it’s unbelievable why you allowed us to buy furs only from fellow believers, and the tatars plow the land with sables, they don’t shoot at all, let us trade in rhodes, and i will be the most generous friend to you, thank you, dear gift of respected adzhak son, but trade in peoples. i am not allowed to you. good evening, the big game is on the air, the russian offensive in the donbass is developing steadily, it will be completely liberated soon, severodonetsk is developing an offensive against slavyansk, and these russian successes have simply caused panic in kiev and very serious anxiety in the west, where a couple of weeks ago they were talking with might and main that

russia was allegedly losing in ukraine and that its strategic weakening was supposedly inevitable, and here is the prospect of a very quick defeat of the ukrainian army in the donbas. apparently, the united states is pushing towards step, from which they refrained during the last 3 months of the conflict, namely, to start framing the kiev regime with multiple launch rocket systems about this. this weekend. at the same time, three major american media is the new york times, the wall street journal and cnn ukraine has been asking washington to provide multiple launch rocket systems since the beginning of the russian special operation, but the biden administration considered such supplies dangerous and fraught with unacceptable escalation. they feared that kiev, in particular, could begin to inflict, uh, and with the help of these american systems, strikes deep into russian territory. and that moscow can already perceive this as a direct involvement of the united states in the conflict today

, president of the united states biden said that the united states will not supply ukraine with missiles that can be used to strike at russian territory. however, he did not deny it. the intention to supply multiple launch rocket systems , as such, and the washington post the washington post writes that the united states is exploring the possibility of supplying kiev with these systems, but without long-range missiles. in any case, we see that the united states is getting more and more involved in military conflicts with ukraine, and from russia's point of view, this situation is very alarming. and ambiguous, and in order to sort out this situation, we invited from the united states from washington our co-host of the president of the center for national interests in washington dmitriy sans dmitry good afternoon. hello dmitry mutually very glad to see you dmitry well, here is

president biden's statement. uh, which i quoted, and it raises very serious questions in moscow. and even some bewilderment, because biden actually said, believe it. trust us that we will not substitute those systems with which supposedly, but to strike deep into russian territory, but you perfectly understand that today there is no trust between russia and the united states at all, and moreover , throughout this entire conflict, the official position of the united states was that all the responsibility for those weapons that the united states provides to ukraine lies with ukraine itself, that the united states is not responsible for this responsibility, that they have transferred weapons to ukraine. and then where to shoot them, how to shoot them, and in russia not in russia, this is all the

responsibility entirely, ukraine yes, and dmitry, from the russian point of view, respectively. uh, the united states came very close, if not crossed the russian red line, and how the situation is seen from washington dmitri i don't think so. not only do i not think, i do not allow, to be very specific, that president biden was deliberately misleading russia, but here it is important to hear exactly what he said. remember that at one time, the introduction, uh, of poland and others east european countries in nato hungary czech republic first wave. russia heard that it was promised that they would not join, but they tell us in washington we didn’t promise anything like that, it was about east germany and some other things. well, in russia, for

sure, knowing geography, they believed that if east germany did not join, you would somehow not reach its eastern neighbors. no, they said, but east germany was a specific situation. she ceased to exist. and now all of germany is in nato and did not have the right to return to the question is therefore the first thing to understand. this is what was promised, it was promised that these specific systems would not be used. in russian cities, as i understand it, that is the export version of this multiple rocket launcher system. the fire really cannot strike any deep into russian territory. this does not mean alone that russia received at least some guarantees that these re-equipment systems will not be, and as i read in the american

press, although it is required to change not only the rocket itself, but also the launch system, what is it in general can be done in 40-8 hours. and that serious retraining of the team is not required, that is, in other words. yes, i think i gave an honest, uh, assurance that could work at some point, and if it turns out that these systems can cope with their task and can help ukraine and change, uh, the dynamics of the combat situation in their favor, then, most likely, a other systems are more distant and will not be required. and so the question will not be raised, but russia's categorical guarantees that such weapons will not be supplied. haven't been for a long time and was not given. i am absolutely consciously sure, and in horror, judge for yourself how acceptable this will be for the russian leadership. and dmitry, but what

