uh-huh and how did you understand that it was here that they would shoot? and who exactly? there are 6 germans there. yes , somehow by chance the woman with whom i live tells a lot of gossip. yes, i love to go to the cinema and accidentally stumbled upon a film by zalessky, where he plays a thief in law. and i read detectives, how you all turned out one to one. ok.

someone's last name, you understand that this is a malfeasance. listen, you decide it yourself with them, but don't confuse me. so you shouldn't, we signaled to you that an assassination attempt was being prepared, but you didn't prevent it. citizen let's do it without threats, so i won't say anything personally, but i will notice whether he is in the report or not in the report.

citizen okay. a series of measures were taken to ensure your safety within a centimeter of my head, what series of events took place? yes, i'm not complaining to you, but to demand that this citizen be presented for an award. look, she's sitting under a tree. she saved me from a bullet, and she also slapped this fascist on the head next to this citizen. can this be done? i don't think, well, what do i to your superiors write. do you take them to a restaurant? in the restaurant of awards with awards, but lunch with such an actor and

everyone in life will have. we took you at the time of the crimes.

well, hurry up, tell me, you'll go to the hospital faster. and you already know everything. sucks, i'm the head of the oil remove him, take him, rather to the hospital. tell me one thing now was thieves talking about the actor kipelov yes, we didn’t roll into him. good evening on the air big game today vladimir putin took part in the summit of the collective security treaty organization, which was held in yerevan, let me remind you that the csto includes russia , belarus and armenia kazakhstan, kyrgyzstan and tajikistan, and this is the main

security organization in the post-soviet space, and given the extremely difficult security situation both in the world and in the former soviet union and in the surrounding regions, the demand for this organization is difficult to overestimate . although the dkb is not institutionally involved in the war in ukraine or in the conflict in nagorno-karabakh between armenia and azerbaijan and although the member countries do not fully agree with each other different, but without this organization, the security situation in the region. it would be incomparably worse than the most large-scale threats and security for the space, the csto and the factor that gives rise to many others, and the threat to security is a hybrid war led by the collective west . with the united states they are fighting against russia and part of which is actually the conflict in ukraine, and today the west has taken two next steps in this war. president biden. ordered to allocate another package of military aid to ukraine in 400 million dollars, and the european parliament adopted a

legally insignificant, but politically high-profile resolution recognizing russia as a state sponsor of terrorism. but today, the west itself , unwillingly, demonstrated how difficult and it becomes for him to continue this hybrid war against russia all day, and everyone was waiting for the announcement of the price ceiling for russian oil, which should bring the european union from the country of the seven and australia, which joined them, this issue today the ambassadors of the countries of the european union discussed the case that the decision on the price ceiling is linked to the entry into force of the next package of eu sanctions against russia and the entry into force of its embargo on imports of russian non-pipeline, that is, tanker. oil agency bloomberg reported that the level of 65-70 dollars per barrel was being discussed, but they did not agree, a and the question. apparently, postponed until early december, we will talk about this situation and in general about the prospects for russian

western relations with dmitry simes, president of the center for national interests, and deputy director of the institute of world economy and international relations of the russian academy of sciences named after yevgeny primakov vladimir milovidov dmitry a vladimir dmitrievich good evening dmitry well, everyone knows that this idea is from the price ceiling. she belongs to the states offered her to janet and the idea, well, on the one hand, the idea is logical, but on the one hand, how to limit it. uh, the russian revenues that russia receives from exports and energy, but on the other hand, do not allow a sharp rise in world oil prices, especially in an environment where the united states itself are facing unprecedented record high inflation inflation, while gasoline. but now, the longer this idea is discussed, the more such a tortured here is frankly tortured. it becomes constantly postponed, they can’t agree on a bunch, reservations the european union talks about a transition

period of 45, or even 90 days, which means that china india, the countries of the middle east have not joined and are not going to join this initiative, but on the other hand side, how to refuse it. yes, to admit the obvious that, well, a bad idea is impossible because of the fear of losing face. this is how things stand dmitry, as you assess it, in the sense that we have not yet been able to agree. so, uh, in the sense that they failed to agree, because firstly , uh, it is very difficult to find a formula that, on the one hand, would follow their goal of punishing russia and, on the other hand, would not hit their loved ones like a boomerang. so, because the goals set by the united states and the european union are somewhat different. the united states wants to reduce

