story, so these are extremely irresponsible steps and statements. the consequences of strikes on nuclear facilities could be extremely severe. uncontrolled escalation could occur, and everyone would be affected. ask for a former us senior security official, john bolton's calls to targeting to renew nuclear facilities. he is a famous person at one time he was in the diplomatic service, but he did not become a true diplomat. this is his mentality. he does not rely on diplomacy, but on the use of force. in this case, such statements are precisely an attempt to rely on forceful methods, which i repeat, could lead to complete chaos in the middle east. these are the responsible and extremely dangerous statements, although, to be honest, i know bolton a bit. i met him personally many years ago, but he is such a person being a diplomat, i probably shouldn't talk about hypothetical scenarios,

but i will refer to and a written in military statement that iran knows where is really military facilities are located and will take appropriate measures if something like this happens, that is almost a threat to respond in a similar way for the region. this could mean a severe radiological disaster and a major war. but it is better even not to discuss such scenarios. let's just hope and pray. they never materialize. it is, and that is where we leave things from the news room here in law school for now. but there's plenty more ahead this our own r t c was showing wherever you are today. in moments, goodbye the

. the russian states never is as tight as one of the most sense community best. most all set and set up the same assistance must be the one else holes. question about this, even though we will then in the european union, the kremlin mission, the state on the russians cruising and split the r t smooth net keeping our video agency roughly all the band on youtube tv services. for what question did you say a request, which is the

acceptance? and i'm going to plan with you whatever you do. do not watch my new sho. seriously . why watch something that's so different. whitelisted opinions that he won't get anywhere else. what could i please or do the have the state department, the c? i a weapons, bankers, multi 1000000000 dollar corporations. choose your fax for you. go ahead like change and whatever you do. don't watch my shell stay main street because i'm probably going to make you uncomfortable. my show is called stretching time. but again, you probably don't wanna watch it because it might just change the way it stands, the new jews, because as then choose for many centuries,

the way that they made best. acute did once bullshit games oppressed and nobody can know it seems that the bodies in young smoke you by the same with the you know, his name is gonna go to the stage of the us, the, just the stitching. yeah. we should have a button which is with a computer chair issue as best for us to do a number of us who are the super intuitive down your that they're just interest most as an engineer. because what i no longer wish to live for production, the for them. and it was the last the groups, are they all just in the kind of money on the phone with the police? i'm a part of the full of korean and i think that could of us additional. okay. 20 minutes for us kind of in much less for the 1st day of this to bring in

a noise. yeah. i mean, the only, so i can spend, if i need to, okay. and so especially with the combust from we're signing the style interest, there's couple of thoughts or choice essentials to the team, almost finished a program. so this will in graphics, which is really the i got busy, well just ask some questions, concerns. no, tony though swap for us in here. but tell us citizens as well every day and we hear from the west that they will not stop until the rushes to fit it strategically. every day, these threats become more terrible, smell, terry fine. recently the command of these tony and armed forces announced that they were destroyed to russian cities if something were to happen,

or if it's new case economists rejoiced over the sides that you green had apparently created a drone, the bomb side beer in cities, johnson and all the say that if they did not reached victory on the battlefield, but ami costs, and it won't end wesley gemini, which means that you will be a defeat from the home west. and it's common to you. so all of which resembles in a beat me, i don't know what it's like so experience nuclear weapons or be more. and i pray that i know well what, what do you think about the prospects of what is going to happen and you're stuck up for 6 years. so i think that all this talk about inflicting defeat on russia and focusing on the existential meaning of this for the future of the west is not so much a sign of their militant attitude, but of agony and hysteria. you quoted johnson who said, if we allow russian to win, it will be the end of our gemini. this can basically be used by the international court of justice as confession of guilt, and a case about violating the u. n's main principles,

the solver and the quality of states, and the court has to pay attention to that. and there are many statements made in the same tone. if they lose their influence. russia is going to work with china. iran, north korea syria to remodel this world. this is not self confidence. on the contrary, this reflects their understanding. they call it their battle to preserve their gemini. but in fact, we're speaking about the formation of a new multi polar world order. and this term erm is being used very often. so if somebody is tired of it, we can use other terms, e quote, just to the democratic world of order, where everyone will act based on the principle that i mentioned to be the issue of the un charter talks about the solver and the quality of states there is that fear of losing a gemini, but there is also the fact that they are very honest. and maybe they do not even

notice it. but they make it clear that the us is the master, and they all bends to it. i mean, go on a nato's deputy secretary general. he is from romania and he said it just 10 days ago that the world starts the era of harsh competition between the west on the one hand and russia and china on the other, russia and china and all the rest, take different actions to undermine american power not the power of nato, not the power of the west, but that of america. and that is why, according to this deputy secretary general from romania, the us needs its european allies. this is the meaning of nato's existence, presented by one of its main spokesmen and representatives. there are many such statements, but if we're speaking about confessions, johnson says that they're going to lose their head. gemini, burrell says that there is a blooming garden surrounded by