you said causes me very deep anxiety, because even without the hypothetical re-equipment of these systems into a more long-range one, we see that in some places, for example, in the kharkov region, and the front line passes, uh, not at all for 300 km . and especially not 500 km from the russian border. there, somewhere around 20, maybe even less kilometers, and even a multiple launch rocket systems that can hit at a relatively short distance. well, that is, 70 km are also called such modifications. they completely fall on russian territory , moreover, as i said. here is biden's statement today, it contradicts the official position that the united states has taken since february 24th. yes, what the united states does not decide yes, how ukraine uses the weapons transferred to it, if the united states is now talking about what they

decide, then, after all, they turn out to take over responsibility. you don't attack my united states idle, the united states promises that the systems that are going to be delivered cannot be used for long range operations. e. i think that no one will seriously use these systems against some small farms and villages right across the border. the united states promises that these systems will not be used like this. the united states does not promise that there will be no next stage, when they are given systems with other capabilities. and this ukraine can use this system as it pleases, but for now they have such systems that i blow. uh, it could not happen in kursk and belgor . more broadly dmitry i would now like to give you for your reaction a quote from jack

salebed, president biden's national security aide. that's what he said, rather possible military. russia's response to the massive supply of american weapons. let's listen. we believe we have a diversified and sustainable arms supply chain for ukraine if the circumstances are such that the russians will be able to identify and attack some of the supplies. on earth, this fundamentally in a strategic sense will not interrupt the military assistance that we provide here to dmitry what is called literally from a ship, or rather an airplane for points. and i cannot tell you that i know and understand exactly the russian reaction to such statements. well, here are purely logical thoughts, i wonder if they will think in the russian inventory that the united states is clearly making a bet, but further and very serious, and

the continuation of russia's military supplies within the framework of life, of course, ukraine within the framework of the lenta of england, of course. we know from the history of world war ii. and this is what was done. the allies of the united states with whom america had a common enemy, fascist germany, that is, thus, in general, it is said that russia is an enemy, that ukraine although formally not an ally, in general, in american perception, it is practically equal to allies. and now i have a question, is it correct in washington and in many european capitals that if the united states and brussels emphasizes? that these countries are not participants in the war, but simply supply weapons to ukraine and will continue to do so despite not only

russian protests, but even despite the fact that russia uses weapons to try to stop it. is it right to think in the collective west that russia recognizes this logic and will not respond on the territory, it is strange where these weapons are produced, where these decisions are made, uh, strange through the territory, which, for example, germany poland these weapons are delivered. is this calculation correct, if we talk about how you can predict, and the opposition and actions of the russian leadership, if the united states and their ally really manage to break the military situation in favor of ukraine situation in favor of ukraine and the current situation. i know this is the russian position. i know the capabilities of not only the russian

army, especially the russian soldier, of course. so let's talk about the option that sees in america so they expect that he will be given a chance to change what they would come across if this happened, uh dmitry but you understand here it is very difficult to consider this option even as a hypothetical one, because it is extremely unlikely. look, the united states is considered unlikely. i will now approach him , but please note that the united states has already supplied ukraine with a very large number of weapons. just the other day, the pentagon's transportation administration published information. it is in the public domain. she's on the site pendacon about exactly what and how many weapons the united states has already supplied. in ukraine , these are the data pay attention to over a thousand missile defense systems 1,500 missiles, by the

way, the pentagon announced that they have delivered almost 1,500 stingers already, and ukraine has nine helicopters, 33, radar, and so on. about 26 t of weapons that have already been delivered and russia. for all this, it successfully continues the special operation by the peacetime army without any mobilization without the introduction of a military position and without experiencing a shortage of weapons. yes , ukraine has already run out of weapons, even the european countries of nato have already run out of russia's weapons of this deficit. no. yes, this is very important to understand. now what will happen in that extremely unlikely case, if all of a sudden with the help of deliveries of rocket systems e rocket launchers and so on to the united states. suddenly it will be possible to reverse the situation on the fronts. a and, a. moreover, if they start, e, to supply ukraine with those systems with

which ukraine can inflict already strategic strikes deep into the territory of russia because the strikes are 300-500 km. this will be perceived already strikes as having a strategic character. this is what russian foreign minister sergei lavrov and russian ambassador to the united states anatoly antonov lavrov were talking about literally this weekend, and called the current degree of involvement of the united states in the conflict a serious step towards an unacceptable escalation to an unacceptable escalation. and antonov said that the current degree of involvement of the united states, and even more so the supply rszo, but it will be, fraught. with predictable global security implications, this does not mean that russia will strike directly at the united states. or even

