have hypersonic weapons or whatever they have to, here's what this is all about. they spend a huge amount of money on maintaining their military and not only on pay, but also in the maintenance of bases around the world. it's like a black hole, really. you can't count how much you spend, actually, that's where the bulk of the money is siphoned off. although the production of lethal weapons and arguments in general take so much money that is difficult to estimate. take, for example, there widely advertise missile defense and our inter continental missile oven guard, one of the main components that we may use to overcome their missile defense. the costs are simply not comparable, and we have essentially neutralized their advantages and investment in the missile defense. this is how we need to act, but of course, without any doubt, the economics of our armed forces must meet the requirements of the modern world that each can or historically it's quite obvious that nazi regimes do not disappear

on their own uses. but as a result of military defense, this was the case in germany in italy, in japan. the same would obviously be true of the been there and nazi regime in the ukraine. and now we're advancing all along the front line. judging by the reports from both the ministry of defense and our war, correspondence still hasn't been possible to find a fighting tactic where we can sustain fewer losses on the offensive rather than in defense. i admitted this quite a non trivial task for the worst strategist, but it always holds back defensive. i mean spar in or her rogue soldiers. how can we advance with the minimum casualties? community my memory but because it is a valid and legit the question. but the, the answer is also simple. we need to increase the destructive power of our weapons, as well as their number and the efficiency of our personnel and assets. it also involves technical, an army aviation, even our strategic air force. certainly it shall apply to those components that are

suitable for armed conflicts of this kind. companies are ground based weapons including high precision weapons artillery and armored vehicles. and we are enhancing our capabilities by leaps and bounds which in this area. yes, that is exactly what is happening. that is the onset to your question. the more powerful and the greater amounts of weapons, we have, the few are the casualties to stay afloat. it's still begs the question of what price we are willing to pay for the whole project. well, maybe the word does not fit in here, but for this historic challenge that we have been forced to face. so we have to every human life is priceless. every single one and the loss of a loved one for a family, for any family, is a tremendous grief. but the question boils down to our mission and how we define it . what is our mission?

during our meeting earlier, one of the participants talked about the surprise that they experienced when they learned that these territories are home to russians, just like us. we came to help these people. that's basically the answer to the question. if we abandoned these people today, our loss is good increase many times over tomorrow and our children will have no future because we will feeling secure. we will be a 3rd or 4th class country, and no one will respect us if we cannot defend ourselves. and the consequences could be catastrophic for the russian state, which that's the answer mister putting on the american seem to talk about negotiations about strategic stability. but at the same time, they declare the need to inflict a strategic defeat on russia. our position is that we're open to the negotiations, but at the same time, the time for goodwill gestures has passed. so will there be no negotiations with me because we have never refused to negotiate without goodwill gestures,

without compromise, what will it look like then? i will try to explain and we had negotiations in the stumble took. you have already said this many times. i have to repeat it again. i will do it. what's more, the negotiators from the other side and we came up with a thick volume, a document. i'm actually a 3 d, a draft, great day, bye. and the extract from this treaty it is available, was initially by the head of the negotiating group from the ukranian side. mr. or him? yeah. he did it. it has his signature. here we have it in the executive office, but then it is known as mister, how many of himself told the world publicly. also at a meeting with journalists, including foreign journalists, that the former british prime minister, mister johnson, came and dissuaded them to finally, simon, respectively executed this agreement and raised the topic that you have just mentioned. that russian needs to be defeated on the battlefield. are we ready for

negotiations? yes, we are ready, but only ready for negotiations. not based on some desires, after the use of psycho tropic drugs, but based on the realities that have evolved, as they say in such cases on the ground. that is the 1st thing. secondly, we have been promised many times that the nato will not expand to the east, and then we see them at the borders. they promised, if we do not go too deep into history, that the internal conflict in ukraine would be resolved peacefully. politically of the, as we remember, 3 foreign ministers came to keys from poland, germany, and france. they promised that they would be guarantors of these agreements. a day later, there was a code that they promised to fulfill the minutes agreements and then publicly announced that they were not going to fulfill these promises, but only took a pause to arm the band direct regime and ukraine. we were promised

a lot of things, so promises alone are not enough to negotiate now only because they are running out of ammunition is somehow ridiculous on our part. nevertheless, we are ready for a serious conversation and we want to resolve all conflicts. and particularly this conflict by peaceful means. but we must clearly and distinctly understand that this is not a pause that the enemy wants to take for rearmament, but a serious conversation with guarantees for the security of the russian federation. and we are aware of the various options that are being discussed. we know the carrots that are going to be shown to us in order to convince us that the right moment has come. we want, i repeat once again to resolve all disputes. and this dispute, this conflict in particular by peaceful means, and we are ready for that. so we want to do that. but it should be a serious conversation with security assurances for the warring party. in this case,

