well, you see, what we are talking about is, in fact, more and more gradually, and is reflected even in the american discussion, and an increasing number of experts are beginning to express a similar point of view. what do you think, when this point of view nevertheless reaches, e.g., to the administration, when it understands that if russia understands this conflict as a hybrid war against itself by nato, then sooner or later russia may respond not to ukraine, but to to that side to that opponent to that opponent who leads against her war, and i'm not talking about the fact that russia can deliver some kind of military strike, but against, uh, the united states and their allies. after all, there can be a lot of tools, a lot of ways to cause damage. that's when the biden administration, in your opinion, will come to this understanding. a good russian

proverb until thunder strikes, a man will not cross himself. in this case, i mean from the big american guy in the white house, uh, there are a lot of experts in washington and in new york, who are looking at the situation more and more realistic, uh, there was just an article by richard hus, president of the council on foreign relations, that went in the same direction. i had a speech at our center yesterday. uh, where i said somewhat similar things. ah, but it hasn't come to the level of serious politics yet, because the politicians are guided. uh, if we're talking about, especially about the congress, well, the so-called corporate mussel on extreme. they still look at the media and not what the experts think. what's going on? here, if you want on the battlefield, well, and besides,

they have their own hopes and ideas about the beautiful , and when they are told that it is somewhat more difficult, that there is another country. they're not very inclined to hear it until they're told they've been slammed into the domes. and here i said about one interesting conversation that i had yesterday. here is the progress of my speech. eh, he asked me. e. question one very famous journalist. and why and russia i think that's not doing more by striking american supplies. well, in general, in principle, he shows a certain restraint in ukraine and i as would give uh, a number of circumstances. uh, including the fact that they still consider ukraine as a country with a brotherly people. and about the fact that there is not yet complete control in the air, because, among other things, ukrainian aviation and about soul defense are regularly signed up, fed with new supplies, and

so on. but after that i had a very interesting conversation with one person. e about administration. uh, which i can't say, not only its name, but i don't want to describe it in such a way that it can be easily calculated, because he spoke to me strictly confidentially, as to the publishers of a magazine, and not for russian television, but then he said such a very interesting and new thing for me. he said, you see, these deliveries, when there are so many and they have already ended up in ukraine there, what is called many ways. uh, airfield roads, including civilian ones. uh. oh, if you start all this, you will beat it , if not carpet bombing, this is very close to this and especially. uh, as soon as they

crossed the territory of ukraine, they direct everything. it's all in different places focuses. he says it sounds like it 's logical to beat them in ukraine but in practice it's hard. but if we are talking about those airfields where large american aid is delivered in europe, that is, heavy weapons that can be delivered on large aircraft. who are the airfields are not many? and so, if you hit them, on their runways. on their radar that, of course, can be faster. reduce or even stop the supply of heavy american weapons to europe and from its point vision, since that would be the most obvious

escalation. so far, moscow does not want to take such steps, for obvious reasons, reasonable restraint forces, but now, if washington hopes these american and other nato weapons. and they would really lead to a new combat dynamics in e. ukraine indeed. russia would find itself in the difficult position that many in washington in brussels are hoping for, then i was told that, in general, we must be prepared for the fact that russia's responses would not be very serious concessions are not retreats. namely, this is what is called, uh. call it what you want, blows to the sources of all this, or at least a reason. e translations by a translation office and this could be very effective. and now, of course, if at the same time the

americans would die. deserving if there were vivid pictures of the destruction of all these weapons, then i think they would very quickly attract the attention of the congress, i would see how long the brave congress has been. uh, tell your voters that they must be ready to see their friends and relatives. uh, they died because of ukraine and uh, and uh, they went for ukraine at the risk of total war. i just want to repeat. i very much hope that we will not reach such a situation. and that some better solutions will be found than acting through escalation. uh, such solutions can be, but of course they are very dangerous dmitry you are completely right. i agree with you. and it was you who described the scenario for the transformation of a hybrid war into a hot war. and i completely agree with you that it is extremely

it is unlikely that russia will go in the foreseeable future, and even more so in the current context, to launch military strikes on the territory of nato countries . yes, this would just create a situation worse than the cuban missile crisis, much worse than the cuban missile crisis. this is e speech it would be about a hot war between russia and nato, that is, a new world war. and here, it seems to me, both russia and the united states are in solidarity that such a development of events is unacceptable. but, otherwise, the prerequisites are being created for russia to waged precisely a hybrid war against the west in response to the hybrid war of the west against russia without crossing the red line in terms of a hot war. it seems to me, very likely, and what's more, uh, you u mentioned everal haines and her speech in congress earlier. i agree that she looks more realistic than other

