which is commonly known as his folds in speech, where he outlined several key points which lay to shape nato's philosophy. as of other well known statements of hosting that comes to mind is the quite from a speech by may 31st century. general mode is made to set that data. it was created to keep the soviet union out, the americans and, and the germans down. that is under control. and if today we replaced germany with the european union will see that the purpose of nature, the way it was designed 75 years ago, is not changed. the toner is still a tool to the american hedge human 8 a tool of subjects in europe to american military and political interests. you think this is one of the reasons why donald trump skies everyone's so much, especially the american political lead to he said many times that the us should lead me to. so i suppose my question here is, how do you rate good sean solve the united states, putting out the block? and secondly, how viable is this ever expanding allowance incognito is internal differences?

i'm talking specifically about the us and to key a here effect it's future. look at the bottom of the way. well, we diplomats deal with reality. and the reality is that nato has been around. it is still the and apparently in the foreseeable future, the launch is going to stay the way it is now. and the way it develops. we know, however, that the us is working now and creating the legislative idols in the way of any presidential decisions regarding it may take memberships of. that's one thing. another thing is that the americans, and that's not only trump, but also the americans who insisted that european allies increase the military spending. using this threats of putting out of nato to pose your opinions to as trump puts it, pay more for security. looking at things realistically though it's an absurd situation. as of today, military budgets have nathan member states taken together and see 52 percent of the world's title. we're looking at 1.2 trillion at least therapy and allies.

contribution is 450000000000 is 450 bailey and is 7 to 8 times more than the military budget of the russian federation. plus nice, don't forget that the usa is global, military presence is very expensive to maintain. so the americans have some 602700 military facilities scattered across the globe. they seek domination in old regions and old potential fates developer ration. if we subtract the money that is spent on defending europe, it's going to be much less than the $800000000000.00 bodies, the total amount of america's military appropriations. if a military circles come to power in america and site increase the military budget to one for the and then of course the european ship will be much lower compared to that, to say, to regulations, dictate that 20 percent of military spending must go towards procuring new alma, but as of now you are paying the nato met the states make about 80 percent of the procurements abroad. and i've a 60 percent of it comes from the us site. so if we crunch the numbers,

we get some $100.00 billions worth of weapons that the europeans will have to buy from the usa. he's going to give us such a profit. that's why i think that off to another round of such threats from washington to europeans, a going to fold in line and immediately for felt. any orders coming from the us capital safety. the already talked about 2 percent, not big enough. 3 percent being the desired number is the sort of military psychosis. they will continue to drive, and that psychosis will be very favorable to the americans to continue that policy of subjugating your con, your afford such a huge contracts right now. because we're still waiting for, it would seem that continuing to spend such results as on insane goals like confrontation with russia would be political suicide in the current situation. the fact is, the russian threatening se, sending in the minds of americans of western europeans, specifically those who make confrontation with russia, the basis of the foreign policy. the basic experience of the cold war as tall as estimate hostile policies combine with very hostile and frankly military planning

is an exclusive mixture that were brief of the confrontation ultimately lead to an arms race. we had to make colossal efforts to prevent escalation at that time. and it was the time when the west side political leaders of the calibrate, needed to make decisions. that would reverse the alarming trend. there's all so the fact that sooner or later west least will have to explain to the societies why and how this money was spent quite dead by tax planes and of its system in order to appear at more or less credible to their constituencies. they will say, yes, we did that to prevent russian from attacking us. russia would certainly have attacked us if we hadn't done that. that's the power don't have the current situation. but it's also the power adults of this manufactured trend of demonizing . russia is unfortunately necessary for the survival of native himself nights are, cannot exist without an external adversary. so all those who cons, imagine this security without nature. if i the rest of the be instruction from washington and elsewhere, primarily from the capitals of the baltic states. and we also declare that they are

front line states that they in the line of fire, that they will be the 1st victims of russian aggression. if it's not resisted, so they're the ones in charge, and that's a reality that we have to reckon with you of. you mentioned the cold war era, just going back to that period. how would you describe nature's policy during the time of both the us saw on the wall? so treat you with the nice ation existed. and is it 5 to say that most go gave the lines of leadership any cause for concern? yes, a good is. if we talked about russia's or rather, the soviet union policy at the time must go, did not give any costs for consent on the country. most coast policy in the past 4 years was focused on shaping a common european security architect job. several potential treaties were dropped in. one of them was literally holding tracy on common european security rush. i propose other schemes, arms control instruments to solve the measures. rush insisted on solutions to the