the price of oil, but in general they want oil to come in, but in the european union, but they seem to be more inclined to reduce russian oil supplies. although there are different opinions. and, of course, there is a temptation over all this so to laugh a little, but also to say, well, they themselves do not know what they want, and the backswing is very cool performance is still different from the lack of presence. generally. the idea is to strike at one of the most important russian sources of income, and this income is central not only for a in russia had a normal life. well, so that russia can arm itself. if you look at how much money they give

ukraine. in general, they are already starting to write that in total it will equal two russian military budgets, but as long as russia receives a large income from energy supplies, russia can deal with it. and the idea, of course, is to turn off this tap in russia, so i agree that for now it all looks like it. frankly speaking , it is not very convincing, but we know from experience that what is not convincing at the beginning can, then be brought to some kind of condition, in which it will become serious and the idea for russia is very disturbing, but i agree with you. here in one. that it is still unclear what they are going to do. and i really wanted to ask you, mr. milovidov, but how to relate to this, so, i look at the sanctions, there are some

that, it seems to me, are unambiguously serious, such as the arrest of russian gold and foreign exchange reserves, and half russian gold and foreign exchange reserves is a very serious figure, in my opinion, about 30-40 billion. yes, yes, such a figure is called, if only these the money was at the disposal of the russian federation and imagine would have gone to military purposes for the defense of industry. this is a serious blow to other sanctions. well, let's say so slightly laughable. and for example, the seizure of real estate assets of russian officials in the united states, these officials do not have the right to have any assets there, and since such sanctions were already introduced in the united states in this direction. it is often very difficult for me to imagine an official who would still have bank accounts in the united states . states well, there are some sanctions. well, what is it

called, the middle part bites in half, but in general they don’t cut anything off. and so i wanted to ask you how to relate to these sanctions. is it really something serious or is the mountain trying to give birth to a mouse from the area. well, firstly, i did correct what you said a little, after all. i do not think that sanctions should be treated as well as separate sanctions, as some kind of ridiculous things, any even seemingly ridiculous sanctions. they are bad because or, otherwise, they form some kind of, if i allow myself to say such a word, toxic in general with everything that is connected with russia, so, of course, sometimes first. sanctions they e turn out to be less sensitive, but all these indirect secondary sanctions follow them. it was i who tried to prove that they, of course, bring little

joy in any case, although russia has already shown that it is quite successful, er, in a pragmatic way in solving the problems that the west would like to bring down on it, with regard to these particular sanctions, how to treat them, but i think that they should be taken quite seriously. uh. but of course we understand. that the adoption of such a decision, the introduction of a certain ceiling, it really can and will be given to the europeans, and the americans are quite difficult. still, we are dealing with a fairly developed branched market, which did not take shape yesterday, which has been operating for a decade, on which there are various grades of oil that are traded, there is a so-called supply base, where the price is determined and so on. further, so this process is complicated, but nonetheless. eh, hmm, i generally think that here it’s not even a question of price, there 65-70 is 75 there 50-55. and

this is not a question. prices. uh, the question of principle is the principle, which is connected with the fact that, in fact, not even russia, but the countries of the world, but impose some artificial rules of the game and, in fact, deprive them of sovereignty. right to buy. uh, energy resources at the prices prevailing on the market. well, this is certainly the situation for russia. she is so important. why because this is destruction uh market. e creations like they themselves in the west write such a multilateral, uh, pricing system, when there is one scene, there are other scenes, but it generally has a detrimental effect on the entire market and, of course , for russia, the question of behavior in this situation arises. there are, as it were, two poles that are marked today. yes on the one hand, this is a statement by mrs. elen's statement, blinka's

statement by the representatives of the european union that despite the fact that we are leading the ceiling, russia will sell oil because it is profitable for it, because that these are budget revenues and so on, on the other hand. we see a rather harsh, so to speak, statement from the leadership of our country, the president, and then, so to speak, the vice-premier. well, about the fact that russia m will not sell oil for imposed eggs, and, so to speak, so to speak, follow this obedient fairway that is dictated, but i think that in the end, here it is reality, it consists in pragmatic behavior, which lies between these poles, which is determined, firstly, by our relationship within the framework of guardianship. plus because following this is not just a price, it means also production. so, when cheap oil appears on your market, everyone shoots at them. this means that it is possible to increase production and sell for this cheap oil.