we are primarily interested in the security of the russian federation. we will proceed from this promise, judge mister prudent. i think we are looking a little too noble. will it turn out that they will once again to save us and we will console ourselves with the fact that we are honest, that they have deceived us. that is our destiny to remain fools all the time. but never since the americans mentioned metals in the 90s, for winning the cold war, all these decades have been decades of big lies. how can we even hope that they will go and finally, make an honest deal with us that they will honor and with guarantees for us? how do you even deal with them? do you really believe that this is possible? yeah, i hate to say it, but the i don't believe anyone, but we need guarantees and the guarantees must be spelled out. they must be guarantees that would suit us and that we wouldn't believe in. this is what we are talking about. but now it is probably pretty much or to talk publicly about what it

could be, but absolutely, we're not buying any kind of just empty messages yet. but you still have, i'm afraid you're going to be quoted in an expansive way. do you trust? no one at all. where are you referring to western partners in this case, when you say you trust? no one. i prefer to be guided by fact rather than by well meaning statements and talk about trusting everyone. you see, when you make a decision at this level, the degree of responsibility for the consequences of the decision is very high. that is why we will not do anything that is not in the interest of our country. is by the way, what is wrong with president the crime? has he completely lost his mind. he said he's going to send french troops to fight us. and now we looks like a gaelic roost are getting ready for a cock fight. scaring the daylights out of europeans. how do we even respond to this? the thing is, wisdom military's have been present in ukraine for years now, going back as early as a pretty cool ukraine. although after the cool,

the numbers have grown exponentially. these days, westerners get involved in the conflict, both openly as military advisors and as far and mercenaries. they are suffering losses. but if we talk about foreign troops being sent there officially by foreign countries, i am convinced that it will not change the reality on the battlefield. and that is what matters. just like arms deliveries is never changed the thing. my 2nd point is this can lead to major geo political consequences, say polish troops enter the territory of ukraine with the stated goal of covering the ukranian belushi and border or take positions in other areas to give you cranium troops, some breathing space to engage in combat operations on the line of contact should that happen? i don't think that police troops would ever want to leave, but that's just my guess. because they will want to recover their that's their

dream. you see, to recover the lands that they consider, historically polish lands that were once taken from them by the father of nations. joseph, stolen and handed over to ukraine. of course they want them back polish military units enter these areas. they are never going to leave. but then other countries could follow suit those that lost some of their territories as a result of world war 2. and i think that ukraine would have to face a very serious geo political consequences, including some that could threaten it statehood and that's current innovation. going back to emmanuel, my crone, could it be that he decided to take revenge on russia after we stepped on his toes in africa instead of just sitting there and taking it like good little boys? he probably didn't expect us to be so sort of did he though? yes, i think it might well be some grudge on his part. but when we were in direct contact with him, we spoke quite openly about the subject. we didn't go into africa and we didn't try

to drive friends out of the continent. the problem lies elsewhere. it has to do with the famous wagner group. at 1st carried out a number of economic operations in syria. and then it moved to other countries in africa. the defense ministry assisted them in some ways, but only based on the fact that it was a russian group. nothing more. we never pushed anyone out of africa. it's simply the matter of african leaders signing contracts with russian authorized economic operators and wanting to do business with them and not wanting to do business with the french. in fact, it wasn't even our own initiative. it was our african friends who brought it up. why would any one hold a grudge against us for that? i have no idea if an independent state wants to develop relations with, it's for an partners, including russia. if it wants to build ties with russia, we didn't touch any of the former french colonizers in these african countries. and i'm being completely serious here because in many former french colonies,

people don't really enjoy doing business with their, their former masters. and it has nothing to do with us, nothing whatsoever. oh, it must be convenient to take offense at someone while also ignoring your own thoughts. perhaps this acute and rather emotional reaction on the part of the french president has to do with the ongoing developments and some of the african countries. although i do know that some african states see the percent of the french as completely normal and say that yes, they are ready to work with the french while some countries don't want to. but it has nothing to do with russia. we're not in sitting anything or fitting anyone against france, and that's never been a goal for us. to be honest, we don't even have a specific state level policy to develop stronger ties with africa. we're just friends, and that's all. they want to build deeper relations with us. we welcome that and we're always ready to meet them halfway. there is nothing to be upset about a little now. they say in france that there are no more red lines left with regard to russia,

that nothing is off the table. that every thing as possible. we hear how they want to speak with us in terms of a balance of power. and we hear a lot of weird things coming from france from the west. in general, from lithuania, the voices are similar to this in it. but overall, of the course, sounds hostile. perhaps we too could go for an unconventional option and invite, say, the $2000000.00 strong north korean army and exchange for our new killer umbrella, over half the korean peninsula. why not? for one thing, the democratic people's republic of korea has its own nuclear umbrella. they haven't asked for help in that respect. secondly, as we see it today, based on the progress we've made on the battlefield. we are quite capable of accomplishing the tasks that we set for ourselves. as for the countries that claim, they have no red lines in dealing with russia. they should realize that russia likewise will not have any red lines in dealing with them. as for the smaller states in europe, 1st off, we treat them all with respect, no matter what. and secondly, when these smaller nations called for

