hello, international review is on air, in the studio fedor ulken. today on the international review program. event of the week. chronicle, facts, comments. cultivation of european fears. washington is leaving nato. myth or reality. there are always dissatisfied people. europe is starting to feel feverish. why are europeans protesting?

telephone law: who will stop trump? materials from our program. we got together and i said, "america is back." 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 g7 countries after his election, well, he confused macron with the late meterand, who doesn’t happen to anyone. mitran, by the way, led france for the longest period of time, 14 years, and biden, as a member of the senate foreign relations committee, met with him. but the slip is actually quite freudian. fransamiran was the last truly major statesman at the elysee palace, controversial, but had. a holistic view of the place

of france and europe in the world. like all french leaders after world war ii, he remained a forced atlanticist, there was nowhere to go, but within the community he aggressively defended the economic interests of his country. in the early years of his presidency in the early eighties, miteran was very vocal, particularly at the meetings of the group of seven. he accused the united states of protectionist egoism and the europeans of weakness.

hundreds of tractors blocked highways and streets in cities in germany, france, spain, ireland, belgium and the netherlands. farmers are dissatisfied with the agricultural policy of the european union and demand a revision of national legislation. amsterdam requires reducing hydrocarbon emissions, for example, by reducing livestock numbers. berlin abolishes tax subsidies for farmers, all farmers.

worry about the eu's new free trade agreement with the mercosur countries, these are brazil, argentina, uruguay and paraguay. brussels, farmers say, does not require latin american suppliers to meet the same standards as in 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 achieve climate neutrality by 2050 . for farmers, this means a sharp reduction in pesticide use. protesters believe that the goals set will lead to the destruction of agriculture. the number of angry citizens is growing. in france, for example, in addition to 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 abolition of the new pension

reforms. aviation security officers went on strike at berlin and hamburg airports on february 1, seeking higher wages. all departures. were called off, and the strike was organized by germany's second largest trade union. earlier, german railway workers went on strike. residents of central and eastern europe have their own problems. 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 kiev has simplified cargo transportation rules. all this takes a toll and so not very rich eastern europeans. truckers from...

industry proceedings, 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 lifting of quotas on ukrainian products, this is a significant increase in costs fertilizers, which is quite significant, over 25% of the cost of grains, if we take them as a base, their cost of fertilizers, which is quite production is energy intensive. has increased from two to five times over the past year, plus the cost of fuel itself , including diesel, which is quite significant for farmers, in total, this of course brought quite a lot of problems for them in an economic sense, both in terms of costs , so from the point of view of limiting demand, we see from surveys in the european union

that consumers, including fairly wealthy ones, are beginning to choose more and more cheap products, moving away from choosing a healthy diet, namely healthy eating. was a characteristic feature of agricultural products from the european union, in fact. at the same time, if we talk about the structure of the economy, on average in the european union the agricultural dollar is about 2.5% of gdp, but for individual economies these are more significant figures, where some reach up to 8%. artist amarim from brazil, he cuts down the forest, the chips fly, in our case. stars of the european union. reaction to the protests of european farmers across the ocean. a caustic dutchman, eb bertrams with his own view of the situation. the drawing is called allergy tractors. the image of the european union is unmistakable. another dutchman is

maarten woltering, with an alternative approach. saving farmers is the business of the farmers themselves. this is detrimental to the fight to save the climate, and we are only wasting time. swiss. ramses is a recognizable image of the french president macron, the drawing is called angry tractors, a 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 she herself is an outcast the woman pushing the tractor is marine lepin. another work by the wicked dutchman ep bertrams. this is about the situation as a whole. say, the drawing is entitled, explosive atmosphere, we would say the situation is heating up, in germany they started saying that the country is losing competitiveness, urgent measures are needed, 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 the overthrow there. 5% for natural gas, there was 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 of production for energy-intensive industries, such industries as chemical production, petrochemicals, the same fertilizers that we talked about, this could not but affect the situation in certain sectors of the german economy, on the one hand. on the other hand, there is a clear set of political steps that the german economy is implementing quite consistently, including a move away from nuclear energy, hence the factor of energy independence , which the european union is now deciding, leads directly to fairly expensive