strike at, say, european ones. uh, nato countries although this situation can be completely ruled out if russia perceives the threat as a strategic one, i would not, but still, uh, we are dealing with a hybrid war and in the course of a hybrid war. we can respond in an indirect e way, and not directly, for example, you can deliver some kind of cyber strike, using which this or that infrastructure both on the territory of european nato countries and in the united states can be paralyzed and this hybrid strike will be a very serious signal that, after it, there may no longer be a hybrid strike. in addition, dmitry the united states is present in many countries of the world. military bases in many countries of the world, and russia may well begin to arm the opponents of the united states in different countries of the world, which in turn can

strike at american military bases. there, where they are located, including where the united states is located illegally. i mean , for example, northeast syria, syrian kurdistan, and i am sure that our partner erdogan will be terribly happy if, with the help of such strikes not inflicted directly on russia, and the proxies of the united states will be forced to withdraw in disgrace from e, syrian, e syrian kurdistan, or most importantly. most importantly, russia can stop starting in ukraine, uh, stop conducting a special operation in ukraine and move on to a full-fledged war to full war. yes, but using a completely different scale. e fighting, and and, introducing the army already. no, you can tell me this time, you know, i respect you very much as an analyst. i have known you for many years before we became

program colleagues, and you know, we have invited you many times because you are in addition to being a well-informed person. in a very serious expert therefore, i always respect your assessment. i don't question anything you said, well, let me tell you how it will be, it seems to me, perceived by washington . this is the most interesting piece of news. the russian leadership is extremely unwilling to escalate the conflict. they will look for every opportunity to seriously respond to these new american coasters outside the territory of ukraine, but unless they have a completely catastrophic situation there. since they are extremely unwilling, they will probably try to present the situation in ukraine in the best light. than the course of hostilities allows, and then we will extend a helping hand to them and offer them

some kind of agreement that they can present. well, let's say not as a victory, but not as a defeat. but seriously think that they will escalate the conflict, that they will strike , although putin warned that russia can bear blows to decision-making patients in the west. well, in general they do it. gray will not. and in general, and since this situation, as you said, is extremely unlikely to such an extent of unlikely that, in general, it is almost on the verge of beyond reality, then, in general, for now one can safely pursue a policy that boils down to what the collective west is like. puzzled and outraged by russia's actions in ukraine, he decided that russia needed not only to be stopped, but also taught a lesson and weakened. and that this can be done

through joint collective efforts without endangering your own countries, that is, you strike with ukrainian hands on your weapons on the territory of a foreign state of ukraine, and as long as ukraine agrees to this. so it looks like a very winning game russians kill attack on the territory of ukraine and your country organizes all this. well, in general, they are minimally responsible for this conflict, somewhere there are some rebels in syria well, in general, we take into account the scale and stakes in this conflict, but this is not the most important thing. do not think that such a reaction e is not only possible in washington, but that this reaction can be foreseen by the russian leadership of the russian general staff. and that in the silhouettes of those who in washington are thinking about continuing this

kind of policy, they must understand what they put their countries their peoples in the face of a very serious threat. from what you said earlier, if i were in washington, and even with my very specific kind attitude towards russia, i would be asked to agree. write a policy brief or guide. i would have to say that from the point of view of moscow, the threat that they will have to escalate is extremely extremely minimal. and dmitry well, firstly, everything will depend on the dynamics at the front and on what exactly the united states they will still supply ukraine, so what? do with it. i think that, uh, when vladimir putin says that if there are strikes against russia, these strikes will be of a strategic nature, that russia will strike at decision-making centers in response, and

putin is fully responsible for his words moreover, it was not in vain that i cited the statement of lavrov and antonov a. they talked about red lines. here is the whole history of russian foreign policy over the past years and so on. including the russian special operation in ukraine says that when russian red lines are violated in defiance of a completely unambiguous open note when russia is in plain text, these red lines denote the consequences to be followed. yes, therefore, you should not take my words that russia seeks to behave like a responsible power. and that russia still does not want to allow a nuclear war. we really don't want to admit. nuclear war should not be taken as a weakness. what i was saying was that russia's response would not necessarily consist of inflicting a military strike on nato territory, or even more so on