german questions that with united europe rather than divide it. unfortunately, the west was not willing when we talk about the beginning of the computation era to solve it exactly with the formation of the native blog which divided europe into 2 camps. as for the most impact which the west blames for cement in the structure of confrontation that led to the cold war, the story was very different to us as all was long, reluctant to form alliances with his east european partners. again, we were proposing different ways of transforming a europe composed of 2 opposing groups of states into a place of peace, corporation and prosperity. and again, the west would not have a local packs came into being when nature rejected us as a bid to join the allotted se 1950 call. at the same time, nature decided to accept the federal republic of germany. as a member. in 1955, the warsaw pact was signed and the organization was bored and ready for the interesting thing is that according to one of the final obstacles was or treaty

organization was created, i me folded, period of confrontation, and also packed was to be terminated as soon as a common european security architecture was in place, by the way, the protocol on the termination of the both of pack the so called product protocols signed by the heads of the warsaw pact, states in 1990. 1 explicitly said, as the error of confrontation is ended, we, the heads of state, have decided to terminate the most will pack. this piece in europe will now be established on the basis of common european approaches. us you reference the 1954 when the us saw showed some designed to join nato and in recent history environment fusion set the roster at some point have thoughts of joining the organization. why is it that the west wasn't interested in you? well, they showed no interest of cost because the especially movie the us, as all, all the russian federation of latex was simply change the nature of this organization

. and it would essentially become upon the european organization. it is the instrument of collective security in europe. for this reason, by the way, it was actually directly written in the reply notes in the united states fronts in england, the soviet union was not accepted into this organization. there was some other things that might weaken the un, the soviet union did not. i'm to the club of the democratic states, et cetera. but the main point was that it would change the nature of this military blog. so in that sense, nothing has changed. and if we talk about the formal side of things, of goals, restaurants as a new, russia did not submit any actual bids. but that will explore the results of reason . the president might have been foods in publicly shared with all of us, his memories of how this issue was discussed in talks with bill clinton and well beyond support. in fact, so i can say that there was such conversations in the community and the confidential talks between the diplomats to the issue was present in one way or another. but 1st of all, it was clear from the reaction from the signals that we received from the capitals,

the west would not go for it. and the 2nd thing to play the role was that it was also said that even if russia had applied that would be no exemptions in terms of the admission procedures. this would mean following the membership action plan and the don't take controversial needs are standards. but the picture we see with some european countries joining the european unit is the site, but they've been waiting in line for decades. the aims of being twisted different chapters being open and close. and it's clear that this approach would be absolutely unacceptable to russia. therefore bites from a formal and informal points of view, as well as from a conceptual point of view. the issue could not be can say that if we 3 vac ellipse one history to $99.00 to $1.00, we know that both the most impact on the us to saw ceased to exist and not yet. but as he said, anya nate to needs an external enemy, it simply won't survive without it. so do you think that's the reason western countries didn't dissolve? naturebox then in 91 to move the data. it wasn't as old primarily

because of the united states stocks. it's a foreign policy tool, they weren't ready to give out. that's the 1st reason. second rate is true. that off to the wholesale pack was dissolved, nature ended up being like a fish out of was that without as an opponent. and if nato had stopped expanding, eastwood's at that point, as was promised to be count. gorbachev, who would it defend itself against who would be its opponent? now that was germany would have to defend against potent hungry and the baltic states. it's obvious that nature's role would have been reduced to 0, in that case, with all the ensue and consequences from the euro. american airlines that i mentioned earlier this year. so i see just continuing this topic of expansion. you absolutely correct. you know, to that, they're all countries that all waiting, standing in line to join the european union. but the same property comp you set about nature kind of because as we know in the 19 ninety's on to thousands, the blog actively moved eastward in several ways. what was the goal of that?