sources of energy, be it liquefied gas now or there, conventionally, wind energy, solar energy, all this in terms of kilowatt-hours at the moment, this turns out to be more ... such as corpse 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, 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, this is probably the second factor, i would say the transition from geopolitics of globalization to blocism, this is blochood, bloc discipline, if we take, say, not the west as a whole, but the european union always. was considered beneficial specifically to the largest economies, the same germany, germany together with france, they occupy about 40% of the gdp

of the european union, and the european union, to position it, is about 21 trillion international dollars, if we look at purchasing power parity, that is , the third economy in the world is quite large with a population of 450 million. so these are two countries, france and germany 40%. but if you look at the share in eu budget transfers, which... redistributes these two 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 involved stimulating the development of lagging economies, economic in terms of gdp per capita in terms of poverty levels, development in infrastructure, but a striking example is poland, which is, for example, the brightest largest recipient of many programs, well, italy goes further there and so on further and also on... in recent years the rate was simply on average 4%, on average for the european union, depending on

the period of the seventeenth year, look somewhere 1 and 2, and in germany this rate was simply lower, it was somewhere okay there are the last ones years, it dropped quite sharply to 0.3 somewhere and went away, what does this mean? that there was a conscious decision that, at the expense of the german economy, stimulates the development of the peripheral parts of the european union, and this model, of course, was a strategic step, if you look at the top priorities. well, at a minimum, economic consequences follow, we see, for example, that already

now in poland, which i mentioned , growth rates last year have already begun to differ slightly from the standard 4%, that is, they have fallen, that is, we see that there is an opportunity redistribution will certainly be reduced due to the fact that the slowdown is simple, both in germany and in france, it will obviously be necessary to look differently at the structural structure of the european union as a whole. it will be necessary to remember the largest economies and competitiveness, because the same france, having a model of nuclear energy there, which is declared as some national tasks, but is not very well understood, even despite the fact that it seems to say that they are ready to allocate 50 extra of these programs, against the backdrop of those problems, which they are observed there in general along the raw materials chain around nuclear projects from the point of view of the actual construction experience, that is, in general there is a set of complex issues of tasks that need to be solved before... quite quickly, if they are not solved in the next year or two, then the flywheel indeed, it can

swing there already in 5-7 years, we can reach the question that you are now posing, that is, how sustainable is the economic model of the european union as a whole. is it fair to say that the international geopolitical situation is going into damage to europe to gain for the united states? well, i would look at it, you know, as payment for insurance, that is, at one time the european union chose a model in which the costs of... defense capability were implemented, including at the expense of the united states of america, now, as we see, attempts to increase the share of costs for defense of the gdp of these countries, these negotiations are now underway at the level of the european union, in fact, now the time has come when it is necessary to pay for insurance, the consequences are clear, there is an outflow of capital, there is also a need to acquire energy resources, including expensive ones, lng , the same one that the asians used to overpay for, but this is a choice, yes, this is such a big, geostrategic choice,

in this sense, i think it is important that these events happened , it is indeed clear that the american economy has been gaining ground relative to the european economy in 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 both macron and scholz actually visited washington, and there were also attempts there. business is more flexible, perhaps, they now operate in interaction with different countries , compare with european business, yes, therefore , well, yes, the americans turned out to be more skillful entrepreneurs, the american economy, it is developing in a completely different paradigm now, it actually speaks there by consensus, which was achieved within the framework

of economics, so-called, yes, that is , in fact, business obviously has a reduced tax burden, social impact... which has not been defeated - in these countries, precisely these poorest countries of the european union, here this agenda will definitely have to be interacted with somehow, but something will have to be done, that is, either admit that in the european union we will then have consciously poor unresolved issues, there are some social ones and then another social contract, this point is necessary will definitely look for the question of whether

the rich or the richest countries will agree, because not only germany and france belong to them, scandinavia and holland also belong to it. the final 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 podzdam conference,

but already in august 1945, us president harry truman announced that he was considering a us military presence. western europe as a means for global politics from a position of strength. after the landing in normandy in june 1944, numerous military bases passed into the hands of the americans, with five deployed divisions located on them, which were subordinate exclusively to the american command, and four more divisions of the joint nato armed forces. they opposed the troops of the warsaw pact organization. deployed at the forefront in the gdr and czechoslovakia. after the collapse of the ussr, nato expanded to the east. the alliance included first the warsaw pact countries, then the three former baltic republics of the soviet union, most recently finland, which last november led the first nato exercise, icy winds 23. a new component