what will others do? so this is a market distortion? it is natural to do it alone after the efforts that have been made to ensure normal relations within the framework of custody, plus and achievement. these are agreements. it would probably not be pragmatic and not rational to have our partner who buys russian not in the long term contracts. what he always spoke about in russia. uh, there is, finally. our aspirations are to establish cooperative ties with new countries and new markets. therefore, on the one hand, the danger of these sanctions lies in the fact that they bring down a very shaky system to suspend the oil market, from which everything will be bad, but on the other sides. they provide us and our friendly countries with a number of opportunities that we will certainly use. i would answer like this. i will ask you such a primitive important question. here on a scale from 1 to 10. and if you were the person in charge of

drawing up the russian budget, who needs speeches from the sale of energy products? here you are , your concern would be like this, from one to ten to the number five. you are a great diplomat. well, i can explain why, because you look, then look at the quotes that are today. i say again, i do. this is a special reservation. i don't want to talk about prices, because if we translate the conversation about being high, the price is low. the price fits, so to speak, in the cost of our oil companies can sell our oil companies at this price is a conversation. it's actually wrong, because it's not about the price here , in principle, but, if we talk about the financial condition, then today ural's quotes are about 70 plus dollars per barrel, a and e today. we have long-term contacts, a simple example, yes, in october, that

means, uh, more than fifty percent of russian oil was bought, india means that with the decrease in supplies that were uh to the european union there, almost not by 70%, they fell on russia's export volume. since january, about six months there. million barrels per day rose by september to october to seven and seven, and million barrels, that is, er, we are growing and most of this we sell our own, that is, friendly countries. of course we sell under new contracts. and, uh, long-term contracts, so to speak. we are interested in this cooperation and it doesn't matter. we are there with them at a price, what it is without making the european union or the americans judge this, but it is the one that suits our oil companies. and i think that's why my rating for diplomacy is 5 points.

hmm , as i said, vladimir dmitrievich , united states and the united states department of the treasury confirmed today that the idea of ​​a price cap does not cancel the us ban on russian oil imports, that is, the united states itself. states in in any case, the european union is not going to import russian oil on december 5th. he also imposes an embargo on russian oil. uh, tanker oil. yes, oil pipeline deliveries continue, but again, janet helen stated that oil pipeline deliveries, it seems, are being withdrawn from american sanctions, that is, to the united states. it will be possible to theoretically limit russian oil revenues only if china india many others yes, first of all to china india the main consumers of russian oil agree to join this idea, but they are not going to do it. the west proceeds from the fact that even despite the fact that while china india declare that they do not

join this idea. anyway, here, but russia will need and the countries importing russian oil will need western services of insurance companies in tankers, and so on, and therefore, they say, they will be forced to anyway, but how to embed their e, commercial agreements under this artificially e , installed, and the ceiling, but what if they don’t adjust, what if we we will find a way after all, but without relying on western services, by the way, is it possible, without relying on western services, without relying on western tanker fleets, to keep russia's oil supplies to, e, a third country. and if it succeeds, after all, it will demonstrate the isolation of the west from, in fact, the world economy, it will turn out that the west well, it’s not enough that it can determine in the world economy that it is no longer able to dictate the rules, and even more so to dictate its will to everyone else. well, firstly, we noted a very important

thing. really. eh, so let's say the right to use. these e sanctions are this norm, and the ceiling should be implemented through e-e a ban on the sale of finan transportation insurance to its customs, so to speak, servicing other services that are provided in ports, but now we already see that e exists fairly stable attempts by russia and countries friendly to us, uh, to find an alternative fleet. by the way, one of the norms, so to speak, through which they also want to limit. that being said, this is an opportunity. this provision the flag of the state for ships that many of them sail there under the maltese flag, there are greek and so on. here, uh, therefore, it is natural that today russia is a number of countries that are interested in the stability of the stand and are already looking for and will continue to look for opportunities to find alternative ones. they paid e-e of

new forms of insurance, and the formation in new ports of delivery, as the basis for the delivery of those e-systems of services that are actually not subject to sanctions, because the americans apply sanctions to american legal entities european sanctions apply to european legal entities, but these sanctions may not apply to other foreign entities. only indirectly through indirect sanctions somewhere, but it all depends on what kind of organization it is. they may not fall under these indirect sanctions, therefore, naturally, such a desire will be carried out, but today . uh, first of all, uh, transportation. uh, by sea for countries like croatia bulgaria it is deduced from uh restrictions for european ones. e.i by the way, just yesterday, hungary it seems to me that croatia is bulgaria, and hungary is indirectly excluded from these sanctions, since it

