hmm and before him, kirill loved yes, after which you received a displacement jaws realized that they had outdone the stick and decided to change the donor. but now this one is coming to an end. why not experiment with the funny convict artyom ? only a stupid impotent can talk like that? all that is required of you? and i trusted you. i don't understand, you just punched my man. get away from me. you know what good is a manic state, you get pleasure from everything. including fight. you went crazy.

please don't kill me, why are you so small? okay they specifically told me that i forced him. please forgive me. i'm a complete fool. we have you family, but i still love you very much.

no, they won't come today. don't even know to thank you or like another honestly. so do i. but we don't always get it.

what happened is not my fault. there is also my fault there is fault. you and i aroused some sensitive natures, and those that

served, it's true. maybe the last one i would n't want to lose a friend. imagine, what a storm will rise, surely you will lose, and i will retreat to the beginning will be laid.

so hurry up, will the conspirators want to wait for an indignation? big premiere time get angry. good evening, the big game is on air today,

russian defense minister sergei shoigu inspected the command post of the combined group of russian troops, uh, who are carrying out a special operation in ukraine and in recent days around how, when and how this conflict will end and whether it will escalate into a third world war a really big game has unfolded, the united states where today, by the way, is the main day, uh, of the midterm elections and for which the ukrainian conflict is part of the overall struggle to restore and strengthen hegemony. today, the national security advisor to the president of the united states is conducting very intensive consultations on this matter with russia and ukraine and with its allies. jake sullivan confirmed the information circulated the day before, it was circulated by the wall street journal that he entered into negotiations with high-ranking representatives of russia, and the sharp jordan called out, in particular, nikolai patrushev and the secretary council of the russian security council and yuri ushakov

, assistant to the president for foreign relations , means that sullivan was negotiating with them to prevent the escalation of the ukrainian conflict, according to sallion himself, and the main topic of these negotiations was nuclear weapons. we will also discuss these negotiations and the negotiations of the united states with its allies and with ukraine regarding options for ending the current conflict with dmitry simes, president of the center for national interests, and dean of the faculty of international relations at mgimo. andrey sushintsov dmitry andrey andreevich good evening. good evening dmitry i'm with you. e. the first question. here, uh, on the one hand, the fact that these negotiations took place? i mean, between patrushev, between sully and patrush ushakov, probably indicates that the risk of escalation is still great and from this point of view it’s good that they took place, but on the other hand, the reason for these risks of escalation is that the

united states continues the policy pumping up ukraine's weapons provide it with intelligence information and so on, and apparently, the united states does not want to abandon this policy. and third, the best. in my opinion the way. d escalation. it would probably be, uh, a transition to a political and diplomatic settlement, and, according to sallion himself, the day before. eh, she confirmed it and said the same. karin genre, official representative of the white house , did not discuss the issues of the diplomatic settlement policy in ukraine with russia, that is , only risk management and escalation prevention were discussed. here you can do it all comment. well, first of all, uh, dmitry if you remember, uh, we talked about what kind of dialogue took place on this program. eh, and already some time ago they called the same names that became known. now i think that the information, in principle, is

true, but here you need to be very careful. i don't know that negotiations have taken place. i know that there has been a dialogue and an exchange of views. and these are several different things. you as specialists in national security control over weapons. we perfectly understand the difference, of course, and dialogue is, uh. well, if you like, the initial stage, when you first want to avoid misunderstanding each other by some mistakes. want to have control over escalation. yes, if you can, so to speak, show each other, but if you can put it that way, not your good will, because you still have common sense, this is extremely important. well, if we are talking about negotiations, and attempts at this stage to really agree on something, as far as i know, this

stage has not yet taken place. i can't say that she didn't, because i don't know everything. well , because i am, at least in washington, my interlocutors did not speak or name me . uh, that's what's going on today with negotiations even on the issues of preventing escalation and defining red lines that are opinions of and from the american country. as you know, they proudly said, including jake sullivan, that uh warned russia about the inadmissibility of the use of nuclear weapons, including tactical nuclear weapons, and how can this have the most catastrophic consequences for russia? i tried to find out, but if you want, with what degree of specificity it was said whether it was studied like this intimidating, like a threat, how it was possible