the territory of the united states, is not immediate. yes, uh, ide- as its called the first institute, but with your permission. i'll tell you what i'm saying, who they are about it. i sincerely believe this. i say that given the balance of power that exists between the collective west, e and russia, in the event of a continuation of the conflict, according to all logic, russia should either lose. either retreat, only i say, this logic absolutely does not take into account, the most important thing the nature of the russian people, the reactions of russians, which are completely different and unfamiliar, incomprehensible. here is roosevelt, of course. churchill, they faced this and understood what the russian people are. what is a russian soldier? i told one person in the white house, but you know, wait, people

are able to go. if you're trying to really pinch them. i say, tell me. how moscow burned down during napoleon's invasion, but i don't remember specifically, but of course, napoleon burned it down and then the russians took revenge on him, and therefore there, where so many french soldiers were treated no. most of the testimonies were burned. eh, muscovites themselves, of course, and then the incredible, absolutely incredible defense of leningrad, and at the same time the incredible defense of stalingrad, not subordinate to any western logic, and here is blok’s poem famous by the scythians. here, i recommend it as a must-have, though a very unlikely reading by those in the west who decide on russia if you're trying to corner russia from my point of view. you owe you owe

take into account the nature of the russian people and the specifics of the russian response, which is very different from what western politicians would do, and what would western inhabitants expect under comparable circumstances, i apologize for that. i will finish dmitry i completely agree with you, eh? indeed, we are faced with a situation where, firstly, in the west, the objective underestimation of the russian military power is objectively underestimated, the russian economic significance of its role in the world economy, which is not representative of those figures, but nominal russian gdp, which western leaders usually demonstrate. and thirdly, of course, psychology is underestimated. uh, russians and russians in general, because when it starts talking about the patriotic war, then russia begins to approach any military conflict in a fundamentally different way, and it seems to me that the

united states really lost sight of what began in russia at the highest level rhetoric, but that the given conflict takes on an existential character and is patriotic war and in this situation, of course, if anything, is called. on the contrary, but i don't think it will, but nonetheless. yes, then russia will certainly go for it in order not to pin down, you need to prepare for such a possibility, of course, this is the best way to prevent such options, but you also touched on a very important aspect that, despite the fact that there are such brilliant experts in the united states in russia how are you, however, the administration in general? it seems to me, or mostly listens to other people who, uh, don't know russia or have an idea about the illusory russia that they would like to see, which they wanted to create there in the nineties,

but they did not succeed, and now, receiving expertise from such experts, and they can really come to very wrong conclusions and take very dangerous decisions, the united states already from the russian point of view. i want to say this right on the razor's edge. they are already right in the red line of russia, the degree of their involvement in the military conflict in ukraine is already very large scale. yes, this is involvement until it reverses the overall situation. and i hope that no change will not reverse the general situation. russia continues to win victories and the dynamics of the russian advance in the donbass is far ahead of the estimates in the united states that were available. after all, i'm sorry that i'm you peru i promised that i would finish, but you said a lot of important things with which i fully agree and hope that they will be heard, but there is one thing that i do not fully agree with, and precisely

because i have just arrived from washington. i think in fairness i have to say that the main thing is the problem. not with american experts at the head of the cia, billburns, whom he knows well here when he was ambassador. and he is a very serious expert on russia, as far as you can be an expert on a foreign country, where you have not lived for a long time, and i will not name people in the administration. i don't want to hurt them, but if the posts are quite serious, well-informed reasonable people, but it's not for me to tell you. it is very important in any administration where the wind blows from, and in administration in the ear of the younger, many knew that the presence of weapons of mass destruction in saddam hussein was not proven, of course, but nevertheless they created such a system not even for making decisions, but for intelligence analysis, which inevitably led to an absolutely false result and to the american invasion. here i am suggesting that

the responsibility is not on american experts. there are specific people who should be responsible for those propaganda platitudes that they repeated, but in principle, the main question. where the wind blows in which direction the president and his closest advisers and the main majority of the us congress want to go. it is they who create the climate in which expert opinion is considered. and this climate, let's say, is not the best. pleasant for serious and honest analysis. i completely agree with you dmitry, but there is also an international political climate, which is that the western continental european countries. such as germany-france italy do not support the course of the united states on an endless war of escalation and the supply of more and more heavy weapons. germany does not want to supply heavy weapons to ukraine at all. and that, the unity of the west which was presented to us, but

