military purposes, and therefore russia is resuming the implementation of the grain deal, which was interrupted after the recent attacks by drones against russian ships in sevastopol listen to what the president of russia said everyone knows that, unfortunately, ukraine used this humanitarian corridor to in this regard, we have decided to suspend our participation in these lake convoys. uh, we demanded from the ukrainian side an assurance that and a guarantee that nothing like this will happen in the future, that humanitarian corridors will not be used for military purposes, and our turkish partners also acted as an intermediary in this situation to clarify this situation through the lines of the ministry of defense. uh, information was received from the turkish side

that such assurances were given to ukraine not to use these humanitarian corridors for military purposes. in this regard, i have given instructions to the ministry of defense to resume our full participation. in this work, at the same time, russia reserves the right to withdraw from these agreements. uh, in the event that these guarantees are violated by ukraine. well, although the grain deal has resumed, the ukrainian conflict is generally far from being resolved, speaking today at the joint board of the military departments of russia and belarus, russian defense minister sergei shoigu did. it seems to me a very important statement about the role of the united states and the west in general in this conflict, as well as about the goals of their policy, listen to the ministers. the kiev regime resorts to prohibited methods of confrontation, including terrorist attacks, contract killings

shelling of heavy weapons of civilians use as a human shield, but all this is a country. they try not to notice the west, moreover, it encourages the escalation of the conflict in ukraine , the ukrainian armed forces are constantly being pumped up with modern weapons of ammunition. it is necessary to provide their development with information, carry out direct target designation, send their military advisers, supply foreign mercenaries to the armed forces of ukraine , wage an information war against us. it is clear that the folded the situation is beneficial in the first place, the united states of america washington seeks to use it to maintain global leadership and to weaken other countries as much as possible, including its allies in europe, but the main goal is destructive. the efforts of the collective west, of course, is russia's destruction of the economy's military

potential, depriving it of the opportunity to pursue an independent foreign policy, that is, we are talking, in fact, about an existential conflict for russia, and we will discuss this policy of the united states a as well as the prospects for its change, including after the upcoming mid-term congressional elections there with the president of the center of national interests. dmitry salsom dmitry good evening. hello dmitry. well, we constantly hear the same mantra from the united states from washington, and in particular, yesterday john kirby repeated it yesterday, the official representative of the us national security council in order to maximize the position of ukraine for a negotiated resolution of this conflict, but here is what is meant by this negotiated resolution of the ukrainian conflict. even some american analysts, er, write, for example, on the pages of fore no

fait, that in fact, this means the capitulation of russia and sergei shoigu as you just heard, he says that the united states is seeking. well, in fact, the destruction of russia as a great power. yes, its exclusion, in principle, as an independent subject, but world politics. here is this really what is meant by a negotiated settlement of the ukrainian conflict in washington but, uh, sergey is the minister of defense, they are foreign affairs and traditionally and justifiably diplomacy, the military sound somewhat different. and i think from the point of view of the secretary of defense, rather say things that are quite logical. that's what the administration of the buy does, yes. if the biden administration were successful, it could have the

same consequences for russia that i wrote, this does not mean, however, that this is the official goal of the american policy, the official goal of american policy is more modest to force russia to sit down at the negotiating table, but if you want on ukrainian terms, and ukrainian terms are largely formulated by washington, and after they are formulated, who are they and how would they be transferred to kiev in kiev, these conditions become even tougher and even less acceptable to russia and, uh, the main question for russia. well, if you like, is russia ready to take on this challenge. and what is required to make this choice effectively, because, but if you want in that big game, which is being conducted in ukraine by the united

states line and uh the line of the collective west as a whole. clearly, they believe there to fight on the territory of ukraine using the ukrainian armed forces, but supplying them with an unprecedented amount of weapons, supplying them with intelligence information, moreover, well, in direct mode, because , for example, anchovy. this american weapon is a very effective artillery weapon, and it is effective to a large extent, because ukraine receives information from drones from radio interception from satellites receives information, where are the russian positions, where is the russian artillery, where is the russian serviceman, without this help, ukraine could not

be as effective as it is against russia. therefore, such a serious situation develops in russia, when, in general, every time russia finds a solution? and how to deal with new ukrainian weapons, and zelensky starts screaming, and we need something even more. uh, long-range artillery, even more uh, effective air defense system. this serious choice. therefore, no one is dmitry. how do you know they are closely watching whether russia will do something? further steps that would allow them to make situations when they hit russia on the russian army, and russia hits ukraine is, by definition, a favorable situation for