to interpret the words of savanov, i did not find such confirmation in moscow e is not important, but the position of the administration must be understood, it's very clear here. they say that at this stage they are not ready to negotiate with russia because these negotiations should be conducted with russia only from ukraine no talks about ukraine without ukraine, it has become, if you like, the slogan of the biden administration, and here, uh, sometimes situations like yesterday arise. uh, at an event in new york with very senior people in the administration, where was the question? but to what e point? how long will washington be ready to support kiev and the answer was absolutely no

ambiguity for as long as it takes? this caused, let's say, certain bewilderment of those present, because such a concept, well, does not exist, uh, to support them forever, but at least because the biden administration will not last forever. at least because of this it happens, but nevertheless it is their position. and i would be very interested. uh, that means not only and not so much that mr. sallin, uh, told his counterparts in moscow. installations, i understand that rivers are telephone conversations, which is also, as it were, not enough for serious negotiations. i was very interested in what he said in kiev, whether he told zelensky during a recent visit, that how we would be on your side and slightly. calm down and there is no

need to talk about what absolutely impossible conditions you will have. to start even negotiations with russia, or vice versa, i came to assure zelensky that he could count on the full support of washington. that would be about it. and it's very interesting to know dmitry well, as far as risk management and escalation prevention are concerned, this is an extremely important issue. and regardless of whether consultations took place or full-fledged negotiations took place, where possible, certain edges, the intersection of which is unacceptable under any circumstances. only this applies to both sides, including the united states. yes , this is extremely important, but the question that you asked is no less important. yes, of course, the united states today. i think they are not even consulting with russia, but about the parameters of a possible policy for a diplomatic settlement of this conflict, but dmitry is from the

russian point of view. this formula is nothing about ukraine without ukraine, it is hypocritical, because ukraine is not an independent player. well , it is, moreover, absolutely unrealistic. you see, even the western media write that the united states is discussing the possible contours of a settlement with its allies, but without ukraine, the italian newspaper larry wrote about this, yes, it was quoted mainly about something else, but in fact this newspaper is this the publication suggests that the united states is discussing with its nato allies the possible parameters of a policy di settlement without the participation of ukraine that is, as it were uh, this is uh, the mantra is nothing about ukraine without ukraine, it really has such a rhetorical

character . the day after sullivan's visit to kiev that, in the opinion of the united states, ukraine should take a more flexible approach to the possibility of negotiations with russia , however, such a diplomatic reservation was again made that it was the united states are not forcing ukraine to actually sit down at the negotiating table with russia a. it's just that the united states wants to preserve the unity of the west, to maintain the support of european countries that are not interested in the endless prolongation of the conflict and want to reduce criticism from non-western countries that also do not want an endless prolongation. conflict, but the united states is increasingly openly sending kiev a signal that it is necessary to sit down at the negotiating table. and yesterday, and this need to sit down at the negotiating table is no longer through the media, but quite open officially announced the official representative of the state department. no, price listen to his statement. our thought is very simple,

this war must end diplomatically through negotiations. there will be no decisive victory at polevaya. while we have provided ukraine with billions of dollars in security assistance, zelenskiy has repeatedly said that this war can only end through dialogue and diplomacy. we feel exactly the same our european allies feel the same dmitry well, the price quite unambiguously said there will be no victory, while ukraine officially still says that it is necessary first for russia to withdraw its troops to the borders of the ninety- first year, that is, it means from the crimea and from the donbass and then to the negotiating table. yes , mikhail podolyak, for example, said this today. uh, adviser to the office of the president of ukraine, but dmitry will agree, what kiev is talking

about contradicts what the price is talking about, because it is impossible to imagine without a complete, in general impossible to imagine. such a scenario, in principle, i liked what mr. price said and he is, in my opinion, a much more experienced person in charge, if you want a representative of the administration of something adam who, uh, is the representative of the president in the white house. having said it. e. it seems to me that mr. price was a little bit wrong about president zelensky . zelensky does not say that he is inclined to negotiate. he formulated conditions that require total unconditional surrender russia including changes in the russian leadership. and, of course, to give ukraine all the territories that kiev considers its own, this is a complete capitulation. and what contradicts the fact that he demands delyansky and actually, there is, uh, a rational element with which i cannot but

agree. and don't look at me in disbelief. there is a rational element there. in the sense that it may be necessary to learn from zelensky and explain to ukraine what conditions could be for russia, for example, that there should be a restoration of the territorial the integrity of russia, an integral part of which ukraine was, and that, if the criterion, as it were, of the legitimacy of international agreements is that they were concluded and absolutely honest voluntarily, then this is how the referendum was held in ukraine in the ninety-first year, in no way, and voluntariness and honesty to these criteria does not correspond and it seems to me that it is rustic. uh, somehow he needs to be explained to him from washington and brussels that there is a difference. and what about the rhetoric of a presidential candidate on television? even