is today. this is oil according to labor, but there is a clause in the documents of the european union and the united states of their restrictions, so to speak, that in the event of some emergency interruptions in supplies through the pipeline, countries that are landlocked, as they say, that is, have no access to the sea. they, too, may be eligible to receive this not including. e, shipments can be made by sea with further transportation under water. and just yesterday, which means, firstly, the u.s. treasury issued its license, e.g., that payments and operations are actually allowed for oil supplies in the format and to bulgaria, that is, we see that they are in general to this are preparing. but as if talking about what you mentioned here. eh, you understand your question, this is the norm, it is somewhat doubtful, what is in it, what kind of confuses me very much in it. both the americans and the europeans keep imbarka on their

oil. that is, it turns out they are doing this charity for the rest of the world, but then the question arises well and allowable. india turkey china other countries will agree and start buying up to this ceiling. at what price will the european union and the united states of america buy the us oil importer, although it produces its own in sufficient quantities, but nevertheless the european union imports the same amount and at what price, it means that they will buy her boyfriend at the night price, that is, dollars for 20- 15 or 30 above, the question arises what is pragmatism? what is common sense, so i honestly speaking, nevertheless, somewhere inside myself in the depths of my soul, i admit the possibility that, at least, the european union can change the barkov demand, because then the logic completely destroys absolutely and the first part of your answer to my question says that even the very discussion of the

ideas of the price ceiling will stimulate the de- westernization of the world economy, of course, that is, the west cuts with its own hands, the suk on which , of course, dmitry sits and dmitry through your mouth. of course, i think that everything that has just been mentioned can happen, but another thing can happen is that the eu the united states will rely less on cooperation from china which will not be india which may be, but rather will not, but rely mainly on the fact that they control the european insurance companies, yes, which will be strictly forbidden to provide insurance, tankers will definitely not miss insurance, and in many respects too, by the way, it will depend on the position of turkey, which speaks from turkey. e, like, e says very much

differently on this subject. so it seems to me that there will be a very important and serious diplomatic struggle, and it seems to me that the russian government and a more specific foreign ministry represent the seriousness of the situation and are ready for this struggle. but you will fight another fight against this ingenious idea , in quotes, to declare russia a sponsor of terrorism, and so as not to exaggerate right away. here, unlike the first topic, which i think is really very serious, the second topic is less of a real threat to russia and it speaks more about the world about them as a collective west. well, the intention is very interesting, because the european parliament, by an overwhelming majority, it has just voted 494 euros of deputies against fifty- eight, adopted a resolution equating russia with the

sponsor of terrorism, and really liked how it was worded? it is said that russia's action now listen carefully to the attacks on the civilian population in ukraine, the destruction of civilian infrastructure and other serious violations of human rights. what does it mean equivalent? this means that these are not acts of terror. this is not how terrorism has been understood so far, this is the european parliament, since it is convenient for him to accuse russia of all sins artificially declares artificially declares that russia's action on the territory of ukraine can be equated. how is it to terror. let's see what even american officials say about this, who are not ready to go as far as the european parliament. let's listen. we

can recognize the state as sponsors of terrorism, for example, syria was recognized as such some time ago. well, our legislation gives a little different. defining how european i will be honest russia simply does not fit into the definition of a state sponsor of terrorism. we have already conducted the entire spectrum of sanctions against individuals and the structure of those associated with the kremlin and do not need this additional definition, of course. this is a weighty definition and we sympathize with what the europeans are doing, but the definition of states as sponsors of terrorism in the context of american law. is not a good option for russia, so we are looking for other ways and definitions. well, this is adopted by the european parliament, which is, if you like, such, uh, prestigious pompously european, they said that this parliament is elected, but this parliament does not decide anything, in other words, this is a completely predictable demonstration of one's own in quotation marks. and

my intentions, but dmitry is what worries me personally. this is that here again the main instigators of this resolution were poland and the baltic countries . uh-huh, we have lived up to a situation where traditional western europe where did it go, where does it have its own judgment, as if between the united states, which play the role of the main leader and the balts and, uh, their friends the poles and sometimes joining them great britain the big countries of western europe the big countries of the european union they are already lost their minds, they don’t understand that they are opening pandora’s box, that they can be declared sponsors of terrorism in russia, that, according to

russian laws, and on the instructions of the president of russia, they can act against terrorists, where if they weren't in the united states, by the way in italy, but a preacher they thought was a muslim extremist, and they sent him to egypt why to egypt because torture was allowed in egypt? and the cia at that time was engaged in torture. and just imagine, israel, as you know, er regularly, but stole someone, starting with their much, as it were , less odious figures. now, if russia would, if russia a really became literally e, perceive this kind of attacks, looked would, fuck you terrorism against yourself, for example, of course, a terrorist act against daria