russia's opponents for the united states, including the united states, and there are different opinions in washington what russia can do about it russia says it is difficult to imagine the conditions under which russia would use nuclear weapons. even tactical nuclear weapons in russia are very cautious about using any forceful methods outside the territory of ukraine until we know that russia is doing something outside russian borders. although the challenge to russia comes from outside ukraine and uh. russia does not say this itself, there have not been such acts on the part of russia yet , but there are reasonable people in washington. they wonder if there is some kind of russian

red line? uh, that if she gets transferred to russia, she might start doing other things. and not against ukraine but against its patrons? this is a question with many unknowns. but as you can guess for the united states, this is a very serious matter. there are people like retired generals petryas clark who say, and what is russia? they have many opportunities. but uh, not enough willpower. to challenge the entire collective west, they will shout and shout. well, then they will go to an agreement on our terms. moreover , the agreement, which will not only be released, but all the territories occupied by russia in ukraine, they considered occupied territories. naturally, also the crimean donbass well, in general, which in the process

will weaken russia well, for example, i would like to remove the chernobursk fleet. naturally, there are such people from crimea, but there are other people, and if they are in the pentagon , they are in the central-knowledge direction, and they gradually appear in congress, who say that there is no need to give, but until the escalation reaches such a level that it is necessary look for a negotiating path today, there are such voices, if they are in the administration, let's listen what i just said, and the american ambassador to the un thomas greenfield, regarding the possibility of a meeting between and i want for her, made a reservation between obama and putin. i meant, of course, biden, but because e biden was the vice president of tababama. and in general, he is to some extent just those, not women, let's listen. get the usa out linda thomas greenfield

confirmed that joe biden has no plans to meet with vladimir putin at the g20 but said that the release of american citizens like brit nekreiner remains a priority, and she is ready for such a meeting. if there is a willingness to discuss the fate of ukraine, let me translate the normal russian language, but went to the united states, he did not speak about his meeting. uh-huh, she was talking about a meeting of the two presidents, and of course she would never talk just to say that there would be no such meeting. no, she wanted to understand that such a meeting had not yet been agreed upon, but there are, er, conditions, there are circumstances when such a meeting could take place and in the readiness of the administration. hold such a meeting. i believe. yes, that's the problem dmitry such a meeting would make sense, especially in the current

conditions, if there was something to discuss, except what would happen with some prisoners in russian or american prisons. and for this, such a meeting needs to be well prepared. and what worries me personally is that so far i see no signs that the biden administration is ready to start seriously preparing this meeting. and if this is postponed even longer, then, of course, there will be a choice for moscow to agree to a poorly prepared meeting. yes, on which nothing serious can happen. or refuse such a meeting, but on the eighth of exactly one week less than a week later there will be mid-term elections in the united states and if the republicans, as they are supposed to seize control, at least over

one house of congress. in this case, the house of representatives, i'm not talking about if they seize control of both houses, you must turn on. i think maybe there will be an additional motive to go into these negotiations, because he will have to reckon with the possibility, which will limit him help ukraine that there will be no more blind support, and then they can think in the white house. what could be and this is the moment when you need to talk? i’m not sure about this, such a possibility, there is dmitry, indeed, throughout the public opinion polls show that the republican party will win, and in the house of representatives it will take a majority in the house of representatives following the results of the midterm elections, the senate remains unclear, but again there are big prerequisites for so that uh the republican party has subjugated and uh, the senate, and you are right that uh in this case, uh, a

situation of divided government has arisen, and the united states will largely plunge into a legislative and administrative-political stupor, the republicans initiate, especially in the house of representatives, a large number of investigations probably. even impeachment will be announced, and biden and in this case, it will simply be harder for him, and write out endless bills, uh, for military support for ukraine but in the republican party. after all, there is no unity about what policy should be pursued with respect to ukraine and the ukrainian conflict is the point of view of supporters, and the two principles of america above all, who believe that when the united states is faced with such enormous internal problems, the highest inflation. uh, the beginning of the recession and so on, but you need to mind your own internal affairs. first of all, before supplying and helping