a jungle. you recently says something. maybe he was disappointed or maybe nervous, but he said, we are not fighting for ukraine. we're fighting for us. we're fighting against the rush. i mean, not for ukraine, but against russia. news you, there are many such statements. well, estonia is threatening to destroy a leg by calls we buried under rocks or something like that because it has already been commented on. we cannot seriously talk about this, right? well, my call is very far from us, tony and when you, well they say they have new drones. this, they keep bragging the store, but the stoney a lot via and lithuanian power on the forefront of those who threatened us and keeps saying that they will send troops, wage war and so on. sure, this shows that there was an evolution of nato before, and the decisive rule was given to the united states, of course, but also to europe's most important countries. and now states like poland,

baltic countries, the czech republic, from bulgaria under its current government and others, set the tone. so the major european countries have to go along shoes. like for instance, president mack krohn nervously talked about sending french troops. then other people saying that he was not understood correctly, and after that he again says that he was understood correctly and there is information that military instructors are already working. there may be some other representatives of the european military or other security services we do in this regard. our track is very simple. if you didn't want to negotiate, honestly, we presented a treaty on european security in 2008, 2009. when we proposed one simple thing, for instance, and assemble in 1999, you stated that security is indivisible and countries are free to choose their alliances. but they cannot do it if they strengthen their own security at the expense of others. and it was stated directly and all the participants,

our c e presidents is up and the prime ministers signed the documents at the top level. i'm agreeing that no country or alliance and the always see was going to dominate. that was 1999. since then, nato has continued with its dominance track, and we said that it was a political declaration with political commitments signed by president's not some 3rd secretaries from embassies. and we said that if you cannot fulfill your commitments, maybe we could codify it, codified this declaration with the same provisions. so we would have a treaty on european security that would be legally binding. but they said, no, see i legally binding security guarantees can be obtained only in need of the most . but what about the o s. c e o you signed it? and so you said that no one is going to dominate, and they answered that. it was just a political statement. then they said that nato was non expansion,

was just an oral statements. the same with the nato, russia founding act. yes, it was done in writing this the engine, but it's not a legally binding documents. we were very patient, it's the president said many times and that's for a long time he forced himself to preserve some kind of trust hoping that something would happen if the west comes to his senses and starts acting in a reasonable and polite way. but none of that has happened in 2008, 2009. they withdrew from the treating, refused to discuss it with us. there was one treated with nato and another one and a context of the o. c. it was a legal agreements and in 2021 to the end of the year after a meeting at the for administrator. president fulton proposed to prepare a treaty that would be a modern treaty based on modern realities. but they refused to even discuss x to i was one of those 2 parts. in that process, there was a delegation that consisted of deputies from different agencies. and then i met

with blinking in january 10th or 11th in geneva. and he said, there can be no obligations as far as nato's non expansion is concerned. so well, the americans withdrew from the i n f treaty. we were disappointed, even though we withdrew because you had already violated it. i reminded him that when they withdrew, we said okay, if you think that this is the only way out for you, go ahead. but we introduced a moratorium and we propose that the americans introduced their own and more tory and president putin's initiative told us exclusively. if you suspect that now risk unders deployed in the region of colon and grad still carrying the mid range missiles that are prohibited by this treaty, you are welcome to come and see and verify. but in return, we also want to be able to visit your air defense basis in poland and romania,

equipped with the systems whose manufacturer issue lockheed martin clearly says that they can be used both for conventional and mid range grounds to air ballistic missiles that were banned by industry, while these air defense spaces, with this equipment were deployed there, while the treaty was still in force. and the us said, no, so we made an honest proposal. please come and check if you suspect us of anything . and we will go and see whether what lockheed martin says is true, but they refused to do that. i approached mister blinking with our comprehensive proposal. i said, you're concerned with the critical situation around ukraine that is essentially created by your efforts. but he said no. nato was not up for discussion regarding that proposal of yours you made before about the mid range missiles. maybe we could look into it and agree and that these missiles, since they're not prohibited by the treaty anymore, and it could be placed,