representatives. istrations and she correctly speaks about the danger of vertical, not horizontal, but vertical escalation. and in ukraine, there are opportunities for intensifying hostilities, because so far, indeed, russia is conducting a special operation in ukraine with rather small forces and does not go over to temmers, uh, which the united states themselves used. well, for example, in vietnam, you yourself mentioned carpet bombing and scorched earth tactics. but it was everel hans herself who said that the stalemate situation, in her opinion , the impasse situation that today, allegedly, has developed in ukraine, creates prospects, creates prerequisites for escalation. and what's more, she said that if russia will think that it is suffering a defeat in ukraine. it is possible that russia may even switch to the use of nuclear weapons in ukraine. yes, this is again. low point of view is

excluded. yes, but eivoril hans still thinks so, and now i have a question. on the one hand, secretary of defense lloyd austin says that russia must suffer a military defeat and the united states will do everything for this, on the other hand, averal hands says that wait a minute, if russia thinks that it suffers a military defeat, then a direct path to the escalation of this conflict. here is how to understand this contradiction. and here is haynes' performance. this is a warning from the biden administration itself. this is an attempt to contain the administration and remind it what is needed, in fact, already change the policy, or is it just a recognition that ukraine and this is consumables, even if the military conflict escalates, then god bless him. what do you think, well, dmitry, firstly, i, unfortunately, don’t know, personally , uh, wage, and that’s why it’s somewhat difficult for me to drink

her motives, i always start with the motives that seem to me, but, if you want the most decent, that she simply, honestly performs her professional duties and talks about, uh, about the conclusions that, uh, came to the intelligence community. this is not an exact point of view, but the point of view of many analysts in a number of american intelligence structures. unfortunately, there are, uh, other people in the administration, but in very serious positions, who politicize the results of intelligence, military and intelligence politicians. and how would trying to create a completely different picture. what about nuclear weapons? here you know what a question , fortunately, it has never been used, and after hiroshima and nagasaki well, japan did not have nuclear weapons. she could not, accordingly, respond in the same way. i recently watched

a performance. according to cnn , he should be general clark, the former commander-in-chief of nato. remember the one who bombed serbia at one time in ninety-eight in ninety-e-e-nine, and even gave the order to general michael johnson to the british general to knock out the russian parachutes - e russian paratroopers from the slatina airport in pristina, glory. god general johnson refused to carry out this direct order of his military leader, precisely to avoid a third world war. well, general clark has now decided to criticize the biden administration that they are not decisive enough in confrontation with russia and says, here putin takes and intimidates us with nuclear weapons. and what does this say, well, to prevent the use of something than two tactical nuclear charges on ukraine so what, he says, it will change in terms of the military situation. well, let's apply it. uh, you can't allow putin to be blackmailed like this, well, in and dmitry in what he

said, well, first of all, this whole war, supported by the united states or even led by the united states. they say that she is in order to protect ukraine what if we hear that the main defenders of ukraine say, well, hit her with a couple. uh, once with nuclear charges and it 's okay for the second dmitry, here i know a lot of people who held leading positions in american armed forces. i know well we are his colleague thunder ellison, who wrote the best book on the cuban missile crisis about how it was discussed in the white house. it seems to me that among all these competent people there is consensus that no one knows what will happen after the use of nuclear weapons, who and how will respond to it. as for general clark and how does he know that russia would have used nuclear weapons, and you are right. this can

only be imagined under the most extreme and exceptional circumstances. how does he know that russia would then use it against ukraine , uh, with all the russian love for ukraine, but the main decisions are not made there. how do we know if this case went like this, and for whom they would be brought here, what would be the answers. and here in america i often hear. i am also personally criticized when i raise this topic of the possibility of nuclear escalation. they say that there is nothing to intimidate. it only prevents us from making rational decisions. it makes us kind of lean on our tied hands. of course, i am against tied hands and any uh, the commanders-in-chief will be opposed to being restricted in this way. he freedom of action must be understood if we want to avoid nuclear war. we must realistically look at such a threat not in order to wage a nuclear war, but in

order to prevent it, and therefore this talk about nuclear escalation. it seems to me that he is very important and serious, and i want to join sergey lavrov, who would say in that interview that you talked about his recent interview with a big game, who said that we do not have enough serious dialogue. it's not just that. here we are, we don't have serious negotiations. to get out of the ukrainian impasse, we are not talking about strategic stability. we don't really understand each other's nuclear doctrines, which are very, very different. here is such an informal professional dialogue. if i depended on me, dmitry started it the day before yesterday, but i completely agree with you, and you touched on the topic, uh, which we have already discussed more than once, this topic of strategic frivolity, and in the rhetoric, the actions of some, but political leaders, and i am very sorry that a