within a few months. it's already bursting at the seams. and there is an even more fundamental problem is that the longer and the more insistently the united states presents this conflict as a proxy war against russia, the less support. they receive from non-western countries, which are definitely not interested in this at all. dmitry in any case, thank you very much. thank you. i, uh, hope to share the information that i have, but at the beginning i am learning you were a very good teacher. thank you thank you dmitry and we will continue in a few moments. the first channel presents a new unique team boxing tournament and now the moment has come four continents five weight categories every

week a new match in our team, the best boxers of russia, world champions and the olympic boxing games intercontinental cup evening. the first russian america on july 4, on the first, exclusively at pyaterochka, global village products with a discount of up to 17%. the quality is at its best at a bargain price, buy goods for a summer residence with delivery on may 30 and 31 in the yandex.market application bestway pool

for 6990 rubles. welcome to the ozone summer discount marathon for a whole week of discounts. buy easily every day new products with discounts from june 21 on ozone set of barbie nanny baby accessories for 999 rubles. and a powerful professional march hair dryer for 899 rubles. we help businesses in any situation to take payments to enter bookkeeping to sell online. our products will help you adapt to any circumstances tinkoff is the only bank of the year in russia. i love you after practice we fly,

komsomolsk-on-amur. incredible story based on the real miracle 799. do

you have one value that cannot be taken away or blocked? values ​​your communication with loved ones hello baby, communicate with zero on your account on all megafon tariffs is it stable in investments today, as in this video? everything can take off in an instant. or fall but even when it seems that the danger is somewhere near a reliable partner changing the market is only part of your strategy a reliable partner for your investment sportmaster online mobile phone. anxiety insomnia

habitual actions no longer help. afobazol helps to cope with anxiety and insomnia afobazon 4 weeks for the most pronounced action in stores swimming goggles play set, growing animal toy with light fix price for all low price goods for summer cottage with delivery on may 30 and 31. buy in the yandex.market application a set of the ultramax type for 2.290. and in aired a big game in the west intensified split. moreover, this split concerns both military-political issues and economic issues. that monolith of that unity that was presented to us from the white house from brussels during the first two and

a half months of the conflict there, it no longer exists, and in sight. what about arms supplies? there are two points of view on ukraine, here, in the nato countries, one point of view , the point of view of the hawks, which is represented by the united states and in europe, the personification of this point of view is, of course, great britain and the chief spokesman. yastrebov e. the west of the last few weeks, is that what uh said, a liter of s recently entered her speech in prague . we must be prepared for the fact that it will take a long time to support ukraine, because we are committed to defending freedom and democracy. now is not the time to relax there should be no talk of a ceasefire or concessions to putin we must be sure that ukraine will win russia will be defeated and that we will never see again

moscow's aggression but at the same time it is becoming increasingly clear that this view is not shared by the key continental countries of western europe germany and france and italy, but according to newswake. and these countries, uh, seek to minimize the supply of weapons to ukraine and uh, will put pressure on kiev in order to end the conflict in the near future. and germany is the main skeptic regarding the supply of heavy weapons to ukraine constantly emphasizes that within nato there are restrictions on the supply arms to ukraine about it. in particular. today, the state secretary of the german ministry of defense, muller, said in an interview with canada on the cdf channel, and in fact, it is clear why the countries of western europe, apart from the uk

, take a similar point of view, because they have nothing to supply. yes, and we have already heard the statement of josep borel's honest confessions that they have exhausted those reserves. we see that there is already a conflict between germany and poland. and around. and the fact that germany is not able to supply tanks to poland. at that more than almost all of their own tanks already, but delivered to ukraine in this regard. i have questions ivan alekseevich yes, and given that europe is not able to follow further, in the direction that the united states and britain determine, how the united states and great britain will continue to act, how the hawks will continue to act, in my opinion, there are two models. yes, the first model is to act in accordance with the principle that, back in 1914, with regard to the european union, victoria nlond very clearly formulated. that is, act independently. to put it mildly, yes, a and but this will mean a split