he eventually became president and the demeanor of a serious statesman. and if zelensky does not understand this, you will explain this to him, sir. do you know why he will explain to him, but he will have no other choice, most likely, he will most likely have no other choice, because i think tomorrow. it will become known that the republicans have seized control of at least one house of congress, namely the house of representatives, as i would never rule out surprises in the american elections in forty-eight . everyone said the trumpeter was doomed to be defeated were corresponding to headline newspapers trumpeted re-elected. well, in general, now e system. uh, public opinion checks are much more reliable than they were back then. i think it is very unlikely that the democrats will retain

control over the house of representatives without control over it, they will not be able to approve budgets, of course, and mr. weiden. he can say whatever he wants to zelensky and declare endless love, but he will not receive money on the scale from which he received ukraine. let's see what says an influential member of congress madrid greentail magic you opened our border wide open but the only border that they care about is the border of ukraine, not the southern border of america under the republicans, ukraine will not get a penny, our country is more important. and then there's kevin mccarthy, who is now, uh, still today the republican minority leader in the house. and if the republicans win, he will become speaker of the house instead of a pilot. he already said, uh , no, no one is going to leave ukraine, but

without the control provision of billions dollars that it won't happen again. and that, uh, there will definitely be hearings in congress, where they will look, and how american money is spent in ukraine and, uh, be sure. besides this, there will be some controllers who will be specially sent for this to kiev, that is, zelenaya street there will be no more for kiev in washington. and therefore, i think that the person is acting very pragmatically saying that zelensky needs to agree to negotiations, because you will not agree, contrary to the statements of the administration. he everything that wants to receive for a long time will no longer be. i completely agree with you, and it seems to me that the intensification of american diplomacy in recent days is precisely connected with and with the midterm

elections that will end today in the united states and with the difficulties that europe is increasingly facing european union , which has exhausted its military resources and is suffering more and more economically, therefore it is quite obvious that to pursue the same policy next year, which the collective west under the leadership of the united states will no longer be able to hold this year. and if so, then it needs to be adjusted accordingly. uh, the political course and that's about it. actually , the publications in the island, the washington post journals, are exactly what jake sullivan and ah. there is no price that it is necessary to gradually move to a political and diplomatic settlement and midterm congressional elections. here they really play very well. uh, a very important role. i completely agree with you, moreover according to today's estimates of public opinion , the republican party can win both

houses of congress. here's an estimate from the university of virginia republicans can take 237 out of 435 seats in the house of representatives and fifty-one seats in the senate 51 seats in the senate guarantee. yes , you know what i will tell dmitry, even control over one chamber will change the situation and the balance of power in washington, and this is where it arises from my point of view the central question for the administration how long can they say that there will be to determine whether or not to negotiate with russia and how long, given zelensky’s position , will congress be ready to give zelensky billions of billions of dollars, my answer will not be long. and nixon, for example, did not want to admit defeat in vietnam. he categorically did not want to, and on the battlefield he

managed to achieve impressive results there, but he simultaneously negotiated, and at the same time he showed flexibility in the negotiations, because he understood that if he had this flexibility does not show, then congress, vietnam will generally quit, and in in the end, congress, vietnam left, when nixon was forced to resign and everything flew in vietnam, therefore, the idea that some kind of administration, especially one as unpopular as the biden administration. or maybe pride is we will do this in relation to ukraine and we will do it to the end. it's just a position absolutely. not realistic and i'll tell you one more thing there is the trump factor. and now all the front lines in the liberal papers are talking about how trump republicans falsely said they were stolen at trump, the elections of the twentieth year. i will not

try to express my opinion on this matter now. this is a difficult question, but i know that trump is convinced who stole his choice and he is convinced that one of the levers to steal the election from him was ukraine, he proceeds from the fact that if it were not for ukraine, he would be in the white house today, and not biden. and this means that for a significant number of republicans who will be elected to congress today. ukraine's behavior is not a theoretical issue of foreign policy, but rather an actual central issue of political struggle in of the united states and dmitry, i completely agree with you, moreover, on november 15, most likely, donald trump will, uh, announce his already official entry into the presidential race of 24 years and in addition to the legislative budgetary and, in principle, political impasse that will arise in

