there are always dissatisfied people, europe is starting to feel feverish, why are europeans protesting? telephone law, who will stop trump? materials of our program. we got together and i said america. returned, american from germany, no, from france, looked at me and asked why, how long have you been back? joe biden about his conversation with the heads of other countries, the seven, after his election, well, he confused macron with the late meteran, who doesn’t happen to anyone. meterand, by the way, led france the longest, 14 years, and biden, as a member of the senate committee. on international

i met him on business, but the slip was actually quite freudian. fransamiran was the last truly major statesman at the elysee palace, controversial, but had a holistic idea of ​​the place of france and europe in the world. like all french leaders after world war ii, he remained a forced atlanticist, with nowhere to go, but within the community he aggressively defended the economic interests of his own. in the early years of his presidency in the early eighties, the meteran was very vocal, particularly at the meetings of the group of seven. usa reproached in protectionist selfishness, and europeans in weakness. the united states is forcing us to pay for its unemployment with its budget deficit, and for some reason we are allowing reagan to continue the policies that are crushing us, miteran said. and further. our european common

market, americans should not dictate here. quite relevant: i remember, for example, the law on reducing inflation, adopted by the biden administration a year and a half ago, from which the eu simply howled with outright protectionism. against the backdrop of global instability in europe, the question has arisen: are we not finding ourselves are we extreme? nobody questions the military-political leadership of the united states, but... costs are growing, the population doesn’t like it, politicians are nervous, but the veterans are somehow unnoticed. recently, europe has been gripped by mass protests, with hundreds of tractors blocking highways and streets in cities in germany, france, spain, ireland, belgium and the netherlands. farmers are unhappy with agricultural policy. the european union and requires a revision

of national legislation. amsterdam requires reducing hydrocarbon emissions, for example, by reducing livestock numbers. berlin ends tax subsidies for farmers. all farmers are worried about the new eu free trade agreement with the mercosur countries. these are brazil, argentina, uruguay and paraguay. brussels, farmers say, does not hold latin american suppliers to the same standards. what's on the domestic market? the eu's green policy is presented as an attempt to create a healthy food system in the eu. with its help, brussels hopes to achieve climate neutrality by 2050. for farmers, this means a sharp decrease use of pesticides. protesters believe that the goals set will lead to the destruction of agriculture. the number of angry citizens is growing. in france, for example, except for farmers.

school teachers are on strike, demanding higher wages and a review of working conditions. protests are taking place not only in the capital, but in other major cities. dockers at the ports of le havre, marseille and rouen went on strike this week. they demanded the cancellation of the new pension reform. there will be a strike at the airports of berlin and hamburg on february 1 carried out by aviation security officers seeking a salary increase. all flights were canceled and there was a strike. europe, farmers are dissatisfied with cheap supplies of agricultural products from ukraine. the eu canceled duties after the start of the svo, and carriers are angry that cargo transportation rules have been simplified for kiev. all this puts a strain on the already not very rich eastern europeans. truckers from poland and romania even blocked for some time. and partners,

she specializes in macroeconomic research. yakov, why is this happening? mass unrest in the agricultural sector, well , literally throughout europe? is this an indicator of general economic problems, or just another industry-wide trial? well, i would not overestimate the events that are now taking place in certain sectors of the european economy. indeed, there is a set of reasons that caused tension in agriculture, this is the removal of quotas on... ukrainian products, this is a significant increase in the cost of fertilizers, which is quite significant, over 25% of the cost of grains, if we take them as a base, they the cost of fertilizers , which are quite energy-intensive to produce, has increased from two to five times in recent years,

plus the cost of fuel itself, including diesel, which is quite significant for farmers, in total, this, of course, has brought quite a lot of problems for them in economically, both from the point of view of costs and from the point of view of limiting demand, we see from surveys in the european union of consumers, including fairly wealthy ones, are beginning to choose more and more cheap products, moving away from the choice healthy eating, healthy eating was a characteristic feature of agricultural products from the european union, in fact , with all this, if we talk about the structure of the economy, then on average in the european union the share of agriculture is about 2.5% of gdp, but for artist amarim from brazil, the forest is being cut down, the wood chips are flying, in our case, the stars of the european union. reaction to the protests of european farmers