within the western community with all the reputational costs for the united states and great britain on the other hand, yes, to maintain a common western unity. but then a hawk will have to stop being a hawk. yes, and we will have to somehow focus on the position of the continental western european countries. how will the situation develop in your opinion? i think that you have described the picture very accurately, but still i would not be in a hurry to call what we are now witnessing a split. i would call it uh confusion and wobble. we see that there is really no solidity. uh, they tried to present this western bloc as being so grouped concentrated, and we are not high, uh, highly motivated with an iron will, but in fact , we do not observe this at all. we're seeing, uh, a group of countries that are, well, just

such adventurers. uh, 17 18, maybe 19th century. and this is primarily the uk, but also, whom you did not mention. this is poland, which operate in a fairly close connection with the current british government, and now this uk poland and ukraine a. they are trying to be, uh, very adventurous, to propose scenarios for the escalation of the conflict, and france and germany really. er, they are afraid of escalation very seriously, and they act like such weights, that is, they hang and try to slow it down, but they do not take any active position. they hold back the adventurers, but take no active position. why from my point of view? we are now seeing this vacillation, because the united states has been in

confusion in the united states for several weeks, it is completely clear that the conflict is not going the way they expected, neither option is justified, the blitzkrieg is not justified by the bet on prolonging the conflict. they understand that procrastination. in fact, it turns into very serious problems for the western countries themselves. there is no way to quickly inflict such economic damage on russia that we would all be afraid of here and lose our political and political will, but they also understand that delay is not in their interests and, as far as i can judge, in the united states already several weeks of searching for options. what to do at the next stage, in general? what next stage to move on and they have no good options. and it is at this moment that they are confused. we hear more voices. like

adventurers from the camp of great britain and poland, and these conditional weights in the form of germany and france who are trying to somehow obscure everything, er, and calm it down, but from my point of view. uh, when the united states formulates a clearer position. it's sooner or later, but it will happen uh, the options again organize their allies on this uh, on this common point of view, therefore these are temporary reversals of vacillation, they are permanent splits - i would say for now. well, it seems to me that it can be at the level of rhetoric, but at the level of the material resources that these allies can offer. we see what is being created, but at least the prerequisites for a breakup, because you said the united states will formulate a new position and the allies will pull up , and due to what they will catch up, they no longer have the weapons that they they can pass it on to ukraine, as shown by the

eu summit that is taking place today, and we will talk about it later. they can no longer qualitatively strengthen, but anti-russian sanctions. that's what they will unite around the united states for. and they will unite at the expense of the united states, uh, just for propaganda uh , for propaganda purposes. it is clear that they have no real opportunities to continue this conflict, they will look for opportunities, so to speak, to agree on ending all this without losing face, uh, without losing face to myself, but i, uh, would like to emphasize uh, emphasize. here's the thing, and the united states has staked a lot on the current conflict, and from my point of view, one cannot hope that there will be a split

within the transatlantic elite before, from my point of view, there will be a split between the transatlantic elite and reasonable parts of society in western states. industrialists from the real sector of the economy, which is the trans-atlantic elite is simply ruining as well as the population, which has very high personal scores pays for the adventure of this transatlantic elite, split this split. this is a much more serious split from my point of view than the cracks between different parts of the transnational still common elite, but uh, you are right, and it seems to me that there were contradictions between elites and societies . and now they reach simply gigantic proportions, but nonetheless. here, uh, it seems to me that there are very serious contradictions already now, yes, and the prerequisites. even i would say for a

policy of diplomatic conflict. between one sides. here is the group of countries that you quite rightly identified the united states in the united kingdom poland ukraine and on the other side of the continent. european countries and, uh, the preconditions for this conflict are formulated by boris johnson here is boris johnson apparently as an illustration. and he, well, adheres to the principle of victoria nulund on how to act in relation to the european union, yes, and when, in two words , victoria well, she formulated it, because as she wrote, and this weekend, the career of a doloser, and johnson offers ukraine to form a new alliance, and this alliance, according to johnson, if you believe the career of the lsr should be both military, political and economic in nature and unite poland, the baltic states and ukraine into the uk yes