ukraine, the point of view of these republicans was recently expressed by kevin mccarthy in the meantime, minority leader republicans in the house of representatives after the mid-term elections from january 3 next year, most likely will be, peter but there are other republicans. yes, a and just in the senate, but a different point of view prevails in the republican party, which is expressed by both mech makonal and lindsey graham, influential republicans. and here's, uh, the latest example of a senator from oklahoma. e jim inn holf, who is now the top republican on the senate armed services committee, and if the republicans take the senate, he becomes chairman of the armed forces committee. here, on the contrary, he demands from the united states to strengthen, intensify, and military assistance to ukraine, er, in order to destroy russia

along with its allies. yes, i quoted from that post, and on twitter that posted, uh, this senator. yes, he pointed out that as a percentage of gdp, the united states is inferior to some european allies, he cited latvia as an example. yes, which, in absolute terms, of course, spends much less than the united states. but that's it as a percentage of gdp more than the united states and e. jim inn hoff, says the united states. we need to take an example from latvia , so listen to, uh, his statement. many of our nato allies on the front lines with russia help ukraine more than the us does in terms of their capabilities. that is why we must increase industrial capacity to replenish our own stocks of weapons to sell them to allies and support the victory of ukraine and our own. well , here it is. i want to draw your attention, just to this tweet, and in the upper right corner of the graph

that senator jim inn hoff brought up, it says destroy russia together destroy russia together into two points of view dmitry which of these two points of view will take over? uh, churchill is credited with saying, what is uh in order to understand an imperfect democracy. you just need to talk to the average voter. so. i want to tell you that even more argument against democracy. it's talking to the average congressman, including the average senator. this is a culture of complete irresponsibility, which is gradually. er, well, gradually even began to dominate the us congress, especially when it comes to foreign policy. after all, these are the same people. they are not responsible for conducting foreign policy. they are not responsible for the consequences. it is not

they who will have to explain to the voter. why did they poison the united states into some kind of volunteers. they can always tell. and that we kind of gave general recommendations that you need to be strong, what do you need? proud to support our friends and and to allies, and already the administration had to spend this life. if something doesn't work out, it's her fault. so i would have them and the senator of the incas. uh, what is called from this school of thought in the american congress? the main thing, of course, is that between these two approaches, there is some middle ground, not golden, but real. i do not think that this new congress, with any composition of the congress, will suddenly return to friendship. with russia , even to détente, even to normalization. i'm talking about something else about whether it's possible to admit the end of the blind

support for ukraine can be allowed? what does it mean that they will start checking how the funds provided by america to ukraine are spent and appoint someone, as is often done? the controller at the department of defense in the pentagon, who will be watching this. and finally, start telling the truth about what is happening in e ukraine because one problem is big in the united states when we talk about how it is built, and the american policy of relations with ukraine is complete nonsense instead of the truth when they look at ukraine but, for example, they say that ukraine was born as a democratic state. and that russia, for some incomprehensible reason, considers it possible to take away from russia that is, excuse

ukraine, its historical territories such as the crimean donbass. and you know, ukraine was born that way in the ninety-first year. quite differently, when in august 1991 there was an attempted coup in moscow and this conservative junta appeared, just like the state of emergency. i don’t have to tell you yeltsin stood on the tank, right? and what did he do? what did the president of ukraine kravchuk what instructions they gave political from kiev let's see. in connection with the introduction of a state of emergency in the country, the most important task of the party committees is to assist the state committee on the state of emergency in the ussr, any demonstrations, rallies , strike demonstrations should be excluded. this is how an independent ukraine was born. then they held a referendum. yes, and uh, they

provided the ukrainian people there. here, ostensibly free choice. let's listen. what choice was he given. today, not to support independence means only one thing to support dependence. but then the question arises of dependence on someone somewhere, a country on which we ardently desire to be dependent and thus work for it, as far as we know, none of the neighboring countries and none of the countries of the world claims to declare ukraine dependent on itself. it would be absurd, and since there is no alternative to independence, and this is a bit of an official appeal of the presidium of the supreme council of ukraine. to the people of ukraine on the eve the vote was told by the voter to vote for independence because there is no alternative. these were the free democratic elections that made ukraine ostensibly independent. and there

were no international observers, no public control, and yeltsin and his associates. blindly, they took it in such a way that ukraine, it takes a very interesting position, that it had the right to withdraw from russia on the basis of such a referendum, and crimea and donbass, on the basis of their referendums, have absolutely no right, but to withdraw from ukraine is a little illogical now the minsk agreements. previously, at least poroshenko tried, former president poroshenko gave the impression that ukraine was serious about the minsk agreements. then he admitted that he, too, was cunning. and now look what they are saying now about the minsk agreements. let's listen, this is how the agreement was signed, which were