and what effect at this expansion have on the bushes entrusting the picture? well, as i said, the key goal was to keep nato as such. otherwise he had no chances of survival. find the way this is what the president had been saved in the 1990s. they would know objective reasons to keep that as they would know, these threats. this is why they needed that expansion to retain nato as the west instrument, the maintaining influence dominance, both in europe and the globally, the size they also and ask themselves when is in the cold war. although this is not the case by any means. so he, you need pull out the cold war. that's why it ended, but they proclaimed themselves when is in the cold war and the wind is always right . i remember speech by and just by rasmussen, for my date a secretary general already outside of that position, he was speaking of that conference known as the brussels for him. about what is good about nature. first is the soul. so political legitimacy, white is said because it's a club of somebody's democratic states in europe and the one 0 yes,

this is why nobody can question without the decisions they make. and the actions that they take. because democracy is always all about good things and against all the bad things. now the thing that makes nature better than other organizations is the fact. but in any circumstances, it is the lines that can outcome anybody else. so anyone who dislikes the 1st of the above statements will have to face the 2nd one. the result of that is the catastrophic interventions and all to well, the most important thing though is this needs a way of thinking. they are allowed everything. what others are allowed? nothing is, know. you've highlighted these significant interventions. what sort of international, legal and indeed, electrical judgments can be made regarding nature's operations in the 19 ninety's on to thousands. i'm talking specifically the endeavors and the former you can solve the iraq, they'd be asked on a strong law system, wasn't so many descriptions can be provided aggression,

flagrant violations of international law. catastrophe, humanitarian catastrophe. because if we look at the historical legacy of the lines, it concerns dismembered or devastated states. about the emergence of vol space is like a rock, libya, syria boss spaces, without any state control which it become a refuge for extreme is a terrorism, where poverty destitution lack of everything a means of existence, prevails is millions of migrants and is millions of law slice and of course, the latest example in this series is afghanistan. they stayed there for 14 years based on a year in security council resolution state disgrace when he left without being held accountable to the un security council leaving afghanistan. and they basically said, that's it. we bought our hands with going, and now they continued as a bus is activities using afghanistan to create tension around the russian federation. you know, something under valley. i guess. speaking of nate to russia relations,

what's your assessment of most goes engage to them with the alliance and the 9 to ninety's and thousands. was it as a constructive was? that was the sense that the other side was how bring hostility. there was some kind of hidden agenda that little more where it's coming up as an affair. yeah. but one could talk about say, hidden agenda. i would like to point out something else. of course, the russian leadership at that time was faced with a difficult choice choice of how to organize its relations with nature. by the way, the story i told you about the us is all applying for membership and fighting to keep your from being divided into blocks. that story. is it many ways similar to the period you're asking about? now the ninety's, it was a very clear choice. we could either ignore de type, we could accept the fact that they exist to the european unit exist along with a geo political, military and political realities that come with it. it should not prevent us from trying to build a common european architecture. but as we build this coming europe in architecture, which is designed to minimize the impulses, middle treat blocks that would hardly be reasonable to ignore the move to get up.

then we decided 1st of all, to establish official relations a 2nd be considering that the cold war was over and there was no longer any danger of confrontation between the blocks. but new threats and challenges were looming on the horizon. first of all, those relates to international terrorism and rush, it had become the main victim of these international terrorism. we decided to look for ways to use the existing military potential and the possibilities. so for the to dialogue. if we talk about the work of the nature of rush opponent, joint counsel, and then the nato, russia council, they what 3 main parts. first i have is the costs and monitoring of the security horizon by maintaining a political dialogue, discussing the problems and challenges that arise. second, there was the search but common ground on ways to join efforts need types of coordinating some steps, but also in terms of implementing concrete projects, even conducting joint operations. the food i would say was the residual tasks such as continuing to dismantle the legacy of the cold war building,

understand in between the middle trees, sharing military development plans, holding joint exercises and so on and so forth. what to a certain extent, corporation, on the new threats and challenges was not very expensive, but it did not overlap with all working of the international organizations and provided added value in terms of security counter terrorism cooperation is one example of maritime a search and rescue is another we created modules to rescue crews of submarines in distress. the anti terrorist component included the range of projects ready strength and security, including by drawing on the lessons of september 11th, russian nato. as a bait and system was established. it was designed to share real time information about aircraft, including commercial blades that did not follow ground commode meaning they may have been hijacked by terrorist, and to compel them to lat george exercise. they were conducted over the black sea and the baltic sea together with probably it, and then took the all these things works. uninstalled was a major focus. since i've gotten some posed

a threat to both national and social security. the primary challenge being drugs, the largest project trade, anti narcotics, personal napkins complex stop and central asian countries was implemented within the framework of the russian agent council. a total of $4000.00 offices were trained full engine context services. all sort of the material and comb bad capabilities, the after a national army. what reinforced? enabling it to independently control the situation in afghanistan. and there were a number of other projects including comebacks, and i received your let me tell you about the last thing we did from this positive agenda. we developed a project and came pretty close to implementing it for the 1st day of a joint operation in the history, the russian exit council. his goal was to ensure safe destruction of the chemical weapons removed from syria. syria then joined the chemical weapons convention. they were transported up all the us to best locate, right. the dry container ship that was to be anchored firmly into a specific area of the mediterranean sea and could not be moved during the disposal