, uh, let's say, taking it beyond. yes, and even johnson e, apparently, turkey is there. i would like to buy a trailer, but this is, of course, extreme, uh, unlikely. well, here, taking everything out of the framework. and it would seem the absurdity of this proposal. that's all the same, its essence lies, because in distrust european union what johnson the british elite see that the european union well can't, well, not ready, and i don't propose some schemes that actually u work against the european union what do you think? well, here is the main question. and at whose expense is the ukrainian banquet? well, for example, the same poland believed that this e-banquet should be in the form of polish supplies at the expense of, for example, germany and in return. e for those delivered to ukraine well , quite old from a moral point of view,

engineering tanks based on the t-72. the same warsaw wanted to supply the latest german tanks in the leopard-7 version. well, if you compare one tank, after all, the leopard in the latest modernization is well, the latest development of the military-industrial complex of germany at-72. this is a tank. well, at least 50 years ago, despite the modernization, but the germans quite naturally sent poland on a long journey regarding these claims. ukraine , after all, today, like a black hole, you can swell there, 40 billion dollars of the american lena liz can clean out all the warehouses in the countries of the former warsaw treaty and send it there, you can empty the weapons stocks of advanced nato countries, but

there is no result. this is a black hole that devours budgets and now there is a very serious revision of relations not only on the part of paris and berlin. to ukraine today, ordinary ordinary europeans are already outraged by the rudeness that the so -called ukrainian refugees demonstrate, they no longer pay them more free. hotels are cutting their allowance so that they can somehow live and europe is tired of freeloaders. here is this constant demands from ukraine at all levels begins with zelensky, usually ending there as a layman who fled somewhere to the european union, this is the continuous thirst for freebies. well, europe is tired, it cannot shoot itself repeatedly in the foot and it is a completely normal desire to already look for some way out of

this crisis, as for the boris jones initiative, it is stillborn in my opinion. poland and the uk are not such donors, you know. the european economy and they themselves need subsidies, because the success of the polish economic miracle was largely due to the money that the european union gave. britain is now also in far from the best shape of a huge problem, impoverished population, and people are forced to choose between warmth in the house and the possibility of three meals a day in this regard. and i understand all this hatred of the desire of the british elites to bring russia to its knees, but in practical terms, this will not be visible, there are no successes of the ukrainian armed forces. incoming batches of new weapons do not have any turning point in the course of hostilities russian armed forces of the army of the dpr lpr. one way or

another, they are moving forward, grinding, giving prerequisites for a number of boilers in the donbass. in this regard, europe really faces a task. what to do next, right? what was the calculation of the first calculation of massive sanctions to force putin and russia out of e, actually a special military operation by putting pressure on the russian economy, putting pressure on russian public opinion. people will come out and demand so say how would, yes, change the attitude of the kremlin to the issues of a special military operation. these plans. the west failed the second second calculation was that massive deliveries of foreign weapons would begin. here, ukraine will hoo go forward, and almost defeat russia, nothing happened, so now they have a question. and what to do next the sixth eu sanctions package has not been adopted. berlin is not ready to supply the latest weapons. paris is not ready. and this is

lokomotiv in principle, the european union and nato are american, this large-scale 40 billion package. well, in the best case, if one quarter comes in the form of live deliveries, and even then the americans will add their own, and this money will go to new production in the furnace of the american military-industrial complex, which is why erosion occurs. well, as for the attempts to fasten turkey here well, in this case, we see what position erdogan took, he pressed the stop, and the nato machine stood up. even the nato secretary general is already forced to advise stoltenberg, stockholm and helsinki, go negotiate with erdogan a huge package of requirements, which includes, firstly changes in nato policy regarding who turkey classifies as international terrorists. erdogan demands the complete removal of any restrictions on the purchase of the latest western weapons. this is an address requirement. you are not only to finland, sweden

and the european union, but also to the united states of america, erdogan demands supplies and the inclusion of turkey in the f-35 program. erdogan demands the delivery of the latest versions of the f-16 and adogan. demands freedom of hands for himself in pursuing politics, well, in those conflict situations that he has there, let's say with greece with a number of other countries, so here i think that the west will not have a consensus in the ranks and they need to go for some kind of agreement format. we will also talk about turkey today, but now i also want to ask you about a country in europe that has money, this is germany. and today chancellor scholz announced that he had reached an agreement with the opposition, that is, the hdshss, and the formation of a 100 billion fund for the rearmament of the bundeswehr 100 billion euros is planned to be allocated both according to expert estimates and according to scholz himself, and this money will allow ger and to get here on those very cherished 2%