signed under the barrel of a russian machine gun; they cannot act; everyone understands this and the time that has elapsed since the signing of these agreements about this and says that it is impossible to fulfill them if they could be fulfilled and they would have been fulfilled long ago. this is a very interesting statement, and it almost word for word repeats the statement of another well-known politician. let's listen. at gunpoint held at the temple and under the threat of starvation for millions of people, and then this document, torn by force, was declared holy, that is, think about it this is the idea that the international agreement is invalid, because you signed them in a moment of weakness yes, most agreements, especially when they sort of sum up the war, one of the sides is stronger, the other is weaker. it was hitler's position that this is how you can treat

international law, and now this position has become the official official doctrine of modern ukraine. therefore, from my point of view, when russia went on a special operation and when russia is now discussing the possibility of negotiations with ukraine, russia has every right and from the point of view of international law and from the point of view, if you want morality and justice. you can say, guys? well, don't teach us, don't teach us. to tell the truth, do not teach us peace, do not teach us democracy, and therefore, unfortunately, i am afraid that the results of the ukrainian company, that they will be documented through negotiations, but will be largely determined on the battlefield. unfortunately the other way. i don’t see dmitry today, i completely

agree with you. we will break for a few moments, and then we will continue to talk about the politics of the united states. stankevich bobrov , see how he meets only with me. by the way you heard they soak so easy injure. boy, where the moscow dynamo will fight and the bosom he will be able to play. i don't know if

he will be able to walk 11 silent men premiere on november 4 on first we have always admired you those who are not building a business, and the future of you is already 25 million of those who trust us, and we are doing everything to have the right to say tinkov bank of the year in russia in the morning with welson. you can fall asleep after 20 minutes , sleep soundly during the night and wake up easily, in the morning welson, bad sleep is no longer scary. buy mortgage insurance on compare and save up to 4.000 rub. if insurance, then compare

monday, no gift mood falls in the morning, so on mondays receive gifts from the subscriber. tele2 gifts. we have prepared a lot. choose three at once look at your smartphone. everything is already there inside of you mood. everything will be all right, monday and a gift. we know monday is tele2 gifts other rules sale 11 11 on yandex.market buy a digma laptop for only 10.990 rubles. and pay with the gossip a quarter immediately the rest afterwards, hello i like to feel comfortable. i love my high rise jeans. they make me feel tall and sexy and feel like the real thing. it must be my choice gloria jeans that here with the terminal with pockets the technical dilemma suddenly burned out the microcircuit with a credit card from rosbank it's not a problem when buying. shoot. transfer 120 days without interest and the fuss of

rosbank is a real opportunity when a runny nose again and again interferes with the plan. use aqualor ocean water spray and it and calcium and magnesium from ocean water help clear the cavity nose. and return comfortable breathing. aqualor breathe the energy of the ocean. we can help you find a job that will become part of your search life. we worked out always requires emotional strength. and here it is important to support a person in this situation. it seems to me that the profession is very important and the desire to go out is in demand in finding a job. a person needs a person from the employment center of russia. your work is our work. i'll pay for the guys, but you won't transfer them. oh, i have a credit card. only if i transfer the commission from me to you. take it, you're mad loan interest. and i can

not take any commissions for transfers from a tinkoff platinum credit card. tinkoff platinum is so able to issue a tinkoff platinum credit card on the tinkoff dot ru website and transfer money without interest commission tinkoff is the only one. eye ice cream when diseased joints become an obstacle for a comfortable life, use drugs that bioactively solve joint problems and take care of you, as the closest amben drugs to active joints and the bank offers you its own conditions for mortgage insurance. compare will help not to overpay, buy or extend mortgage insurance with savings of up to 4,000 rubles. in one of the ten largest insurance companies on

the site or in the application. if insurance, then compare choose better hot ice garant in russia live broadcasts on the fifth and sixth of november on the first this is a must see. choose figure skating in the betting league application and flies into the chat. watch live broadcasts and share emotions. liga stavok together to win. four big game the united states imposed russia on china with a simultaneous double confrontation and continuing the hybrid war against russia and the united states, as stated in the just published, well, late last week, published national defense strategy, considers china not only as the main and strategic geopolitical adversary. well, as the main and