period. everyone understood that it is a very attractive target for service organizations and needs to be protected. so at the initiative of the leaders of nato countries on russia, we began planning this operation. we were in the midst of the planning process, planning of forces and rules of engagement. when you're in my done, i'm a state who happened to get nato abruptly castle and bunch the old cooperation with us as corporation. like so many others was left by the wayside of history publish. they will see will view on the joining of sweden and finland, the latest nato editions is also to ensure nato's future and how like this impact the international situation over the summer. they said, well, this has the most negative impact. first, the speaking about the regional situation and all the european and the baltic sea region in terms of military security, stability among the most peaceful in europe is that when a phrase and complex no whole complex, no acute territorial disputes,

while not everything was for the result of situation well stable from the military standpoint that we know issues the ministry relations with the russian federation. when the bolting countries gained independence, i mean, when the baltic states would grunted independence by the us is all there was an issue with cleaning grad transit for military purposes, but it was the result. there was no more military dispute. yes, we have serious problems in all bilateral relations with these countries, but these problems were not military in nature. and they primarily concerned these situations, the russians and russian speaking people in the baltic states, the note citizenship phenomena is a disgrace to bottom democracy. the fact that such countries easily accepted into the are paid union and nato speaks volumes about the hypocrisy of these 2 organizations. in reality, 2 political reasons prevailed to neutral countries which enjoyed unquestionable authority in europe, sweden and finland admits it. finland will always be associated with the helsinki.

final act, offending had always been and at the forefront of his foot steed, create on your pain structures. they, along with sweden and other than on the line, countries played a prominent role, the establishment of military transparency instruments. they served as a bridge between 2 blocks, allowing them to continue to come together to solve common problems before. now they've turned away from this, by threes and friends are rapidly increasing. they administrate expenditures, purchasing american weaponry, and meantime, machinery is in motion. does all of this, so if you are paying interest for simply the interest of peace and security in this region set the north, but it serves the american interest. and that's what matters most. but let's say it's sweden and finland. they submitted the application on monday. they basically signed the agreement the very next day on tuesday. ukraine, on the other hand, has been waiting for almost 2 years and we still don't know to be accepted, it will be time bhutto. so i'd like to ask you relating to that. i mean, we know that a nature delegation visited ukraine on the 21st of march,

and was actually the 1st visit since the beginning of the conflict back in 2022. what does this loan absence mean in your opinion? does nato still believe and the viability of the key of government? the price of the ukraine is an instruments and they started to put it bluntly and straightforwardly. they took countries of waging a hybrid war against russia. a hybrid war consists of many elements. it includes 1st and foremost, informational and audiological aspects, demonizing russia and attributing also a malicious plans to us. the latest spin has been that if the west suffers any setbacks in ukraine and brush it will definitely evade probably to the end the baltic states. and then there's all the hysteria about the swanky gap claiming restroom. bella roost will close it off to get a connection to clinton grad invite the baltic states. and this will be the end of may 2nd, because nathan must always have the all behind it. any situation and dictate it's times everyone that's number one. number 2 is what's happening in the economic

space. $50000.00 sanctions of the same is happening in all other areas. political and military. ukraine is just a favorable where the proxy wars unfolding directly on the battlefield. it didn't start to day. i remembered vividly the time when the might on was just beginning of that time. nato countries might end the statement that you had a copy of it should never used for the on forces should remain in the barracks. as soon as the victorious government came to pound key. if they was an onto a native language ton $190.00 degrees, they started talking about how each country has the right to use this on forces to defend, to get separate to the web at the what the separatist was to drop from their rhetoric . because that would mean nato acknowledge that the company to new crate was internal. they needed to position the conflict as you craze will against russia, with russia thing labeled and aggressive country. unfortunately, that's what data is military policy and you create looked like. so you cream was deliberately turned into an empty rush at projects, activity supporting types. it's