of gdp for defense spending, firstly, but in practice, what will these 100 billion euros mean to what real military consequences? what is the real military effect of allocating this money to germany? secondly, a more global question. it is clear that in the medium term, the rearmament of europe is beneficial to the united states, because they can save their own forces and to a greater extent. ah-ah spend your own resources on the fight against china in asia yes, here europe is engaged in the containment of russia, the fight against russia, but in the long term. after all, no one guarantees that the unity of transatlantic relations will last forever. new conflicts and crises are brewing between the united states and europe ahead of the us presidential election is not yet. what will donald trump win on them and if donald trump

does not personally win on them, most likely a person who adheres to a similar ideology, that is, there will certainly be new, e, disagreements between the united states and e europeans, and here in in this context, the rearmament of europe, in the long run, can it push the european elites maybe the new european elites to the idea that they may not really need the united states well, if there is a strategic, military autonomy of the european union, this will be a serious change in the balance forces, but another thing is that the position of the united states is that all their adventures must collectively participate and pay. uh, there are countries in europe that are ready to run. ahead of the locomotive goal body irresponsibly. same most poland as well as lithuania latvia estonia on other european crazy. we observe that with regard to the desire to rearm the bundeswehr - this is

enough. i would say a strategic decision europe needs strategic autonomy from the united states, primarily in matters of aerospace defense. this means the production of its own line of systems. and at least air defense about a medium long range, here germany is 100 billion. enough for this. well, 100 billion will create the prerequisites for this, germany is traditionally considered a strong country in the field of unconditionally armored technology. this must be recognized for granted, but their competence in the field of aviation. germany lost. more precisely, the americans did not allow her to create her own closed cycle a of production development, for example, an independent project, for example, a in the field of fighter aircraft. that is, they are here dependent on the european one. hmm cooperation within. here is the project. e eurofighter

typhoon fighter, but in any case, this is a serious application to increase the ability of european countries to independently conduct certain military operations. how much this process will affect the solidity of the euro- atlantic community. we can’t say now, of course, we can’t, but it must be said quite clearly that this monolith that we are observing today, in my opinion. it won't last long, for the simple reason that it will be working here already, maybe even in the second half of 2022. the principle of own shirt closer to the body and a number of countries will not want to pay for adventures at the expense of their taxpayers. e the same, poland or the united states of america, we will continue to say about the disintegration of this monolith, more precisely the illusory monolith in a few moments. criminal growth

of the ministry of internal affairs of the ussr on the way to the airport 14 km from the city of bushes discovered a floor and a tired bag with parts of the human body. these soul beings are great systems for talking against me digging for you in it something like that was sinister no not so memorable. if it were not for his stutter nikolai ivanovich in situations of acute reaction, an instant blow with a knife or a shot from a pistol. why was given to me? something the person was not at your place? you tell yourself or do i help you? all episodes on

sunday at the first action pan home club 799 marina remember the love that the artist gives to the viewer. she always comes back, you know? think of losing weight not only during the day, but also at night

turboslugs and night enhanced formula take care of your beauty with your favorite brands. choose cosmetic care and make-up products at competitive prices for a second vampiris. you have one value that cannot be taken away or blocked even without money. hello baby, communicate at zero on the account on all tariffs megafon is when it is easy to choose a high interest rate on a deposit and quickly transfer it there, money and services are one platform for deposits in different banks. only now we raise the rate by 5%. bonus on your first deposit in any bank on financial services. register and open a deposit. online. buy goods for summer cottages in the yandex.market application with payment in installments without overpayments when ordering up to 20,000

rubles. exclusively in pyaterochka, global village products with a discount of up to 17%. top quality at a bargain price. new to support microflora during snacks on the run delicious delivery with love today discounts from 30% roshawar mountain bike and accesstyle wireless headphones

for 1.390 rubles. a tele2 subscriber in his smartphone is always charged at full rate with cool equipment, he is ready for a change at any moment, he can gb and knows when to buy leftovers to sell and even to the cinema around the world tele2 subscriber subscriber. so , only in tele2 tariffs wellson presents insomnia often wake up in the morning with these horrors, it's time to finish with wellson. you can fall asleep after 20 minutes, sleep soundly for night and wake up easily. in the morning, bad, sleep no longer scares the magnet takes care of you and offers discounts on your favorite products discounts on jardin coffee