washington as a result of a divided government, where the white house will remain under the control of a democratic administration, and one or both houses of congress will be under the control of the republicans in addition to what ends investigation of donald trump, most likely, and an investigation of joe biden will begin, as well as biden's son , in addition to the fact that, most likely, biden will be impeached by the republican house of representatives, this may be done more than once and many of joe biden's initiatives will be blocked in the interests of internal political struggle. america will again plunge into the new presidential race, and and here it is already, but it will be. well, roughly speaking, ukraine will no longer be a top priority. here you go for russia, ukraine remains a top-priority president, andrei, and, of course, it would be very interesting for me to know, as you can see, the reaction in

moscow to all these, i don’t know what to call the new initiatives. or, perhaps, more precisely, new trends, new accents, who do they consider from your point of view in the russian leadership? what about these new winds? or maybe some kind of wind? yes, but the new breeze, whiff, whiff, that they are related to practical politics and whether this creates some kind of new optimism in moscow and in regarding firstly the talks on ukraine and secondly, perhaps the preparation of a meeting between the two presidents. i mean. naturally, putin and the war. unfortunately, dmitry, i cannot support the optimism that some commentators express that there are publications in the wall street journal and my conversations. well, the main officials of the russian government. they have already spoken quite extensively about this

hypothesis that full-scale negotiations are now underway, such negotiations are not underway maria zakharova called them point contacts, which are not necessarily synchronized with the release of this publication and it is more reasonable to consider it as one of the instruments of american domestic policy or a way to signal to the united states by its ally that yes, we hear your concerns that it is being dragged out and you want a diplomatic initiative from us. yes, we are making some effort, but words are very different from deeds. we are in parallel. we see the continuation of a very active line of the united states to buy up all the old soviet weapons in europe and other parts of the world. uh, equipping this old tech with amy's new aiming and targeting systems and preparing for the obviously coming new phase of the war. perhaps this signaling was aimed at

showing at least some dynamics on the eve of the american elections, that it is good that ukraine does not have major military successes on the battlefield, but, apparently, the negotiation window is coming. and so we participate in it, but as we see, uh, official the faces of the russian government deny the existence of such negotiations. russia, however, was open to them and continues to be an open translation . it is a very simple practical question, which is probably not so easy to answer. from your point of view, is there an opinion or even a feeling in moscow that these new winds of the moment, as dmitry said, that these new winds somehow influenced specific american policy towards ukraine, that, for example, it supplies fewer weapons, that some weapon that urge ukraine to exercise restraint with

respect to crimea regarding strikes against traditional russian territories, if such a feeling or such an opinion is in moscow the short and direct answer to this question is no such sensation yet. no, we have just experienced a series of sensitive blows in the russian infrastructure. this page is not turned over, we know about the existence of kiev's plans to deliver other similar strikes ; self-government hit russian targets in the black sea, and we do not see any physical ones. the consequences of this new american trend, if it can be interpreted in this way, while words are very different from deeds, if there were a significant reason for a different point of view, this would probably be felt in the discussions that i have with my colleagues at the moment, there are no such reasons. you

do not see, and your colleagues do not see any reason to say that some shifts are already taking place in american concrete policy, it is desirable for moscow direction. if these shifts exist, then it is more likely that in the internal american discussion about what could be the american goal during this crisis, the stages of implementation, apparently, have not yet reached and eventually. the direct and main consequence of this discussion should be a change in the position of kiev on the negotiating conditions that it puts forward . well, i agree with andrei andreevich, indeed. we we see no practical changes in american policy. here and now. and ka-ka- new deliveries of weapons are practically announced every week.

a new long-term command for the long-term militarization of ukraine is being created in ukraine within the framework of the european command of the united states command system e, v. e. europe , therefore, the practical policy remains the same, but the american point of view. it seems to me that this question is already for you. no contradiction. e between trying to control the escalation. prevent the use of nuclear weapons and meanwhile, in order to simultaneously help ukraine as much as possible 12 of the results that i already want, i completely agree with you dmitry really. i started with this, that the very fact of consultation between sullivan and russian officials indicates that we are very close to the risk of escalation. if this risk did not exist, these consultations would not exist. yes, but from the very beginning, the position of the biden administration was