strategic military adversary of the united states and the main factor that determines american military planning and, in general , the actions of the united states department of defense, while many american experts believe that the united states will not internally pull, but this simultaneous confrontation is a military confrontation with, china and russia a. therefore, they must move on, well, some kind of prioritization, and in particular to a political politician. in the classic settlement of the conflict with russia, and now, if most american realists, speaking of the need for a transition to diplomacy, appeal to the risks of escalation, then, for example, a professor at georgetown university and a senior fellow at the council on foreign relations in the united states charles capchin a goes a little further and he says that the united states simply cannot

sustain a new global cold war internally. about everything. well, many believe that the new global cold war will have a healing effect on the united states again a big enemy, even two enemies. yes, discipline again, a certain clarity in foreign policy, and factor that consolidates the american elites, but here, kapchan believes. uh, he thinks differently that, on the contrary, a new global cold war will aggravate the american internal state. who is right? uh, i think in this case with ml, it's really right. uh, yes, uh, right, a really

serious ah confrontation that will most likely drag on and be such a constant source of problems and expenses for the united states. uh, this, of course, will exacerbate domestic american domestic american problems. eh, i believe that in this case, he quite rightly said that the society is disunited. uh-huh society does not understand. why is this needed? if it were some kind, but a small victorious company? why the united states well, the truth is that in the united states over the past 30 years they have not been able to get into a small victorious company anywhere, they have run into everything and from everywhere. uh, completely mediocre then they left and in all the places where they came and then left it was worse than before they came, so american society is already doesn't understand very well. and what does this foreign policy

give. why is it what, it brings, uh, to ordinary american citizens, and does it really improve the position of the united states on the world stage, so of course questions uh, in connection with any big mess with the american uh, government, the american population will have a lot of questions, but normal answers. here is the so-called deep state of the foreign policy establishment, there are no normal answers, because the normal and honest answer - it's very simple. we would like to be in charge, and in order for us to rule this world, uh, uh, we do all this, if it’s true, american citizens hardly support this, therefore, of course, everyone in foreign policy. the tyrs now only exacerbate the internal situation, but e call e, means e. and let's all change our minds. let's stop this at the

stage where it still hasn't led to negative consequences inside the united states . i think this is rather naive advice, because even if in the united states suddenly someone and decides to stop returning to the inter-party consensus in the eccentric eccentric such a policy the world has already woken up, the united states is its own stupidity. this world has been awakened, and therefore there will be quite a lot of demands on the united states, the main demand on the united states. become a normal country and join the multipolar world on the terms of this multipolar world, and not on your own terms. i am quite sure that america will not be ready for this for a long time, so she won't be able to stop. this is very naive advice. well, i actually agree with captcha also because in the past cold howl. the united states had a consensus on foreign policy issues. now this consensus. no, not only in the

united states as a whole, but even within both parties and within the republican party, there is no consensus, and there in the senate prevail uh, the hawkish point of view in the house of representatives is starting to prevail among the republicans, the point of view on the contrary of americans, that is, america above all within the democratic center party, while the supporters of biden clinton and palace, but are in favor of continuing the current policy. the left wing progressive wing favors an early policy of diplomatic settlement. and by the way, according to the results of the midterm elections, the wings will be strengthened. here the more radical parties of both democrats and republicans will strengthen, therefore there will be no consensus in the united states e even a hint of e following the results of the midterm elections, but in any case, the united states was drawn into an irreversible a confrontation with china ahh, this stems entirely from national defense strategy and what's more, the

united states views china not only as a military threat, but as a factor that increasingly determines us nuclear weapons policy, here, and along with the national defense strategy, the nuclear doctrine was published. uh, the united states and listen to what it says about china. the people's republic of china is the main and main challenge for the united states in terms of defense planning and an increasingly important factor in evaluating our nuclear deterrent, the prc embarked on a massive expansion of the modernization and diversification of its nuclear forces and established its nuclear triad towards the end of this decade. beijing plans to have at least a thousand deliverable warheads in the 2030s. the united states will face the two major nuclear powers for the first time in its history as strategic rivals and potential adversaries. and it could shake stability and