across the ocean. the sarcastic dutchman, fuck bertrams with his view of the situation. the drawing is called allergy to tractors. image european union. reads correctly. another dutchman is maarten woltering, with an alternative approach. saving farmers is the business of the farmers themselves. this harms the fight to save the climate. we're just wasting time. swiss ramses is a recognizable image of french president macron. the drawing is called angry tractors. figurative presentation of information. let's continue the theme of france. slovakian marian kamensky does not reduce the intensity of the struggle. farmer protests against the backdrop of paris. on the tank it is written: macron. and the outcast woman who pushes the tractor is marin lepen. another work by the wicked dutchman ep bertrams. about the situation as a whole, so to speak, the drawing is entitled, explosive atmosphere. we

would say that the situation is heating up. in germany they started saying that the country was losing its competitiveness and that urgent work was needed. measures, what are the causes of the crisis in the most economically powerful country in europe? the most straightforward option is germany’s high dependence on energy resources from the russian federation , including over 55% for natural gas , 34% for oil, plus of course the economy was and is quite export-oriented against the backdrop of protecting the increase in the cost of key factors. into production for energy-intensive industries, such production, this is chemical before production, this is petrochemicals, the same fertilizers that we talked about, this could not but affect the situation in individual sectors of the german economy, on the one hand, on the other hand, there is a clear set political steps that the german

economy is implementing quite consistently, including a move away from nuclear energy , hence the factor of energy independence, which decides... the european union leads directly to fairly expensive sources of energy, whether it is liquefied gas now or there is wind energy, solar energy, all this in terms of kilowatt-hours in the moment, this turns out to be a more expensive source than capacious ones, such as pipeline gas or nuclear energy, relations with china have always been critically important for germany, it is still a fairly significant trading partner, both an exporter and an importer of germany performs here. and we see that now significant restrictions are beginning to appear from the point of view of possible interaction with china politically, first, then the economic consequences, this also cannot but affect the german economy, which is quite significantly involved in international trade. the transition from the geopolitics of globalization

to blocism, this is blocism, bloc discipline, if we take, say, not the west as a whole, but the european union, it has always been considered beneficial to the largest economies, the same thing. germany and france occupy about 40% of the eu gdp. the european union, to position it, is about 21 trillion international dollars if we buy at parity. we look, that is, the third economy in the world is quite large with a population of 450 million. so here are two countries, france and germany 40%. but if you look at the share in budget transfers, the european union, which redistributes these economies, receives only 10%. that is, in fact, these are two economies of the donor, and this had a fairly clear rationale, because through this the development was stimulated lagging economies. economics from a perspective. per capita in terms of poverty level, infrastructure, but a striking example is poland, which

is, for example, the largest recipient of many programs, well, italy goes further there, and so on, and also poland in recent years is just on average there was 4% , the average for the european union, depending on the period of the seventeenth year, i’m looking at about 1.2, and in germany this rate was simply lower, it was somewhere on the order of magnitude; in recent years it dropped quite sharply to 0.3. show what is it about speaks? that the solution created will stimulate, at the expense of the german economy , the development of the peripheral parts of the european union. this model, of course, was a strategic step, if you look at the top priorities of the european union, energy security, equalizing regional disparities between countries and digitalization, these are the three priorities. it’s understandable when the minister of economics of germany already says that our ability is declining, what is he talking about? maybe the time has come when we need to allocate part of the funds to development already of the german economy, a very interesting

development, and if the integration principles are not beneficial to the largest , serious consequences can follow from this, including political ones, well, at least economic consequences follow, we see, for example, that already now approximately again in poland, which i mentioned the growth rates last year have already begun to differ slightly from the standard 4%, that is, they have fallen, that is , we see that the opportunity for redistribution... will certainly decrease due to the fact that the pace is slowing is simple, both in germany and in france , it will obviously be necessary to look differently at the structural european union as a whole, it will be necessary to remember the largest economies, competitiveness, because the same france has a nuclear energy model there, which is now declared as some national tasks, but they don’t really understand it, even though they seem to say that they are ready to allocate 50 people there.