professional military general has joined their number. ah, wesley clark, but it's very good that in the united states there are still sane, understanding and experienced people like you, like graham ellison, like many other representatives of the american realist foreign policy community. yes, even not only realistic, because the need for a dialogue about the need not before the escalation, but people like charles kapchan, who traditionally considered himself to be liberals, and so on, and i completely agree, strategic dialogue between the united states and russia is the first step to avoid, both vertically and horizontally, the escalation of this conflict dmitry thank you so much. we will continue the conversation with you next time. ordered

in business, plans are sometimes frustrated, but we do not lose heart, but turn them into new opportunities. this is our strength fsb bank for business vtb team we have put together a set of special offers to support and develop your business cash for just one ruble current account and business card attractive rates on deposits and other offers for business dot vtb.ru vtb help with business. each organism is unique, each needs its own

unique approach to health. sber and pharmacy will deliver medicines that are right for you . download the sber pharmacy app. i like my smile and my laugh and my crooked tooth and my piercings. i like gloria jeans why do you need a lot of cards when there is one halva with an installment plan for 10 months? sausage with cashback up to 6%. the strengths of different cards are collected in one halva, only one card for everything. the whole season will swallow a good one. maybe a couple more episodes, well, good places. mts premium subscription for only 199

rubles. in a month adapted. and we helped to accept payments and not lose customers. keep accounts and not make annoying mistakes quickly transfer business online our business products will help you adapt to any circumstances in the bank of the year in russia tinkoff he is the only one everything for a fun game up to 50% on the encyclopedia book. and children's toys and tents play together on wildberries plans are sometimes frustrated, but we do not lose heart, but turn them into new opportunities.

on the air of the big game, before the break, we talked with dmitry sais about the contradictions within the american policy towards ukraine, that the united states, on the one hand, is doing everything to prolong this conflict as much as possible, but on the other hand, they say that this same delay is fraught with danger from the well and within the biden administration within the united states there is no consensus on what policy to carry out in relation to both russia and the ukrainian conflict . to an even greater extent, these contradictions are characteristic of the european union with only one amendment, that the european union bears the main time to implement the american policy of maximally weakening russia and trying to exclude it from the ranks of the great powers. here on the one

hand in the european union. there are people, there are politicians, leaders who literally repeat american rhetoric, and the need for a military victory in ukraine about the need for supplies of e, maximum weapons and defeating russia, and this is not only poland and the baltic countries , but among these, and politicians , the head of european diplomacy jose barrel, who in his recent interview in the frankfort allge, joined. maine tsai tong specifically stated and i quote that he does not understand people who see the arms supply as an extension of the war. yes, that is, the supply of weapons - this, it turns out, is not an extension of the war, but let's listen to this statement in full. irrelevant. how will this war end? ukrainians must kneel, torn to pieces by the russians. you understand this, the soldiers end with negotiations, but it is

necessary to sit down at the negotiating table with a position of strength and the task now to put the ukrainians in this position. we say that we do not participate in the war, but we take sides. we want to weaken the russian war machine . we want to weaken the ability of president vladimir putin and his regime to attack a sovereign country without justification. we want to help ukraine defend itself, but we don't want to fight russia this is practically a copy of the rhetoric of the obama administration, practically word for word yes, we are not fighting, but at the same time we are taking aside we don’t want to fight with russia, but we are pumping weapons into ukraine, and we are striving to weaken the russian military machine, this is practically word for word what the united states secretary of defense said floyd austin after his blitz visit, and to ukraine, together with secretary of state tony

blinkin member countries of the european union and reflect a common denominator. uh, inside the european union this is josepelle's first priority, because why doesn't it reflect, because, for example, germany and france are the key countries of the european union. still, they take a different approach. let's listen to what the chancellor of the federal republic of germany, olaf-scholz, recently said during his talks with french president manuel macron. our demand is that the negotiations be restarted, that the negotiations between russia and ukraine become more specifically, in order for them to reach an agreement very quickly, it is important that there is no new growth of escalation. in any case, as far as the territory is concerned, what will really happen in ukraine is something we will see, more precisely, in the coming days and weeks. well, almost the same statement. we will no longer quote him, but immanuel macron did.