a tougher policy towards russia and demand other take extreme measures against us, including the deployment of troops and so on. they only do that because they know they won't have to face the consequences of their provocative rhetoric. as for the ones who do they behave in a much more restrained manner. and rightly so, what and all of that flash of germany's taurus missiles, the german chancellor, olaf schultz said they won't supply. there are forces that insist on supplying taurus to cream. the british came up with the initiative to supply tours missiles through the u. k. they are ready to arrange the transit. the target is the crime in bridge. german generals are already planning operations. they are, as we for not only against the crime in bridge, but against military base is deeper inside the russian territory. somebody already says that those missiles may be used to strike the kremlin. are they getting the carried away in their dreams? something 1st its pipe dreams and wishful thinking on their part. second,

they are trying to intimidate us. as for germany, there are constitutional implications for them in this as well. they are asking, quite rightly what if those notices hit the part of the crimean bridge? that is undoubtedly, even in their own books, russian territory. that would be a violation of the constitution of the federal republic of germany. the thing is, the opposition in germany is even more aggressive. let's see where their mouth gets them. we are keeping an eye on that. they already use those british and us made missiles, but that doesn't change the situation on the battlefield much. yes, they inflict certain damage, obviously. but that doesn't change the course of the hostilities and the consequences that inevitably before the opposing party. we've been hearing a lot on russian channels, international channels in german channels as well, about how many assets in germany are out of order or require updates, repairs,

and so on. let them keep working. as you rightly said, there are things they must think. stop and think about smarter ones among them will stop and then start thinking i was know which can and what about the new natal members, finland sweden. what is their bargain here? swedish for administer. tobias bill storm recently told the church that sweden as opposed to having natal bases on its territory, didn't they know the kind of club they were joining? what's happening to them? you should ask them. i have no idea. we used to have fairly and positive and stable relations with these 2 countries. and i think that they gain more from being neutral because it gave them certain advantages. at the very least, they could offer a negotiating platform to use tensions in europe. we used to have an ideal relationship with finland simply, ideally, we never had a single dispute is not territorial, not otherwise. we didn't even have any troops at the border with finland. we moved

them all out. why did they choose to do what they did? in my opinion, it's purely for political reasons. they probably wanted to become members of the western club to get under some kind of umbrella. what did they gain from that? frankly speaking, i don't know. it is an absolutely nonsensical move from the view point of insuring their own national interest. anyway, it's up to them. it was their decision. we didn't have troops on that board or before, but now we will. we didn't have we open systems there, but now we will and for what? it cannot mccully. we were on very good terms. they tapped into our market and in turn, we bought a lot of goods from them. what's wrong with that? but now things are going to change. many of their goods aren't really sought after another markets, and our markets have to compensate as well. i don't understand, you know, it's, it's a trivial thing. but nevertheless, in recent years,

both in helsinki and especially in the border areas of finland, they accepted russian rubles. yes, even in helsinki and major supermarket, you could buy whatever goods you wanted for, rubles, there were advertisements in russian all over the place. now there are border regions are going bankrupt. yes, yes. but i wanted to make a different point. let's look at the side of the board. economically, it was doing very well. real estate prices were solid. economically, they were doing great. but apparently there were forces in finland that were well. overly right wing, overly conservative nationally steven that didn't like that. they dislike building these closer ties with russia. some thought it was going to far, why are these russians buying houses on our land buying apartments? and why is everything now suddenly in russian? so i think, no, i know there was this nascent anti russian sentiment growing at the individual

level. it could be that some political forces inside the country decided to take advantage of that bias. and very well couldn't be all these factors combined let defend one's decision. that's what i think. but i'm not a 100 percent. sure, of course. in any case, their decision certainly does not help in terms of security, both militarily between russia and finland and in europe as a hole. in the meantime, the presidential campaign is in full swing in the united states and you seem to be a factor, they're invisible, you are there. as every candidate, democrat or republican alike mentioned you in their speeches and arguments. in fact, the impression is your a, [000:00:00;00]

the, the 1st time in history meantime country's culture has been cancelled. the very modern weapons to cancel the culture. they need to ask the associated mile as to the folks here, just me sitting on a particular phrase. now, particularly refers to counseling russian culture. and yet the worst it could be at the see what was the zip code where he lives books to what's available. it's charlie, phil is that the most of the, some rich, the one them, the,

