian nuclear arsenal, no matter how powerful it is, that this arsenal can be ignored. dmitry, you know, i still believe the doctors who, who claim that the strongest human instinct is the instinct

of self-preservation. still, uh, i think that this instinct of self-preservation, it should still prompt, uh, especially since, despite various arguments there. on such mythical red buttons - after all, in the united states, the system of using nuclear weapons has several levels of protection of fuses and just so-called even the president of the united states, who has full , so-called power over the process of using nuclear weapons, and there are - so-called, several levels of protection, well, human protection, which in general may not give him and will not give him, well, the well-known, i apologize, for the first time for a second, but it does not bother me,

especially that they in washington will go for a preemptive strategic strike, it worries me that they look at russian nuclear capabilities and say to themselves, well , they have... honestly, they themselves say this, despite the fact that the biden administration

warned that intelligence, that russia is concentrating, but they still thought that this was, so to speak, intimidation, after president putin gave the order to start a special operation, it sobered them up, it sobered them up, and after that, you think that it really sobered me up, i think it sobered me up, i am sure it sobered me up, because all these hesitations, well, let them be hesitations, hesitations, after all, they are climbing this ladder, escalations, but nevertheless, constant talk about how we are not participating, we are not crossing this, we are not allowing this, we are supplying this and that, fifth and tenth, weapons, so to speak, very portionwise, they are supposedly holding back ukraine, that is, i think that they take the words of president putin

seriously, actually, when he says that if the question will arise about the existence being threatened, then there will be no hesitation. it was a big game, we are leaving for advertising. magamaev is me. they do not believe that it is me, when the artist goes on stage for simply does not breathe, when without doing anything, a person simply sings, this is not given to everyone, believe me. muslim never in his life used foul language.

ask about your find, this knot seemed very massive, although it was pried up quite easily, you are awarded a great honor, moles, honor and trust of the reich, remember this,

after the war i was looking for my son's comrades-in-arms, i was interested in what happened there at the end of the war, and anything could have happened there , if you don't have a photo, it's strange, where are they? they were here, oh my god, how similar he looks to my son, you are the only real witness, the only person he came to openly. well, major, the hunt has begun, the confrontation, the premiere of the legendary book by yulian semyonov. on air is a special analytical edition of the great game. a very interesting article recently appeared in the english newspaper financial times.

i don't know how to describe it correctly, about some training exercises of russia, not maneuvers, but training exercises, with the possible use of nuclear weapons against european targets, that's what 's most interesting, general, well, it would seem, such a sensational message with such big consequences, so they immediately fell silent. nobody, none of the big western politicians wanted to talk about this topic. dmitry, well, i must say that such training, they take place, they are regular. i'll tell you more, that any a major exercise in the western theater of military operations, well, in the eastern theater now, probably, a theater of military theater of military operations, yes, in the western theater of military operations always included an element of practicing issues of using nuclear weapons, however, these are commands to headquarters.

at the first stage, with the receipt of all our tactical nuclear warheads are concentrated in the centralized warehouses of the twelfth main directorate of the ministry of defense, which is responsible for the nuclear nuclear component, delivery from these warehouses, these munitions to the locations of the carriers, then there are air bases, naval bases, positional areas. operational-tactical

complexes iskander, training for, so to speak, equipping carriers with these nuclear warheads, and further, however, when it was first announced about these exercises, i thought that in principle it could be completed by some, you know, well, on a new land, launching there... there, well, iskander or maybe with a nuclear charge with a nuclear charge, just a demonstration, a demonstration empty, a demonstration explosion, by the way, the americans, well, this is a long time ago it was in 2055, but they completed one of their exercises at the proving ground , so to speak, with the use of artillery shells with nuclear warheads, but the russian leadership still said that there were no, so to speak,

everyone is listening to this attentively, thank you, but i want to ask you a question about another crisis, naturally the crisis in the middle east and... and we hear a lot about a possible iranian strike on israel, and i still don't really understand, iran has real military capabilities in relation to the conflict with israel or they can launch something that

the israelis can easily stop, no, that's not true, iran has the capabilities, they have the whole spectrum of medium-range missiles with a range of 2400. moreover, missiles, so to speak, of different ranges, different classes, different power, they have everything, iran has a naval component, and missiles, an aviation component, everything, if iran is not the iran that, for example, was 20 years ago, it is a completely different iran, but iran's last strike on israel was very effective, it was a demonstration strike, it was. a demonstration strike, it reminded me of, you know, i don’t remember, it was 1919 or 18, when trump suddenly decided to launch a missile strike on damascus, then there was a conversation between our chief of the general

staff and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, our chief of the general staff warned that there were a lot of our advisers in damascus, if someone got hurt, we would , so to speak.

improve relations with the west and achieve, so to speak, at least a partial lifting of sanctions, but on the other hand, you know, when on their territory is carried out. the murder of a political leader of hamas, who is a guest of the iranian government, who came to the funeral of the president, this, of course, is, well, the word spit, probably a very strong one, but in principle, something like this.