dugina, and a young innocent, e russian. do they really not understand, and in europe, what are their potential? dmitry, i completely agree with you, but, firstly, i must say that this is a resolution of the european parliament, indeed legally insignificant, not only because the european parliament does not play a very big role in the real politics of the european union, but also because in the european union and in the countries of the european union there is no such thing as a country sponsor of international terrorism. that is, there is no legislative basis at all within nato, there are only two countries that have such a concept, the united states and canada russia does not belong to this list syria several other countries and indeed the biden administration refuses to include russia in the countries in this list in the american list of countries sponsors of international terrorism in the european union at the legislative level there is the

concept of persons and organizations, that is, individuals, not sovereign persons involved in committing terrorist acts, but here is the concept of a sovereign sovereign state sponsor. in principle, no, but dmitry, i completely agree with you, the polonization and balticization of the european union is degrading before our eyes, and if you want european reason, because look at the only countries of the european union so far that have adopted similar decisions at the national level in their national parliaments. this is a big one and the baltic countries. and today, indeed, such decisions are made less often by the european parliament, a few months ago, mateusz morrovetsky prime minister of poland said that russophobia in the european union with the polish feed is becoming mainstream. well, we are really watching today. eh, this thesis is confirmed by the polynization and balticization of europe both at the level of the european union as a whole and at

the level of national states. just yesterday i was very negatively struck, for example, by the news that the organizers of the munich security conference are the forum for security in europe in euro-atlantic this year will not invite officials, er, from russia, and will discuss russia's issues with someone with representatives of the russian non-systemic opposition opponents of putin's regime and you're joking. no, i'm not joking. i am quoting. here is a quote from e, the chairman of the munich security conference, christoph heusgin. they invite to discuss the future of russia, the problems of russia, the representatives of the russian opposition, who fled russia and live in the united states and europe. this is not european, not even american. this is a polish narrative. this is the baltic narrative. yes, and today it extends to uh, the entire european union. and this is all very worrying about changing, not because i'm afraid that

europe will come to an agreement with the russian opposition, which will act like they are, as if they are the real russian government, and not because i'm afraid. here are uh idiotic, but ineffective resolutions of the european parliament. i'm worried because it's important for us to understand who russia is dealing with. to what extent can expect from these people, but, if you like, not friendship if you want not respect, but at least elementary reason and self-preservation instincts. and this kind of action suggests that, in general, these actions indicate that russia has to deal with people who, in general, but if you want, it acts according to the well-known saying of ancient greece when the gods want to destroy someone. they first deprive them of their minds, but i don't

worry about their minds. i'm worried about everyone, starting with russia, who has to do with this audience to deal with, and i'm dmitry still worried about the consequences in the area. the security of such idiotic decisions, because when the european parliament, again in the absence of a legislative framework, votes that russia is supposedly a sponsor of terrorism, when nato countries and by the way, the united states blames russia for the fact that a ukrainian missile flew into poland such decisions and when the munich security conference says that it will discuss russia's issues with representatives russian opposition, they cultivate and strengthen in the kiev regime a sense of complete impunity of the complete absence of borders, that under these conditions they can do whatever they want and there will be no political will in the west to give them a hand, not to mention to give a other

places that are usually given naughty and one practical conclusion from this. oh, my unsolicited wish to the mid. and less, uh, less address, uh, to these countries and their leaders with the traditional wording, we call call uh allies call partners call those, uh relationships and call on those you expect to have sound judgment c-calls to these people. unfortunately, it's a waste of time with these people, the only language that works is not the language of appeals, but the language of coercion. i hope that in the united states, the administration of canoe, which again refuses to include russia in the list of countries sponsoring terrorism. there

is still a sense of responsibility and common sense dmitry vladimir dmitrievich big thanks. behind this is a very interesting conversation big game will be back in the studio in a few days. good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. i'm sorry i'm out of breath, but it looks like a tragedy happened in dallas 10-15 minutes ago. the fbi had special marks on oswald's files without approval from the fbi's intelligence department what you're saying now is very different from what the united states government is saying oliver stone kennedy's film premiere sunday on first why change the fbi oswald's status just a few weeks before the tinkoff assassination black mine

the map makes me happy all the time. and now it pleases even my friends. bring one or two or three friends, the number of friends is not limited and for each you will receive 1000 rubles, and a friend will receive free service forever. have time to bring friends before december 20 and participate in the drawing of 200 million rubles. the more friends, the more chances to win tinkoff he is the only one on black friday at wildberries super. valuable for a blender, hair dryer, steamer and discounts up to 50% on the entire range of appliances.