that we are waging a hybrid war against russia but we do not allow its transition to a direct military clash. actually, sullivan was engaged in this, but even this completely fits into the american course, but i don’t see, just like andrei andreevich , practically changes in the policy of the united states, but i see changes in understanding, possible and impossible in the medium term. i see understanding in the united states of what is in force. the circumstances we have already mentioned and in the midterm elections here play a primary role in relation to the united states themselves. continue this course next year. moreover , it is impossible for an infinitely long term, so this course needs to be corrected now, there is no correction, but sooner or later. yes , sooner rather than later. we will see from the results of the midterm elections. we'll see what position the republican party will take starting next january 3rd when

the new congress meets, most likely a change in that policy, and there will be uh. this, of course , it seems to me, is perceived in russia positive enough. i fully agree today, deputy foreign minister of russia andrei rutenko said that, by the way, unlike ukraine, russia does not put forward any preconditions for a possible resumption of negotiations, ready to start them at any time. and ukraine has not yet come immature to come to the conclusion that negotiations are necessary. on the one hand, ukraine, in my opinion, resembles such a corpse, connected to a life support system, when even more than half of the consumables are farther budget of ukraine e is fully financed by outside assistance. you know the west, what dmitry reminds me of, it reminds me of the drive regime in afghanistan on the eve of the arrival, the taribs were completely supported by american assistance, what did we all remember with this regime? yes, ukraine

is in this position, and of course, the average states have reserves to make, and resources to make zelensky himself want, but not a contradiction in the american position, so that zelensky himself wants negotiations. e with russia and accepted te conditions that he was offered, but apparently ukraine so far proceeds from the fact that the united states simply cannot afford to change poli but i think that starting next year is largely due to the midterm elections in the united states will be able to afford politics because for the republicans, the most important thing is what is happening inside the united states, what they are concerned about. actually ordinary american voters, and not about what is concerned about in e. volodymyr zelensky agrees, and dmitry a andrey andreevich bolshoy thanks for the interesting conversation, and the big game will return to the studio. in a few moments, russian literature exploded and created its own unique

style. before him, no one wrote like that, that if, for example, napoleon had happened in my place, in order to write well, you have to suffer, the dostoevsky team still gave him a colossal capacity for work. some, let's say, negative qualities, for example, epileptics are characterized by extreme irascibility. oh, where the fate of the three main women of dostoevsky hid, they will be intertwined together, they are dying jealous and quarreling over him. get on the roulette table. and you say as much as you can. i went with the thought, at least something to win back and lost everything, anya he loses wedding rings loses his wife's skirts pawns 6 o'clock in the morning. semyonovsky platz athos dostoevsky, in one shirt with his head uncovered, listens to the sentence of

death and shooting, which flashes through his head at that moment. dostoevsky 201 between hell and paradise on friday on the first need money for the purchase. how much can the bank approve for us? let's let's look at tinkoff, you can find out the amount of a loan for a business without a scan-custom certificate from the usr of contracts with counterparties photo 3x4 without going to hell. and most importantly, without opening an account, just upload an extract from your bank, only an extract, only an extract. leave an application on tinkoff.ru and find out the loan amount without opening an account. the best digital bank for lending to small businesses tinkov , he is the only one to set up with love, tonometers automatically 1.550 rubles. book and pick up at a convenient pharmacy.

if there are skin problems in the pictures, it's easy for me correct something in life, their disguise, not the output of akriderm gk of complex action helps fight inflammation of infections on the skin and give more confidence in beauty life. cyan will make sure that you do not overpay when renting or buying, because we mark apartments with a favorable price, write to the owner or call. how to choose only in magnet cosmetics my exclusive collection of home clothes inspired by nature-siberians. buy

a car. you can fall asleep after 20 minutes , sleep soundly through the night and wake up easily. welson in the morning, bad sleep is no longer scary. hook especially when the desired is within easy reach, as with an online fsb loan for any purpose, the fsb believes in people, thanks to me, people's lives appear both weekends and working days. i will help you prepare for your interview. even if you go to work for the first time, he will not only see your bright future, but also help you to be in it. in search of work, a person needs a person. job employment center of russia your work is our work. buy your favorite products and new items for your beauty, as well as household chemicals with discounts of up to 45%

on wildberries based on the attacks of influenza and sars viruses within 2 hours after taking. acting on the cause of the illness at the base. start treatment on time protect yourself and your loved ones you don’t have to be calm about your savings, you can even with a high rate if it is a reliable vtb bank up to 9.5% opened. now it's your turn. magnet buy cheaper coffee milago gold 199.99 more discounts in the mobile app magnet is an innovative cough medicine that helps to expedite sputum elimination. withdrawal inflammation and support of pulmonary immunity.