for instance, in ukraine. and we will be willing to limit the number of such missiles in ukraine or cube. well, i don't even know what else i need to explain on the subject of why the special military operation that became inevitable to ukraine. had a hard core new nazi regime. and power that banned all things russians in the west was pumping it with weapons. we considered it a direct threat to our security, our traditions, and our legitimate interests as well. i couldn't make my answer any shorter than that, but you will not actually right while we're on the subject of ukraine, the surely a top priority topics. and here's what i would like to ask because they keep saying quite openly that they want to destroy us. they cannot accept our country the way it is to, so i have to hand it to them that they don't try to hide it. they've taken all those steps that you've just mentioned, whereas russia and this is what i find hard to understand. we keep saying that we are ready to negotiate. who are we going to negotiate with? again, even if hypothetically, we weren't going to have negotiations,

they're going to just lie to us the very next day. so one question is why negotiate with people that do not keep their word? and another question, speaking about ukraine, what is our goal there? when we speak about negotiations, we think we keep saying that we will achieve all our goals. those mentioned at the very beginning did not suffocation demilitarization for as long as the same authority stay in power or some other authorities of the same type. we will not be able to reach those objectives here. mock has been included in the top 100 list of most prominent politicians. wells, the lensky has not, well, it doesn't make much of a difference. so i'm saying here, mark is still in charge of all these processes. but with these people in power, we cannot accomplish our objectives. who do we want to see there? what should it be like? well, i cannot give a short answer to that either. first of all, what are the objectives and why and on what conditions are we ready to have negotiations? firstly, as our president's keeps saying,

we always prefer negotiations to fighting a war. and yes, we have had this experience when the premiums realized they went too far. bombing done bass and using direct methods of genocide against the russians on their own, as they call its territory. and proposed to have negotiations, 2 or 3 weeks after the beginning of the special military operation, we agreed right away. there were several rounds of negotiations which is well known in bell arose then online. after that, we went to assembled where the ukrainians presented their initial proposals. after a discussion these proposals were accepted. they included a commitment to cancel the laws that discriminated ethnic minorities. first of all russians. and to cancel their support for the movements glorifying and promoting the nazi ideology that were condemned to by the nuremberg trials. as for the territorial aspects of a couple of days ago,

for an affairs magazine published the piece about that negotiation, that is clearly an attempt to try and justify what the west did. let me explain for an affairs said the us and u. k. really told zalinski not to sign the deal, but they did it allegedly not because they wanted to continue their proxy war and ukraine and put a strain on the russian federation and to eliminate innocent russian civilians. but because they were concerned for that once they saw that the proposal was included and the creation of a guarantor group for ukraine security that included russia, china, and the west. and the reason for their concern is truly amazing. they said, well, we can sign it. but what of disagreement does not stand somebody attacks ukraine? maybe russia attacks ukraine, and in this case, as guarantors for ukraine, we would have to fight the war with russia. but this isn't something we want to and you see this is a very sophisticated logic to figure out. first of all,

the suggestion was to have the 5 nations, as well as germany and turkey, a act as guarantors of disagreements. if you happen to be a guarantor state or you're invited to be one and you're thinking if another gear interest age violates that agreements, then i would have to engage in a war against that to guarantee our nation. it means they think everyone is just like them violating agreements or something they do easily and they take it for granted that such agreements can be violated by some other party. just like the agreement of february 2014 was violated. the very next morning, after signs and let us together and to you by france and germany and poland. and they did the same with the men's agreements as was proud legal knowledge by chancellor merkel, president alons and for a strangle himself. and this is an interesting observation whenever they calculate well scheming against us and try to anticipate our potential response. we try to think of how we would react while applying their own mentality and logic. but

speaking of their mentality, recently a famous us political scientist, a post cold, was voiced, some serious criticism of the west, middle in terms of pragmatism. and some practical aspects mentioning sanctions for one sanctions are normally imposed in order to change someone's behavior. and if you really understand how that party will respond, the west however, applies more and more sanctions in a totally mindless manner without giving a thought as to what the outcome might be. and the outcome was obvious from the one, even before the beginning of the special military operation after crimea related sanctions were introduced. and a number of other sanctions, the outcome was obvious. we pulled ourselves together and i hope we can do an even better job. there is more we can do as our president mentioned on multiple occasions. so we pulled ourselves together things and decided that we will not to

depend on the west in any area where they can try to restrict our development. and i hope in all other areas as well. now, they probably claim they got rid of the russian gas. but in fact, exports has been growing to many countries, including france and literally push literally recently happily reported, so that they planned to reduce the share of russian gas and their consumption from 90 percent to 0. within 3 years german chancellor schoultz did the same, presenting it as a victory to his voters, saying germany has dramatically reduced to dependence on russian energy resources and will soon be completely independent. but nobody mentions the price they're paying for this, or how much their expenses have grown to provide for the population of the population. however, it sees the effects that i showed it was a great mistake as the episcopal success. and so to miscalculate the russian response, because they failed to realize that sanctions can only be efficiency if the sanction party is ready to change his behavior from in order for these sanctions to