never compared prices for osago and bought do not overpay the policy in the same insurance, draw up a policy on sravni and save up to 5,500 rubles. after all, the price of osago is different. if insurance, then compare choose better black, friday discounts up to 50% of the britic dishwasher with a discount of 20.000 in m.video and eldorado is an advertisement for a loan without surprises in the post office of the bank. and this is me sergey accordion. i wonder what's in the box. ogo loan at four and a half percent per annum with a guaranteed rate of guarantee without surprises mail bank in magnit cosmetic safari on discounts discounts up to 56% on household chemicals. magnet cosmetic cares means to love tele2 presents the content of subscriptions - this is an illusion

of an offer. it does not take into account individual preference. welcome to the real world. we at tele2 give you the opportunity to collect a subscription yourself, this is a unique offer to pay only for the selected content and this analogues. and under the sand, the mix can even acquire not our moment. only selected services in the subscription, the mix only for 4 days a year turns into a pakupakula. 500 years waiting for such a sale. i said that you 200 black friday ago only from november 25 mascara for 99 rubles. tablets for the dishwasher for 189 rubles. smart tv for 9.99 rubles. tinkoff, you can find out the amount of a loan for a business without opening an account, just download an extract from your bank. leave an application on tinkoff.ru and find out the loan amount without opening an account. the best digital bank for small

business lending tinkoff he is one two masters of one from 39,000 rubles. choose your style is changing. a life updated cyan will make sure that you do not overpay when renting or buying, because we mark the apartment with a favorable price. write to the owner. call. how to choose well, they don't charge any fees for transfers. tinkoff platinum is so able to issue a tinkoff platinum credit card in the tinkoff application and transfer money without interest commission. tinkoff he is so alone black friday on wildberries has already begun. the main thing is the sale of the year, more goods more discounts. do not miss. your black friday.

what where when is the winter series on sunday? there is a big game on the air, and in europe everything is more openly frankly and alarmingly. they say that the current policy of the united states is fraught with deindustrialization for european countries and is of a protectionist nature. although, in fact, it is either neo-colonial, or even, as we

once said, paleo-colonial, but the characters and indeed the scale in europe, er, already so er, serious, so big that it is impossible to hide this problem. it has already been talked about at the official level at the level of national governments of the european union and members of the european commission, but at the same time enter into open conflict with the united states. it's scary, because the dependence on the united states is very great both in the field of security and in the field of the economy. and here's what to do in this regard is not very clear. here is how the politician’s publication describes this situation, listen europe is facing a double blow from the united states, firstly because of the russian war in ukraine, energy prices in the eu seem to be always higher than in the us second, joe biden is launching a $369 billion subsidy program to support green industries as part of an inflation-reducing law eu officials

fear european businesses will now face almost overwhelming pressure to invest in the us rather than europe eu commissioner domestic door market. breton warns biden's new subsidy package poses an existential challenge to europe's economy process, yes industrialization of the eu a preliminary decision now being prepared in brussels aims to counter us subsidies with the help of the eu's own fund, two senior officials said, since the diplomatic decision. seems unlikely, as brussels wants to avoid an all-out trade war , a subsidy race is likely to be accepted as a dubious plan. b vladimir dmitrievich well, will this race of subsidies help, firstly, the european union and secondly, if we are dealing with with the subsidy race, what that means for the world economic and trade order, what it means for the rules of fair competition in the

world economy. is this not european no- colonialism in response to american realism, that is, welcome to the economic jungle? well, this is a problem, which, of course, is very multifaceted and you need to look at how to consider it in parts. well, first of all, of course. we see that since the adoption of a number of laws, especially the latest law on combating inflation. it seems that the americans, in general, sort of put an end to all their principles of free trade on the principles of the wto, and so on, scolding other countries for protectionism, er, attaching labels to them and not market economies. they are essentially implementing a system that creates priorities at the national level , bypassing all, so to speak, previously conceivable. uh, so to speak. um. hmm, the principles of competition and trade are

first. uh, secondly, uh, it seems to me that the europeans, they first fell into a serious trap their own policy, which they have been pursuing for the last year, and above all, the energy policy. as strange as it may seem, but is this thing connected? this is the full bet on the green economy. it would be largely dictated by the fact that in europe, advanced technologies in the field of green energy were quite actively developed, first of all, of course, there, for example, the same e, wind energy, the three largest companies in the world in production, they are european . uh, and uh in america general rectric. also them produces, but so to speak, she is inferior to them in terms of production. america, the europeans are in the lead and i think this is my guess, so to speak, or a hypothesis. if you want what the europeans thought through this one. uh, as if the idea of ​​a green economy is greening the world, including pushing its technologies in the world. but it turned out that the