emulcin is a cough innovation for the 21st century. we have always admired you who are beating yourself up and reaching for the stars, living in a vast country over which the sun never sets, and we are doing everything to have the right to tell tinkoff bank photo in russia what is behind this sign behind this sign is the real shirinskaya school batuly and a really interesting activity in the growth point, where real five- crashers are passionate about their first discoveries more than 9.000 points of growth in small towns and villages all over russia so that these guys have a truly bright future national project. education is what matters here and now there is a big game on the air and we continue to discuss tectonic shifts in world politics and the world

economy with experts from mgimo a and in recent weeks, the united states has stepped up contacts with russia not only on the issue of risk management and minimization. e to prevent the risk of an escalation in ukraine but also on issues of strategic stability and nuclear security. and today the russian newspaper kommersant and the american wall street journal wrote, with references to the russian and american leadership, respectively, that literally in the next 2-3 weeks, that is, at the end of november at the beginning of december, the next meeting of the bilateral russian american commission of the advisory commission on the treaty start-3, which i recall in february 26, and since russia no longer considers switzerland as a neutral country due to the fact that it joined the anti-russian ones. sam is this the meeting could take place in the middle east and here the wall street journal names cairo as a

likely probable meeting place. but, of course, these meetings did not take place. for a long time, while the parties have accumulated claims and questions to each other, the united states, for example, wants to discuss with russia the issue of resuming inspections at russian nuclear facilities. russia accuses the united states of not quite fulfilling e. dsnv-3, and there, in particular, russia has questions about the reverse conversion of american bombers and launchers, and ballistic missiles, but in general, of course, the conversation is important. well, here, but, uh, nonetheless. this quorum will certainly be very difficult. here. hear what the need and at the same time about the difficulties of the russian-american dialogue on strategic stability are written in a recent forinference article, and two autos. renowned american expert is andrew kendal taylor uh,

senior fellow at the center for a new american security and well-known military expert michael kofman, uh, who uh works in center for naval analysis, listen the growing importance of non-strategic or tactical nuclear weapons to the russian military means that moscow is less willing than ever to negotiate limits on its nuclear capability. this is especially problematic given that russia has a more diverse nuclear arsenal than the us with a variety of non-strategic nuclear weapons, according to russian nuclear doctrine. moscow seems to be more willing to use these weapons. in case of conflict congressional hostility towards russia and moscow’s violation of signed treaties reduce the chances that the us and russia will agree to replace the start-3 treaty after it expires in 2026. without such an agreement, russia's ability to produce strategic nuclear weapons and deploy new types of weapons will be

unlimited, and the united states will lose access to important information about the russian strategic nuclear arsenal. it should be noted that china is also modernizing its nuclear weapons as a result of the united states will have to deal with two nuclear powers, whose action is unlimited and which the united states considers its main threat andrei andreevich well, in your opinion. uh, which is evidenced by the desire of the united states to resume dialogue with russia on nuclear and missile matters for strategic stability. now even before the end of the military phase, and the ukrainian conflict. and what can be expected from this dialogue, taking into account, among other things, those problems that were pointed out by mike kofman and andrei candoller. while we we are dealing with the willingness of the parties to resume these consultations. this does not mean that by the 26th year, but by february of this year, when the contracts with nv3 ends. we will have a prolongation of this treaty or a new version of smw, 4

or something else, a publication in the form of a fest should also not be considered as an invitation to constructive full-format negotiations, therefore, a key issue for our relations in the current international environment and in the atmosphere of russian american relations. i'm hard to say that, in principle, some kind of constructive deep, thorough negotiations are possible, has not yet been resolved. this is our nodal conflict on the issue of ukraine, where the united states pumps all sorts of things with ukraine's hands a seek to weaken our country, and the american military doctrine quite clearly states the intention in the united states to make efforts to level the strategic potential of russia and there is no need to be mistaken. that the invitations to negotiate are a means to balance or in some way show a sign of respect for the attitude of our country, while the united states is excited about what is achievable in relations with our