the time has come when it is necessary to pay for insurance, the consequences are clear, there are

capital, there is also a need to purchase energy resources, including expensive ones, lng, the same one that the asians used to overpay for, but this, this is a choice, yes, this is such a big, geostrategic choice, i think in this sense, it is important that these events happened; it is indeed clear that the american economy is benefiting relative to the european one. recent years, but here i repeat the question again, of the political economic dialogue that should take place in europe, it is no coincidence that macron and scholz actually visited washington, there were also attempts to discuss the fairness of the economic gain, yes , i won’t go into these details now, but in essence, the americans are quite pragmatic in maximizing their own profitability, and we see this, including how american business is more flexible, or what? are now functioning in interaction with different countries, compared with the fact that european business, yes, therefore,

well, yes, the americans turned out to be more skillful entrepreneurs, the american economy is developing into a completely different paradigm, now, she actually says , there that according to the consensus that was reached within the framework of the so-called re-economics, yes, that is, in fact, business obviously has a reduced tax burden, social burden, we see this now in the consequences of infrastructure, in america in particular including yes from the point of view of living standards and so on, but this allows the international expansion of business , in europe there was another conscious choice, we see in europe exactly the model for the development of civil society, development consumer society. housing, about the fact that there is a social support system, the fight against poverty, including that which has not been defeated in these countries, precisely these poorest countries of the european union, this agenda will definitely have to somehow interact with it, but

it will be necessary -to do, that is, either to admit that we will then have a conscious... guarantee of security in the european union; it well explains the almost hysterical state in which the political class of the european union finds itself, due to the possible return of donald trump. in in this case, the fearful are worried that either the insurance payment will increase sharply, or the provision of services will simply be refused, and what then? indeed, the defense of the old

world relies almost exclusively on american power. after world war ii , american troops remained in europe by decision of the yalta and podsdam conference, but already in august 1945, us president harry truman said that he considered the us military presence in western europe as a means for global politics from the position strength. after the landing in normandy in june forty years , numerous military personnel passed into american hands. they housed five deployed divisions, which were subordinate exclusively to the american command, and four more divisions of the joint nato armed forces. they opposed the warsaw pact troops deployed to the front lines in the gdr and czechoslovakia. after the collapse of the ussr, nato expanded to the east. the alliance initially included

the warsaw pact countries, then the three former baltic republics of the soviet union. most recently finland, which for the first time last november led nato's icy winds 23 exercise . ground-based missile defense systems have become a new component of the american military presence in europe. the ideas of the bush junior administration, and the european pro began to be implemented under obama. under him, it was decided to move the mk-41 ship launch systems overland. eages assure project. the first such complex, equipped with 24 interceptor missiles, was deployed at the devselu airbase in romania in 2016, the second at the redzikowa airfield in poland in december last year. egges ashure are dual-use systems that can launch not only anti-missile missiles, but also tamogaw attack cruise missiles. the command center of the european

segment of the american pro system is located at ramstein air base in germany. there is an airplane in the film. president, air force one, which is captured by terrorists, is trying to make an emergency landing right here. this is the largest us military base, in fact, an entire city. there are american schools, a shopping center, a post office and its own police station. they don't pay here euros, but in american dollars. ramstein is one of the bases where nuclear weapons are stored. after the start of the special military operation, it became the meeting place for the contact group. to support ukraine, it was decided here how much and what kind of weapons the west is ready to supply to kiev. the new york times claimed this week that germany is seriously discussing whether nato will survive if trump decides to pull the united states out of the alliance. how this is possible

is legally unclear. in addition to all the restrictions, congress at the end of last year also adopted additional ban. but fear has big eyes, it is extremely unlikely that trump will leave nato, absolutely hysterical rhetoric sounds: he is an enemy of democracy, he is hitler, stalin, he will make crazy decisions, he will destroy the alliance. the us government is too complex and its institutions too strong to allow any chance of anything revolutionary happening. when trump was president, he insisted on one thing: allies must pay their bills. and warned that america would not comply with article 5 of the nato charter on collective defense if they fail to meet financial obligations. in my opinion, this is a negotiating position, and he got his way...