create new deterrence challenges . arms control guarantees and risk reduction. well, first of all, please note that the united states proceeds from the fact that in the thirties both russia and china will remain rivals and potential opponents of the united states. and vasily boris do you agree with those forecasts for the development of the nuclear sector of nuclei. china's signal and how is it described in the american nuclear doctrine and will beijing be ready to start a dialogue with the united states on issues of strategic stability and arms control? this perfectly realistic forecasts, they may even turn out to be conservative china has more programs. e for the development of new systems e of strategic weapons and more software production than e not only the united states but also russia, that is, three e are synchronously produced there at once, such types of basic intercontinental ballistic

missiles. uh, there is a program to create new nuclear missile submarines and ballistic missiles. a full-fledged strategic aviation is being created for them, until it is able to strike at continental us but uh, in the foreseeable future will gain this ability. and uh, the focus of these efforts is precisely to increase the number of warheads that, uh, china can deliver to the continental united states, uh, apparently, at some point on the agenda, there will also be questions about changing china's attitude towards its tactical nuclear weapons, well, practically at the moment, apparently not or very little, although e, in the eighties, at the height of the cold war against the ussr, china e, carried out active work on him and managed to complete some important topics, in

particular, to test the neutron bomb in the eighty-eighth year, they did not deploy it. just then. that is, yes. new nuclear superpower. and about arms control, arms control will be of interest to the chinese. only when they reach some target in building up their nuclear forces, well, it's completely strange to get involved in arms control negotiations, when you are in a stage of active growth, it is not profitable for you, even to reveal something. there is one more moment. this is, uh, the question of what kind of arms control is possible at all, when you have three independent players that are in an asymmetric relationship with each other, that is, this situation, when russia and china on the one hand do not form a military alliance, and their potentials cannot be summarized, but on the other hand. they have a good relationship with each

other, bad with the us for three. this is very, very hard to imagine. that is, it should be some kind of fundamentally new control over weaponry unlike what we saw during the cold war, i absolutely agree with you, and in this regard, russia should in no case delve into the american ploy to start a tripartite arms control dialogue with the united states. because and this is impossible, and indeed russia and china are more than, uh, allies, and the parties trust each other, including on military-political and military-strategic issues, the united states is a potential adversary and puts itself. as if in within the framework of this tripartite dialogue on one level is absolutely impossible, at least it will lead. in fact, to the emergence of some friction between russia and china, and here, the united states proposes, by the way, in the same nuclear doctrine it is indicated that they will try to initiate

such a trilateral dialogue and even dialogue with russia on issues of strategic stability will be conducted taking into account factor of china, but it does not seem to us extreme and expedient, and falling for this american bait is the chinese position in within which they will never accept discriminatory size obligations. e nuclear. the final, that is, it cannot participate in an agreement in china, where it will have a lower limit than the united states, if this is the case, then we, uh, will not see a situation in which russia and china will always reserve us in total the right to more warheads than the united states, which means the approach will have to be completely different, but at the moment china is in principle not ready to participate in any negotiations of this kind, motivated by the fact that we don’t know so much less than russia and the united states, in

fact, how much less than russia and the united states have, let them shrink to our level , and then there will be something to talk about. this is such a chinese position. for the same reason, they do not disclose data and quantities. well, in any case, the united states has proclaimed a new, new confrontation, a new cold war with china , charles captchin believes that it will be fatal for the united states, but another prominent prominent american foreign policy analyst walter russell mfa uh this is a senior fellow at the hudson institute, and believes that by declaring a new cold war with china, the united states is not yet supporting this cold war with economic and military resources. that is, their rhetoric, harsh anti-chinese rhetoric, is at odds with the lack of serious actions that they are taking against china both in the military and

military-economic spheres, that is, the american military-industrial complex. roughly speaking, not yet ready for a systemic confrontation. with china , listen to an excerpt from an article by walter russell. we gave ukraine more than $20bn in the beginning of the russian invasion and sent an additional 20,000 troops to eastern europe a decision justified, but the contrast with our commitments in asia is sobering now senators are working to provide taiwan with $10bn in aid for the next 10 years. this is half less than the threat received by ukraine during the 8 months of the war in asia is growing rapidly, given the aggressive and ambitious chinese military buildup, the continuous strengthening of north korean nuclear capabilities and the expansion of russian-chinese cooperation. washington cannot afford to treat east asia as a secondary theater of operations