country quite cheaply. in my opinion, it is not possible to pump up ukraine with weapons, according to american data, up to $ 20 billion was spent there for defense needs, while the income of american oil corporations alone during the period of this crisis increased $ 200 billion quite cheaply by proxy to the united states. it is given to reshape important markets and force europeans to pay three dearly for the supplied resources and in some other key, it is impossible to expect constructiveness from them in relation to these negotiations, but since the topic exists and the topic will continue to be key for world stability and security in the 21st century. as long as nuclear weapons exist. or rather, until something more destructive than nuclear weapons is invented. yes, we will definitely be in a situation of dialogue with the united states. the

peculiarities of the historical moment are that in russia there are certain advance groundwork over the united states in terms of us hypersonic weapons is not yet at this level of technological development of rocket technologies. well , they will inevitably catch up with us within a certain time. the important thing is that they realize that russia is a little ahead and realize that the risks of nuclear war. now higher than many decades after the caribbean crisis. this i believe is an important consciousness. well, it seems to me that, well, we need. preparing for the prospect of e-life with the united states, without a big legally binding treaty to control strategic nuclear weapons is a prospect. it seems to me that it will arise already in 1926, because it is absolutely clear that we are not going to agree on some kind of replacement for the start-3 treaty. but we, most likely, will not even be able to start full-fledged negotiations on this matter, and over the

united states, in addition to what you said, it will trust the china factor, which is already indicated in the current doctrinal documents, as an increasingly important imperative of american policy, including number in the nuclear and missile sphere. ah, they won't give up their demands on reduction of russian tactical nuclear weapons. and for russia, this is what the americans call a nodge. yes, this is an absolutely unacceptable even statement of the question. but what i think is that the united states is still inviting us to dialogue. on this account, this suggests that a hybrid war between countries is beginning to be perceived as a kind of long-term norm. yes, there is such a normalization and perception of a hybrid war as a long-term norm, when we fight against each other, but at the same time we are waging talk on strategic stability and try to prevent. uh, third uh, world war iii, and from this point of view, even the beginning of this dialogue will rather reduce the american incentive to end

this hybrid war. but if in the military and military-political sphere the united states is holding closed consultations with russia, and on reducing the risks of its escalation, the resumption of a dialogue on nuclear weapons, then in the economic sphere, as bloomberg writes, the united states state department behind the scenes calls on the largest american banks, like jaffe morgan city group , do not refuse to cooperate with the backbone russian companies, among which ural potassium phosagro and gazprom are called, the purpose of such requests. uh, from the unofficial side, naturally against the state department is to minimize the negative consequences of the us sanctions igor sergeevich how would you comment on this news? well, in general, this is a completely normal situation, it seems to me, for american policy in this matter. after all, they have these administrative

issues in the application of sanctions, that is, they create a legal regime and decide by administrative measures from which they will make exceptions, to whom these sanctions will apply, so from an institutional point of view, this is a completely normal situation. here. probably largely caused. these behind-the-scenes talks are quite difficult in formal terms, it is obligatory for banks to carry out relevant actions in some way, and not formally. quite. you can agree with them. e hmm those companies the ones you named are the key players on the market, for example, mineral fertilizers, and the united states and the same countries of the european union depend on them. that is, it is quite a logical measure from the point of view. here, hmm, a political step, but here, it seems to me, there is one more point, this is the lobbying efforts of certain companies that depend on the import of these categories of goods, because they are under sanctions. very many categories of goods, despite the fact that a number of experts there spoke about what should be introduced there in they are not subject to sanctions in this industry, but there is over

complance, so they are called yes, when sansa is not, but to be afraid of real real interaction, in fact . here are the indirect restrictions. actually, it is precisely the indirect restriction that prevents the free export of russian agricultural products to world markets, because there are really no direct sanctions, but nevertheless export is also difficult. yes , absolutely right. and here, in this case, how would it be such an informal behind-the-scenes explanation contradictions that arises now guys. well , you can, please, you lend. there you insure normally. here in this question it is possible that e many very questions concern business concerns about how this will work, because the administration itself may not even know the mechanisms for how to implement this. the same bloomberg wrote about limiting the oil price ceiling how will it work on gaz? what will it look like in practice? yes, do not be afraid to attack, so that it means against you, either primary or secondary sanctions were not applied, that is, it

seems to me that to a large extent this and some kind of explanation, again, is informal. why bring it into the public arena. and secondly, it is still possible, er, some kind of internal lobbying efforts, because the agrarians and the chemical industry of the united states have large lobbying resources. and yet, it seems to me, as in the case of nuclear weapons. this is also a confirmation of the same normalization of the hybrid war, that is, the perception hybrid war as a long-term norm of relations. yes, that is, the sanctions will not lift the sanctions for an indefinite future, but at the same time, we will try to make sure that these sanctions do not make us very strong. hurt. yes, here, as in the case of nuclear weapons, and uh, in the case of the economy, well, with a country with which russia is doing well. the area of ​​military cooperation and in the field of economic cooperation is certainly india