be lifted. and if the sanction party declares outright that it's not going to change his behavior, there's no point to proceed with the policy. but that is exactly the policy pursued by our counterparts of just now returning to the question about negotiations, i wanted to emphasize a very interesting points and they failed to realize that if we're place in a situation where we can be strategically defeated, murphy destroyed. in fact, as a global stakeholder and they failed to realize that this isn't something we wouldn't be scared by. they would have been scared if somebody antagonize them with the same fury, a band and, and capacity still exists in the global economy. however, this only solidified, as i suggest, that they draw conclusions from this listing of history. and if the past 250 years were insufficient for them as for the talks and we haven't discussed it yet. but i hope i will not be criticized for this. what were the guarantees and stipulated in the symbol agreements?

the guarantees were very simple. so we were ready to appease the wish of the ukrainian delegation to make these guarantees of our most serious. and the benchmark of seriousness was particle, 5 of the washington treating that established the north atlantic treaty organization. and it was not reproduced to word for word. the wording was different, but very serious security guarantees were outlined. and it was specifically noted that the security guarantees did not cover crimea and dumbass, which effectively meant that they were not to be touched to otherwise no guarantees would apply. it was also stipulated in this dark, you mentioned that ukraine would not hosting any for and military faces. that is as far as the militarization is concerned. so if, if there were also provisions as let them are poor dimensions during his meeting with african delegations last summer in st. petersburg regarding the number of weapons and personnel deployed. and it was also said that ukraine would not conduct the military drills involving the armed forces of 3rd countries. except for cases

when all the guarantor of states agree, including russia and china. that was it. and we were prepared to commit to that. but it was said, of course, that the negotiations will continue on other aspects, but the hostilities would stop pushing into this security guarantees would apply to racism neo nazi and discriminatory laws would be a ball lifting ukraine. and then when all of these aspects, where'd we'd applauded suddenly, negotiators from care approached us to say they wish to make some minor amendments . for instance, as for the band to hold military exercises with 3rd forces. except for the cases, when all the guarantor states agree, they said let us replace this part with ation quotes. when the majority of guarantors agree to this, that was the 1st warning call indicating that either they had been banned from doing this over night, or they decided to mess with us russians

a little bit longer. that was just to give you one example. and at the present stage, we have always maintained the restroom, presidents and me, and spokesperson mutual best calls. and there's no one asks if russia was ready for negotiations. that the president of you, praying with band himself, from having talks with us. and clinton said once, when asked this question that he needs to at least a bullish that decree as the 1st step. and then we simply don't have any trust in them. this is an important points to emphasize. we try to make ourselves trust them for a long time, but it was all in vain. and we said, unlike the inside bull process, we would not possibilities for the period of the talks in the process must continue to get to you. and secondly, the reality is on the ground have changed and drastically fundamentally, and they are to be taken into account by realities on the ground. i mean, not only the position of troops and the line of contacts of light also mean amendments to russia's constitution in view of adding for new,

but also old regions for of russia's original territory. see, this is what everyone needs to understand. and it is crystal clear that they are not only failing to recognize this fact. they're not even ready to look for potential compromises. that is the lensky formula. useful to meet him with no alternatives and the list goes on and on with the then the the

of the 1937 militaristic, japan started a full scale invasion of china. the invading army was rapidly advancing towards the capital of the republic of china. the dies, the city of not seeing, leaving behind the burned down villages and thousands of the dead. on december 13th, the japanese occupied 9 z and states the real massacre. for 6 weeks,

the invaders exterminated the civilian population. they carried out mass executions, rates, women, and were engaged, been merciless robbery. ruthless competition of 2 officers of the imperial army. so c r e. my guide and to yoshi, no to gain particular notoriety. they competed with each other as to who would be the fastest to kill $100.00 chinese with us or this month for his competition was widely reported in the japanese press to the non being massacre, clay for the lives of about 300000 people and became one of the largest crimes against humanity in the world history. after world war 2, manufactures advance of the atrocity phase trial. however, the commander of the japanese army in the non seeing operation freezes, yasu e to

a socket, was able to escape the responsibility due to the interference of the american administration. the look forward to talking to you all that technology should work for people. a robot must obey the orders given by him and beings, except with such short or is it conflict with the 1st law? show your identification. you should be very careful about our professional intelligence at the point obviously is to make a trust or rather than fit the various jobs with artificial intelligence, we have somebody in the team and the robot must protect this phone. existence was on the

headline story. this our, the us congress green lights, another $60000000000.00 for ukraine, despite the majority of republic and highest members opposing the bill. both of us are the and over and i just really strongly come to a residential building in the southern gas in the city overall kills at least 9 people, including 6 children, according to local authorities. the police to palestinians are killed during a multi day id f rate in the.