political, diplomatic and economic stability may only come there after the restoration of us military superiority, which was lost in 15 years of ineffective american policies in the region, the us cannot pay alone deterring the revisionist powers from conventional as well as nuclear war, and our allies will have to intensify their efforts. in general, even despite the build-up of germany and japan in their military budgets. the us should also increase defense spending. as harsh as our rhetoric may be, if we and our allies fail to provide adequate military protection for our core interests in the endo-pacific region , sooner or later containment will fail. well, in this regard, walter russell mfa recommended to the united states. to produce approximately the same cycle of militarization and military-economic mobilization that they carried out in the fifties, when they began

a systemic confrontation with the soviet union, but here is leonid markovich, and in the fifties the united states accounted for approximately 40% of world gdp and they really flourished economically now the situation is a little bit, otherwise, will they be able to pull economically what walter russell offers. let me do a little introduction, but just a reminder that american military spending government taxes before the first war would be so small that the us is easy. a divorce faster than to europe in 1936, roosevelt would win the election, promising not to go to war, and if it weren’t for perharbor and the insane declarations of war by the hitlers in december 1941, when he was in moscow and thought that there were still prospects ahead. and it’s not clear how they would even enter, because it was not an easy task in the fifties, but firstly, as for the gdp of the world, sometimes i would consider science more an investment

and military spending together separately, because the majority. this food is, as it were, now we say, here, and the main internal restrictions of the united states are not even in the size of the ratio. in terms of military spending, by the way, the chinese have reached about 40% of the american ones. this is approximately the level that we had at the end of the century, before the end of the eighties. it was at this peak, when everything began to escalate, too. but, therefore, it is very noticeable that at this moment and e such a critical level, when the americans were worried about huge internal social problems. and in fact, they say the mandate that the government accepted, a biden in the elections of the twentieth year. this is a solution to internal social problems, because, generally speaking, they continue, in general, like this. well, with growth. uh , increasing the distance between the rich ten percent, it's already been noticed by the rest and, uh,

retraining for people to raise the level not to equalize all this will be very difficult. let's see how it votes. people, i would not like to interfere in the elections, wait. e eighth. let's see how voted by the people who voted those who voted in 2020 boys, how they vote now, because it defines, uh, the main tasks, so i think without any of these fantastic things. there is equivalent to perharbor to mobilize the inner consciousness. here is the american army. very much we understand dear us soldiers in iraq cost a million dollars a year. but this is a slightly different structure in general and of extreme necessity. uh i don't see why be mobilized and militarized. i believe in sound

the meaning of the americans hmm let's hope that everything , somehow, somehow this thing will cool down. in short, i also believe in the common sense of the american voters but the american foreign one. as we all know very well and have seen with the example of donald trump, it is determined by the deep state. but in the deep state, in the last few weeks, just a mainstream has formed, and the need not only to increase american military spending, but to comprehensively restructure the american economy in accordance with the requirements of the new cold war, and above all the cold war with china are a few examples. by the way , we also discussed this michel flornoy, former deputy secretary of defense of the united states thomas mankin, former deputy deputy secretary of defense of the united states and walter russell the foreign ministry is hitting the same point, it is necessary to repeat the fifties, it is necessary to repeat what was implemented, and in in accordance with the decision

of the us national security security council number 68 documents from np 68, and the need for just militarization. american translation economy her on a war footing in order to participate in the cold war ivan alekseevich, this mainstream has formed. we are on the verge of a new arms race, perhaps even more ambitious than it was in the last cold war. accordingly, what follows from this is simply, well, unfortunately, in some areas. ah, the arms race. it's just inevitable, because the united states won't tolerate it. eh, that one is already very annoying. and i am comfortable with the fact that russia has e within the framework of existing treaty obligations on strategic weapons quantitatively. we are all equal, but qualitatively russia is ahead simply due to the fact that in the previous decade.

well, there have been very successful programs. and in general, now they are proposing to launch an arms race against china yes, they are lagging behind e yes or, or at least, as walter russell correctly wrote, they lost overwhelming military superiority over china and urgently need to restore it the fact is that they know how to e , start military campaigns only from the position superiority, however, even from these positions they cannot win more than one company, but they are comfortable when they have superiority, therefore , within the logic of american foreign policy, but forced military spending and an arms race. she is inevitable. but as already mentioned. this will most likely lead to american internal contradictions. and here it is, uh. it seems to me that we face an interesting one, that we all find ourselves with a choice already. i already talked about this, what do we want, we want the united states to come to its senses