i agree, he threatened to withdraw american troops. one day, trump even decided to raise rates, saying that in fairness, europe should pay 4% of gdp. by the way, the allies, rejecting the threats, began to gradually increase their defense budgets. if by 2017 the level of 2% of gdp was provided by only five nato countries, then by 2020 it will be nine. however, according to the european commissioners b...

the composition of the participants was france, great britain and the benelux countries , at that time, in the forty-eighth year,

these countries considered germany as the main threat, because all these, all five countries in the first and second world war were objects of german aggression, so the first thought was to create some kind of collective organization security, which could have worked in the event of german aggression, but since it was... 948, the transition from alliance to enmity had already come in the relations of the former members of the banty hitler coalition, therefore the possibility of protecting oneself in case of any actions on the part of the soviet union was considered. well, since, as i already said, the composition was small in number, only five countries, it was clear that this organization would not be able to cope with a large number of soviet divisions, accordingly, literally a year later nato was created. nevertheless, yes, despite the creation of nato, this organization, the brussels treaty organization or the western union, its second

name, it remained throughout cold war, and even after the cold war in the nineties, so if there was any talk in europe that suddenly the united states would reduce its military presence, suddenly they would be more interested. some other regions of the world, then there was such an organization that could be further developed, because there were governing bodies there, yes, there was a unifying agreement, there were obligations under this agreement, and periodically such discussions could arise, she gave again know itself in the nineties and even expanded, new participants joined this organization, and... it defined its powers, its tasks, yes, that is, what we will do in the nineties - peacekeeping operations, humanitarian operations, anti-crisis operations, but by 2000

years... disappeared completely, that is, it was already absorbed by the european union and, accordingly , all the structures that were there were already created anew in the european union, and the current european union, well, it can be considered like that, and a follower of this european organization, so if any independent actions are being discussed now, then this is already at the level of the european union, which also has its own system of governing bodies, teams of bodies. yes, the eu has a european policy in the field of security and defense, but it is significant that now, just when the time has come to use all the instruments, they do not remember it at all. europe has completely lost its fighting spirit. europe has built a welfare state and wants to spend resources on social needs, not on defense. of course, almost every european

country has a military industry. interest in its development, but none of them has the potential to play the role of a completely independent entity in the international arena. western europeans were never able to fully accept the fact that they had lost the imperial power that they had possessed one and a half to two centuries ago. they think they are still big players, but they are not. economically possible, but not in the classical military sense. it is significant that the theme is uniform european defense. arose not in the soviet or russian context, but mainly in relation to germany, not as an ally, but as a hypothetical threat, within the framework of european integration, the creation of a european army, this was the answer, the answer of the french, to the task posed by the americans, that the germans needed to be put under arms again , give them a bermah, a general staff , and so on, because that’s

what germany’s neighbors were afraid of in the first place. appearance of german soldiers of all military structures, they decided to create a european army, where they would multinational divisions, there would be no german divisions, but there would just be german soldiers, italian, french and so on, that is, this project was connected specifically with european integration, the author was jean mandey, well, this is a political project, because the military immediately criticized, something unviable would be an uncontrollable, uncontrollable army and so on, it never was.

informant sometimes, it seems to us, to the detriment of their own dignity as sovereign nations, but they just have a different logic, right? dignity is often synonymous with honor, and honor is a military virtue. the germans cannot truly revive the bandyspheres, they cannot return to compulsory military service by conscription, there is no conscription in any of these countries, they themselves have refused to consider themselves as nations of warriors, so honor and dignity in the traditional sense do not apply. the french, with their idea of ​​the need for greatness, would, of course, argue here, but even the most militant of their presidents understood that the greatness that is available is bright symbols of caution, to avoid getting involved in something too risky. the biggest, yes, military project is the nuclear project, because it was precisely the previous year that france became a nuclear

power in 1960. military issues were not discussed and the project of this political union also failed, so degol rather has a way out of the nato military organization, the nuclear project is french, his own, but at the same time , yes, the policy of détente in relations with the soviet union, that is, a reduction international tension, that is , detente on a bilateral basis, a little the outsider she became in the seventies .