a long story. it's hard to say just how far they will go into support. and it's clear that no one is planning to accept the crate or whatever remains of it. any way, however, the support provided by not only native but also the you countries as a long term horizon. for example, you funds allocated for you create support including the purchasing weapons and forming coalition to supply altered rate. i munition shelves, mon protective vehicles and so i won't have a plan horizon until 20. 27 separate plans exist within native framework that we seeking ways to continue training the ukraine of forces personnel, they will continue contribution and target designation, recognizance communications, and so on. and that's reality, but we know that they are already huge numbers of most of reason. ukraine is one of us volunteers, and offices. however, all of them will be gradually and systematically eliminated as our forces advance and strength, ukrainian territory, and brushes special military operation efforts. it is, you just close this question about how fall will go in supporting ukraine. we know

that kia fritz pod is increasingly looking to drive native deeper and deeper into this conflict. i mean, only recently we had the crating and for i'm going to stop pulling on nato to return to the practice of conducting training exercises in ukraine on deploying the pub basis. so i just want to know, in your opinion, do you think that nato will pete schools and if so, what reaction can we expect from russia? very due to both of those, those bases well, but that was already a, a mandatory based when nato troops afraid and that, so that they say it's a completely legitimate target smokey's search and see, looking a bit broad uh, now beyond ukraine's food is, i mean, we currently witnessing increase need to activity in the south, poke. so what's the main goal of the alliance in this region?

and does watch so already have an understanding of what specific methods the lights will try to use to achieve this goal for any money up front of me? absolutely, there is understanding, look at nature strategically, documents which the dates defined brush as a direct and immediate threat to the lines they've decided. russia is a direct and immediate threat to the lights. this idea was born in their minds. secondly, by some military construction and no nato activities, wherever they have a agent containing rush out, and this type of central asia and the south coax. there's also regions where russia needs to be contained. pressure can be contained primarily through the destruction of historical ties between russia and dog places. bottom is this containment is not any about ne sites. i told you about the us, the are paid unit. another act is involved in this. they can tell you, brush it by preventing the strengthening of the, your ration economic, your audience, preventing the strengthening of the collective security treaty organization. and preventing the strengthening of the shanghai cooperation organization arrive

a is about preventing you raise your news and they don't want the ration region to be shaped as a region of peace, security and harmonies. and this is a nightmare for our opponents of the west. this is the trends that will likely prevail in the coming years. not because of our desire, but because the world is becoming multi problems and economic drivers, as one of the drivers of political influence is shifting as of today towards asia, particularly the, your age and region went, trying to rush and aid your presence. the overarching task is to find a new fed balance of relations that would allow firstly to maintain peace and security and stability, and as well and to solve problems through political meets. certainly it would create conditions for trade, economic interaction and prosperity for all the people sharing this voss ration regents. this whole, the global task lies precisely and preventing the formation of this. you ration unity to drive wages between russia and china to drive wages between russia in india as a drive, which is of course,

between russia and these partners in the south coast is major. we've also seen, you said that they see peace as some kind of nightmare, but how can not be as the say over notice like a native is a defensive alliance. so how does that fits in with these claims of being of a purely defensive nature sorta. unfortunately, the history of nato is the history of import into trying to show up to put it mildly because the things they have done in 1999 the bomb to states in the center of europe. it's been attacked by international terrace, which they pumped in for 78 days. they caused the tragedy in the rock and the tragedy in libya. the almost destroyed series and many of us like afghanistan, that's the history. so i don't know what they mean when they say it has been successful. the 1st phase of the alliance as a source of confrontation hosting division. they tow, as it is now, does not serve the goal of comment to you or pay the security or even the interest sivitz are members. the

garage of business and the system must be why, but just keep them in the system with key at the washington state. the process is to do the computer system phone and send that to professional the city and to you for the list of over a huge but they use the

look forward to talking to you all that technology should work for people. a robot must obey the orders given by human beings accept. we're so charters at conflict with the 1st law. show your identification should. we should be very careful about our personal intelligence. the point obviously is to rakes a truck rather than to the area. i mean with artificial intelligence, we have somebody with the in the robot most protects this phone. existence was the

the ukraine has become an outright terrorist states for 10 years. it has been terrorized and civilians both within its own country and beyond its borders. ross's top diploma tiers in to ukraine and it's western sponsors climbing. they have been old to ready to turn a blind eye to key of atrocities over the years. nato's cheese and says, pumping ukraine with more mandatory 8 is an investment in the blocks own security for moscow's former envoy to the alliance as the t of simply be used as a tool, an approximate war against the rocks you will not be as printed. ukraine is an instrument for nato to put it bluntly and straightforwardly state the countries of waging a hyper.