the american military presence in europe has become. ground-based missile defense systems, the ideas of the bush junior administration, and the european one began to be implemented under obama. under him, it was decided to transfer the ship's launch systems mk-41, the "eigis assure" project, to land. the first such complex, equipped with 24 interceptor missiles, was deployed at the devicelu airbase in romania in 2016. the second at the redzikowa airfield in poland in december last year. edges assure. these are dual-use complexes that can launch not only anti-missiles, but tomoga strike cruise missiles. the command center of the european segment of the american pro system is located at ramstein air base in germany. in the film , the president's plane, air force one, which is hijacked by terrorists, tries to make an emergency landing here. this is

the largest us military base, in fact, an entire city. there are american schools and a shopping center here. they are seriously discussing whether nato will survive if trump decides to withdraw the united states from the alliance. how is this possible, legally unclear? besides all the restrictions, congress is at the end. last year i adopted an additional ban, but fear has big eyes. it is extremely unlikely that trump will leave nato.

the rhetoric sounds completely hysterical: he is an enemy of democracy, he is hitler, stalin, he will make crazy decisions, 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: the end of the world for nato, a nightmare, a mistake, the potentially fatal news of

donald trump's success in the primary elections in iowa and new hampshire has sent the united states' european nato allies into panic. the ex-president is skeptical about the format in which the alliance exists. back in the eighties, he proposed eliminating the huge us budget deficit by forcing allies. pay for american protection. later, in 2000, in the book the america we deserve, trump argued that european countries were using nato as a tool to impose the burden of international responsibility on the united states, while its conflicts are not worth american lives, leaving europe would save the united states millions of dollars annually. in 2016, when the presidential campaign began, trump called. the atlantic alliance , an outdated cold war organization that was supposed to operate on a commercial basis, demanded that alliance members increase their defense

budgets to 2% of gdp, and threatened those who disagreed with the withdrawal of american troops. one day , trump even decided to raise the stakes, saying that in fairness, europe should pay 4% of gdp. by the way, the allies, rejecting threats to... gradually increase defense budgets, if by 2017 the level of 2% of gdp was provided by only five nato countries, then by 2020 this will already be the case. however, according to european commissioner briton, in 2020, at a meeting with european commission president ursula vonderleen, trump said that nato is dead, and if europe is attacked, the united states will not come to its aid. absurd or not, the sublimation continues, especially since the expectations of a war with russia in europe are still more stable. it is interesting, by the way, that

it is in europe, and not in america, although it would seem, if we ignore the current exaltation, the very question of the military self-sufficiency of the old world is natural, and this is not the first time it has been raised, although attempts to create something common and defensive, but without the united states, they have not led anywhere since the middle of the last century. the first collective security organization was created in 1948, and it was a purely european organization, it was created with the approval, but without the participation of the united states of america, it was small in composition participants, france, great britain and the benelux countries, at that time in 1948 , these countries considered germany as the main threat, because all these... yes, all five countries in the first and second world wars were objects of german aggression, so the first thought was to create some kind of collective security organization

that could work in the event of german aggression, but since it was 1948, there was already a transition from alliance to hostility in the relations of the former participants in the anti-hitler coalition, therefore the possibility of protecting oneself in the event 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.

into this organization, 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 it disappeared with everything, 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. such a follower of this european organization, so if any are now any independent actions are being discussed, then this is already at the level of the european union, which also has its own system of governing bodies, teams of bodies created. 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. has europe 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 is interested in developing it, but none of them has the potential to play the role of a completely independent entity on the international stage. western europeans were never able to fully accept the fact that they had lost.

we'll skate cleanly on points , you remember everything, you know everything, we calm down, get together and win, kiss already, well , it's beautiful to go out on the ice, this is skill, come on, sank, all the hope is in you, well, old age is not a joy, yes, leaving beautifully, a whole

art. we can’t lose from you either, because irkutsk loves you, it loves you, it has become a coach, we are now colleagues, i don’t want to do this, how else can i explain it to you, don’t look, don’t look , of course, the whole world, you’re a goner or what? i think, if i were you, i would punch myself in the face, like everyone else... cool, ice three.