. today, the indian foreign minister subramanyama is visiting moscow. janshaikara he held talks with the minister of foreign affairs of russia sergey viktorovich lavrov. this is the first official visit of the indian foreign minister to moscow, first russian special operations in ukraine were discussed and military-technical cooperation. moreover, lavrov especially noted the joint production of weapons, something that india does not have with the united states, but with russia there is also trade economic cooperation and the conflict in ukraine and the situation in afghanistan where the united states grossly ignored the interests this same india a. a. as far as economic cooperation is concerned, trade turnover is from january to september. opinions have grown by 130% since 21. russia has become the largest supplier of oil to india, 22% of indian oil imports come

from russia, and according to lavrov, in the near future , trade between the two countries will increase, uh, up to 30. uh, billions of dollars ivan alekseevich well here, and india next year will become the chairman of the g-20. how do you assess the current visit, uh, indian foreign minister and, in principle, is this visit yet another illustration of the formation of a multipolar world? probably, it can be considered as an illustration of the formation of a multipolar world, but rather even as an example of its functioning, because india, in general, in this multipolar world, there is no one model of strategic behavior. everyone behaves a little bit differently. for example, russia takes a very decisive position and how an icebreaker breaks the ice of american

hegemony, which has grown over the past few years. recent decades. china has been quite cautious for a long time and did not want to go to the forefront of the fight against american hegemony, but we see how china's position has changed in recent months and how china has become much more resolute in its behavior when making various political decisions and statements voting at the un etc. just recently, russia and china voted together in a security site to investigate cases, uh, related to biological weapons by biolabs on the territory of ukraine. india . on this scale, she is less likely to be strongly anti-hygeministic, and more inclined toward a balancing act. this is her favorite method of balancing. e between

various major players. although she herself is quite er, quite a big enough player and that's it. it's all perfectly acceptable. the main thing is that india is behaving independently balancing - this is also one of the options for pursuing an independent policy. and maybe in some issues india will listen more to the united states. in some questions will be less listened to, but we know for sure that india will not become such a vassal in the united states as, for example, germany, france, great britain, or, in general, this entire western world, which simply knelt before the united states and went to rob its own e population in fact to please the american uh, interest, so india behaves the way it wants to. the main thing is that she plays for herself, and is not someone else's instrument. or

, as they say in our field, something of a proxy. she is she acts for herself, and not for someone else, and the shades in her politics can be different, after all. this is democracy. there are different points of view. there may change, the government through elections, unlike the uk where the prime minister is already the second without any elections, yes , it changes, so there may be different shades in indian in indian politics, and by itself, this method of balancing suggests that it may have some backlash in their actions. we may like something less, but it is absolutely independent a country that will do nothing to the detriment of its interests. and how does practice show with everyone who plays? for himself, and not just someone else's puppet. we find a common language. of course, we can negotiate and can find common

ground. by the way, on the afghan issue, which you mentioned for a very long time. india took the position that it would be better for the americans to stay in afghanistan, that it would be better if they did not leave from there, and in general, the indian political classes , indian experts, obama then trump and then we biden did not identify troops from afghanistan, and when biden nevertheless went to withdraw troops from afghanistan in india, well, let's say they were disappointed, they were upset, they were betting that america could be some, and some- it's a stabilizing force. but the way the americans behave after the withdrawal of troops. they froze afghan assets and actually took the position that the worse, the better. so you kicked us out and now you are there, so, uh, here. let

it be as bad as possible for you, and then against this background we we will look good, and it seems to me that this was a very big lesson for india, because to some extent the united states now behaves this way towards the steel world, the worse it is in the world than against this background, the united states is like they seem to look. uh, better and try to maintain some remnants of hegemony. i think in india they cannot fail to notice this, india in any case will not fox to the american tune and will not dance, and in fact the indian foreign ministers to russia is a clear confirmation, as well as the continuation of very intensive military-technical cooperation, and it was not in vain that he mentioned the joint production of weapons in the additional. be aware of this, how much we supply our weapons to india and the economic cooperation of the peaceful atomic siberian atom. india categorically refused to join the idea of ​​a price ceiling.