the moines blood rushes created the pos 1500 years. there's no question actually condemned, reviled and reject it to sit alone and use that to put somebody at the middle of the panel. there's a lot, i don't know because i don't know. she doesn't have to use it a little. some of this is joining total comes of nation grows daily and now including the us to instigate to cost gate, assess the coverage that i need to. yeah, that was quick enough, but yeah, she goes to 06, that would be the w w. you the key

russian states never as tight as i'm phoning the most sense community best. not getting hold of all sense and up the in the system must be the one else holes. question about this, even though we will then in the european union, the kremlin media mission, the state on the russians to day and supports the r t. suppose next, even our video agency, roughly all the band on youtube, the fitness center. steven twist, which is the,

the 1st 3rd of the 19th century was marked by the aggressive expansion of the united states. the american sought to seize as much territory for settlement as possible. ignoring the sovereignty of the neighboring states and the interests of the indigenous peoples in 1845, washington announce the annexation of mexican texas. and in march, 1846 american troops invaded mexico. however, mexico itself did not have enough means to effectively confront the enemy. besides, it was being torn apart by internal conflicts. the americans manage to turn the tide of the war in their favor. in september 18, 47, the us army captured mexico city. mexico was course designed at humiliating peace treaty, according to wait to get lost 55 percent of its territory. vieques asian of the lands to the united states led to terrible consequences. bloodshed,

genocide was committed against the indians in california. during the 1st half century of the american ruled, the number of the indigenous people in the region decrease from 150216000 people. slavery, which had been abolished in mexico long before the united states attacked was restored on the occupied territories. this will later become one of the reasons for the civil war in the united states themselves. nations like individuals are punished for their transgressions. we got our punishment. american president ulysses grant wrote about the consequences of aggression against mexico several decades later. the only one main thing is important for not as an internationally speaking is that is that nations perhaps are allowed to do anything, all the mazda races,

and then you have the mind to nathan, so are the slave americans, rock obama and others have had a concept of american exceptionalism, international law exist as long as it serves the american interest. if it doesn't, that doesn't exist by turning those russians into this dangerous boy, a man that wants to take over the world. that was the cartridge strategy. so some of the new one exist v i v, i not foolish. truth often zuba and tablet block. nato said it's ours. we move east . the reason us, hey jim, it is dangerous. is it the by the sovereignty of all the countries, the exceptionalism that america uses and its international war planning is one of the greatest threats to the populations of different nations. of nature, what is founded shareholders in the united states and elsewhere in large arms companies would lose millions and millions or is business businesses good?

and that is the reality of what, what we're facing, which is fashion. the magenta itself, the gaining independence and from the form of the ivory coast, remained under the strong influence of its fulman, a pro french president, felix jose, one year ruled the country for 33 years. ensuring the interest to from the government dean isn't it? in the new house including new foster, larry says that goods was douglas who saw him a lot more appropriate after the death of, of a one year, a new lead to long come back. the ball came to power. reset and i'm ready to double for example. yeah, 2 is why do you know if we're feed lacrosse? the infinity for tiffany to one is the one this message into the

bronze immediately dean. good luck. boeing. enemy, a deep political crisis ensued and walk a, the country 2nd largest se turned into a theatre of last year from 130 to the other 2 voters of warranties. how did the dramatic events unfold? and how is block a recovering from? he is a bloody conflict. watch on. see the literature? no one, no, no, no. no pleasure. in a little more than what they should of the unit 73. 1 was a unique organization in the history of the world. what they were trying to do was

to simply do nothing short and build the most powerful and most deadly biological weapons program that the world had every now through you know, to production with it. so just to show the a great deal to the youth suddenly look as little as you keep on no money to modify this man. no more. no god from the sale. i remember i wish to know about doing so need. i know you gave him some more or less than a j o side with this kind of them of the a party bill, because you cannot push the couch. so that's good to go with the 0. what the fondest to should buy

a new on it. so i can send me $71.00 k, $2.00 a year. you'll know i'll put the ticket bucket together. there's no end in sight over how you're going to continue to destroy the earth. is the case for the med, most of the people. i tried to go to the gym, but i'm certainly not ready to fight russia. this is also of soon. this is the 3rd world lunacy re washington. as for so the funder line likes to say, we have the tools while we just start with stability and business deals, which allow me something moving on. we have very quick propaganda. you know, a price here in new york. i think we don't know the aftermath any time that you're not allowed to ask questions, you should ask all of the questions. some more questions ask a better. the answer is,

will be the of the day must realize that the van fireball is ending. a lot of it was in, on the west of the leading. so about the shifting bottles of how in the world wide really the interview ahead of this recent presidential election. i'm gonna say international of home writing human rights organization that has been debt to the us. 5, the stablish, a modified car, the garza, according to what for those supplying help advice ships and those websites on the on the top of the show for museums to be solving games west of the allied kind of the he says there's no evidence of support to those activities in india was in the