he stated that in no case should the escalation of the ukrainian conflict be allowed and that it should actually be completed precisely through negotiations, ivan alekseevich, first. how can you comment this is the most obvious just a difference in rhetoric between a barrel that should reflect a common denominator, yes, and what e what olaf-scholz and er, immunoilkron are talking about and if the barrel reflects an american point of view, and not a european point of view, then, is it possible? assume that in the event of an inevitable new crisis in transatlantic relations, in my opinion, europe will still adjust its approach towards russia. in the first part of the program with dmitry simes, you recalled some russian sayings, and there is a lot of russian sayings that are applicable. there is,

for example, a saying, that no matter how much you say halva in your mouth will not become sweeter, and so on. in this case, no matter how much you say war, nothing will change, while the europeans and the united states are actually waging war on the territory of ukraine with the armed forces of the lugansk donetsk people's republics, as well as with the russian armed forces. yes, indeed , there are differences in their position, but you know, for me, to be honest, these differences are a little less, than the common thing that is in all these statements that you have shown, but in general, very simple, there are wishlists everywhere. we want it, we want it, we plan it. we are planning it and absolutely nothing is said about how they are going to achieve it. well, only the barrel has a crazy plan to enter into negotiations at the expense of weapons. e

weapons. yes, supposedly from a position of strength, therefore, the europeans take the position of the wishlist, and you know this, such arguing wishlists are inside the car that they do not drive, they are inside the military machine of the united states within the geopolitical machine of the united states, this machine takes them where it takes them. they can contradict each other as much as they want. barel will make some more statements tomorrow. there will be some other nuances. yes, indeed, right at the american steering wheel. there, some nuance of serovka arises, which, from my point of view, is connected with the fact that the united states, uh, is clearly aware that everything is not going as expected, or rather, some of what they wanted to happen, but

such a bloody, bloody mess unfolded on the territory of ukraine, it seems that they got what they wanted, but they understand that the turning point in this military campaign in this conflict has already happened. um, one can argue about exactly what escalation or not escalation for how long, but it will all come to a certain point. eh, the end is debatable. uh, where exactly will this, uh, completion be geographically, and from my point of view, approximately the last uh 20 days in washington is trying to figure out what to do at the round, and there are no plans for the next round, except for escalation, so all these statements by europeans are rhetoric that is completely. uh, it doesn’t mean anything at all, and here is the last point that i would like to pay attention to, which is very important in the e statement of the barrel, maybe not

the content, which from my point of view is simply missing there, this is a set wanted, but the form in which this sets out what the fight says is an open rejection of the european, unique philosophical ideological model, which can peace and harmony are achieved not by barbaric methods armed by previous centuries, but allegedly by some other way. the europeans said that in the 20th century they came up with, though under the american security umbrella, but supposedly they themselves came up with something so unique. became a peace that allows you to negotiate not to fight barrel admits that zilch is nothing of this. or maybe it works. only they have there between germany and france and great britain. but yes, and then under the heel of the united states but in others

places it, uh, it doesn't work, but this rejection of the only thing that made europe something significant in the world history of the 20th century. this is really very important. this is extremely important. indeed, this is a fundamental turning point in the development of the european union, the rejection of the concept of normative power in fact. and what, exactly, is the unique internal integration nature of the european union, which gives peace to both themselves and those who cooperate with them. yes, their environment. yes, it promotes resolution, conflicts and so further. well actually it never worked. yes, it is so in the post-soviet space, but now they simply refuse to talk about it openly , this is really important, but still, ivan alekseevich it seems to me that in europe, well, there are those who understand that the european union is heading for a catastrophe, they understand that it is impossible to refuse ,

in general from everything. and what formed the basis of the identity of the european union over the past 70 years, or a little less than sixty years, yes, the rome treaties. well, for example, emmanuel macron, the same one speaking in the european parliament. he recently stated that there is no need to hurry with the admission of ukraine to the european union, because this will lead to the rejection of many european standards. he even offered to create some other organization, a political organization, which ukraine could join instead. yes , instead of its entry into the european union, and thereby. to analyze its belonging to the west, you know the european union already has, uh, a number of dressing rooms. there is such a dressing room, which is called the eastern partnership, where, it means that some of them were brought in, apparently, now i will do this for ukraine. here is a separate waiting room. in

general, everything will be done so as not to actually accept it and not a dressing room, but simply an alternative. the bathhouse is such a replacement, an alternative , this is what it means, here is a toy european union for you, so that you don’t cry, but uh, in fact . this doesn't change anything. here. uh, that's the kind of dust you're asking in can european politicians from something there to refuse to take more reasonable positions my answer is very simple they cannot in europe now there are only two reasonable forces. the first is industrialists. who look at all this with wide eyes open wide, in horror. they don't look forward to profit, they look forward to bankruptcy.