americans intercepted them halfway. i didn't say yes, green trend. that's right, so uh, develop your green economy. we give you one. now. of course, i'm a little i exaggerate and i can immediately say yes, because now you will pay for gas. six times what we pay, because now the price of gas in europe is almost six times higher than it is. in the united states of america but more than that, you will pay, probably eight times, if they are 10 times more than it was when you bought pipeline gas, and in russia this will give you the opportunity to develop your green energy. well, excuse me, we will develop it at the expense of american technologies, for the sake of which we are now creating special ones. ouch, these conditions. you understand, there is such a picture in which it’s just what is called the trap and, as they say, there is no way out of it. as for subsidies. uh, this is really also another eu trap, which, uh, is rooted in the fact that european countries have a lot that is

integrated into the labor market of capital, common european central banks, but they each have their own budgetary policy and therefore richer countries have more subsidies there are fewer subsidies in poorer countries, but everyone suffers the same, and therefore i think that this is generally a big potential conflict within the european union, which is also a big one. a gun for them, well, recently jose barrel said that the european union is such a well- groomed flowering garden, and around the jungle, in fact , when the european union says that we will now also deal with subsidies in response to american subsidies . we, too, will arrange protectionism in response to american protectionism. we see that the west itself , in fact, these jungles create, of course, but well, in fact problem. e in the european union is so serious that the two leading economies in europe so far, france and germany, decided to unite to save the european industrial european industrial potential and technological

potential. the ministers of economy, e of these two countries , robert haggik, habik and brunel mayor, adopted joint statements, which are called we call for new impetus for european industrial policy, a, which proclaimed more intensive cooperation on a number of fronts just in order to preserve industrial. and the technological potential of the european union as well as work out a common response to us protectionism. look, uh, what 's in that joint statement? in this difficult time, we must strengthen our energy and industrial strategic sovereignty. today we are launching new frank german cooperation projects in key strategic sectors. firstly, in terms of hydrogen, we are leaders in this area, which is extremely important for the decorabanization of the industry of our countries, and we decided to create working group to strengthen our cooperation. secondly, we agree to increase

the use of batteries as part of the implementation of the ipc program, and looking ahead. we also commit to establish key strategic areas of eu technological and scientific sovereignty, we will develop artificial intelligence as well as quantum computing systems at the level of two high-level working groups. we want to clearly harmonize in a european approach to challenges such as the us inflation reduction act we will study the possibilities of the industrial policy to prevent negative effects from protectionism of third countries, and we will fix that wto rules will be observed by all. in this way, we will create a european platform for transformational technologies. will it help, if very briefly what they declare is a declaration, it means that they built a gas pipeline between spain and france for a long time, they didn’t build it, they refused to build its wire now. e hydrogen, so to speak, on the initiative of france, it means artificial

intelligence. let us recall the law on chips, which was adopted in the united states of america, where the microelectronic industry is developing steadily and the americans are therefore ahead of the declarations. yes, but the resources to overtake the competition. let's also remember china, yes, which also has a powerful resource, so now, but you know, it will be difficult. moreover , the same chinese have long been included in the capitals of some european companies, even robots of technology, for example. therefore, i think that these declarations igor gorynych well, at least maybe. be this joint challenge. ah, more precisely, the general challenge. on the part of the united states, europe will help to rally the frank german tandem again, because it is noteworthy that without the participation of poland, by the way, without the participation of any other countries , again france and germany at the ministerial level. economics. they adopted their joint statement. over the past months, especially weeks, everyone has been talking about the fact that the franco-german tandem has practically

disappeared, that there are a huge number of contradictions between these countries, that pipeline, which you mentioned about one of them, but here, it seems, how they adopted a joint statement. what do you think? well, of course, on the one hand. yes indeed. there is a threat from poland, which is now trying to make of itself. the main thing in the european union says to the americans, here we are the most correct, we are listening to you. yes, bet on us and we will carry out your policy in europe, but on the other hand, of course, it is indeed a declaration and a declaration of germany and france, but this already raises such big doubts. they are sworn friends. let's remember the history of all our lives we fought with each other and nothing but revanchist e sentiments to each other. well, the long story is practically not experienced. yes, the german empire. there, as a result of the franco-spring war, there appeared for a second and, of course, on the one hand, a declaration that the two largest industrial