or we want an epic e such. and and well, so that they epicly welled up the failure of an epic failure. yes, so that they stumble epic. let's say so. but in principle, we have a very long time and this is not even the last 30 years. it's probably from the late sixties. let's say with the caribbean crisis. yes, since the caribbean crisis, the anniversary, which we recently celebrated in response, but we still had the attitude that we want them to change their minds, so that they switch to some normal positions, so that we can reach an agreement. right now. it seems to me that they put themselves in a position where, rather, we should be rationally interested in their epically stumbling, unfortunately, for some

part of the world. here is china, it seems to me, too, that it has matured to bet not on bringing americans to reason, but on calmly stumbling epicly. but a significant part of the small and medium powers is still forming a request to us to the big powers. well, you somehow agree there. and while this gap exists, then there is much in the interests of the world as a whole. it seems that it would be necessary to agree, but to bring the americans to normal agreements, well, it doesn’t work, but it’s in our own interests in the interests of china, as i understand it, to bet on an epic stumbling. thank you america. that's when china observes this already formed american narrative, and in the deep state, and the need for a qualitative increase in defense spending, an attempt to try to still try to get from the new military superiority over china that the united states with

china is in roughly the same situation as the us and the soviet union were in the early fifties. here in china what solutions do you understand? eh, the situation? not the same, and even if you look for similarities in it, then it has changed, on the contrary. uh, the united states of the uh, forties-thirties-forties and fifties is the world's greatest industrial economy . uh, the world workshop and it was this colossal industry that made it possible to carry out a huge increase in military production during the second world war and it also provided. uh, part in the cold war in the future, uh, while the cold war did not benefit the united states at all. eh, it had in its consequence, and the burden on finances, huge non -productive costs, a compromise with the allies, which led to the further explosion of the industrial potential. but now there is

paper gdp which means nothing and the value of gdp has nothing to do with your military potential. there is industry. uh, the chinese industry, it is more american, and much more, and we see it is amazing an example is now from 2015. china is building new ships for the navy, twice as fast. than the us can do it simply because china is also the largest manufacturer of civilian ships in the world. uh, in the united states , civilian shipbuilding was killed. mad god already by the eighties, there isn't. there is a military there, but there is no reserve of manpower , equipment production capacities cannot be quickly increased in the way that in china you know the military confrontation in the fifties, on

actually started with the korean war, of ​​course, i remind you that just first there was a conversion crisis, and then there was a very difficult chris forty-eighth forty-ninth, it is considered, i don’t know, in my opinion a political scientist. anyway, that the korean incident there was created in order to load those capacities, because they were afraid of leaving back. in the great depression, he recalled that in the twenty-ninth year, americans produced 5.2 million cars in the thirty-third 1.3 four times less and the next time they produced 5 million. fifty in the fourth year after the korean war, generally speaking, that is, this war was as a way to restore the utilization of these capacities, which my colleague is now talking about, so now i think that it is really possible to launch such a scale. uh, it's very difficult, especially since you understand how to block the pacific ocean with a dam. eh, hmm

hard. well, actually. i agree. and of course, now if the united states follows the path recommended by walter russell of the foreign ministry and so on, they will simply lose. here is the confrontation. with china, they find themselves in much a weaker situation cannot be overcome. e your weakness for this, perhaps a new confrontation is new. the water war that the united states unleashed will have a more disciplinary effect on them and will push them to, well, still accept the reality of a multipolar world and begin to play a more constructive rather than destructive role in this multipolar world. we will now break for a short advertisement and then we will talk about the relations between china and europe. she was taken to moscow like a prisoner, fearing no one was plotting against her.

lets in at seventeen a widow without a home without money without a person on whom you can rely on yesterday. she was a duchess without a dukedom. for many years she endured the need for everything dependent on strangers , and today she was offered the imperial crown. yes, they were going to make her a pawn in someone else's game, but the russian princess believed when she returned to her homeland. she will be able to stand up for herself and no matter what it costs. anna ioannovna empire premiered on november 4 at the first, but she could not believe happiness. can she now breathe freely and arrange for life, these hopes collapsed overnight. we have always

admired you for believing in yourself and reaching for the stars to your mother, living in a vast country over which the sun never sets, and we do everything to have the right to say tinkov bank photo in russia, even where the cold reigns, there is one who is stronger. you understood an international brand with many years of expertise in the development of engine oils for harsh climates where quality standards are paramount. you were an oil hardened by cold. buy for z and boilie.