powers. and here it really needs to be recognized that these are the few european countries where the industrial sector has been preserved. well, there it melts, they really understand what needs to be saved the industry is trying to do something. yes, so far it is only in words. and by the way, pay attention to most of what was listed there. it 's not even so much industrial as technology technology is also correctly fine. you understand that in the usual familiar industries, there is mechanical engineering and metallurgy. the machine tool industry has no chance there. yes, developing countries. the same, china and so on. the only chance is to develop high technologies, but something tells me that its resources really competition with the americans. they obviously won't last. this is the first moment. and the fact that protectionism and competition will increase. it is too. it seems obvious to me. well, yes, again. let's remember history. yes, the freedom of a trader has always been beneficial in the country to the leader, as soon as the country

ceases to be a leader. protectionism is immediately returning back, and, uh, the fact that both the united states and the countries of western europe are now returning protectionism and will intensely compete with each other. this is obvious, but here is another point eat. yes, firstly, they will control each other. probably we are fine, but will they be able to maintain allied relations in other areas? yes, including the security server, this is a big question. and finally. let's remember that pro-actionism, if cons, yes does not reduce competitiveness. why stress? all states will help us with subsidies and so on and so forth. in general, not a very enviable position. i would say so. well, now, i also noticed that in this joint franco-german statement they use the term sovereignty technological sovereignty industrial sovereignty they talk about it because the united states deprives them of this sovereignty, but as far as security is concerned, the dominance of the united

states in the field of european western european security is absolutely insurmountable. and as for the prospects of any, not that of any, not that of sovereignty, even european autonomy in the field of security. it seems to me today . it's just not visible, but, firstly, and western european countries. the same germany is already open text. they say that all of them have completely exhausted their reserves and can no longer provide ukraine with new assistance. here, listen to what german defense minister christina lamp said. we are now at the absolute limit in terms of what we can give away. we want to be able to provide for the defense of our own country and nato and we receive more and more requests for military assistance reluctantly i must reject some of them, because as the german defense minister i have obligations. well, european countries, of course. the same germany wants to increase military spending, scholz promises to invest 100 billion

euros in the defense sector, but as a very prominent european expert writes. natalie tochi. this is a former adviser to federica mogirine, the high representative of the european union for foreign and security policy, and today what the italian institute of international relations heads from, but these defense spending by european countries will not weaken, but only increase the dependence of europeans on the united states in the defense sector. and efforts to broadcast e between european countries in the field of security. listen to an excerpt from her article. european security has always faced serious obstacles and today, the growing need to strengthen the defense of the continent does not contribute to the emergence of a common european response to this challenge, on the contrary, it increases the fragmentation of the defense sphere of european countries and their dependence on the united states of disunity of defense policy and european states has long been a problem. and although

increase in military spending - this is the right decision, it can paradoxically exacerbate fragmentation, since the lack of coordination in the short-term plans of individual countries on the issue of arms purchases can affect the structure of the armed forces of europe in the long term. well, a completely unflattering picture for the european union regarding the prospects for its e, autonomy in the field of security or strategic autonomy is drawn by two prominent american experts. and this is a senior researcher . uh, the center for the new american the security of andrew candol taylor who, by the way, is very close to the biden administration and a prominent american. skie michaelfun military experts listen to an excerpt, by the way. this war was a harsh reminder anyway. why european security is and will depend in the highest degree on the united states european countries will not simply stand on their own against a potential russian military operation similar in scale to the one

that moscow is conducting in ukraine it is naive to believe that any european state will be able to provide the proper level of military integration, supply and perform the functions of critical support that are currently being carried out by the united states russia's war against ukraine also emphasizes that the outcome of major wars ultimately depends on the ability to wage a war of attrition and make up for losses. in personnel equipment and ammunition, if the european army would have suffered part of the loss. bring russia or ukraine, she would be forced to leave the battlefield. here is such a veiled compliment to the russian armed forces on the part of obviously michael koffman, uh, ivan alekseevich well, do you agree with the analysis of the point that even despite the increase in defense

spending by european countries. well, actually with the analysis, and the coffee lover and kendall taylor their dependence on the united states, their position. well, just foot satellites the united states is unstoppable. yes, i agree, indeed. it is irresistible. at least in the geopolitical conditions that are being created, the united states must understand that, after all, europe did not want any geopolitical mess. and she didn’t want all this, that is, europe was first dragged into the war. now they say i can't do it myself. here we have proved to you that the europeans themselves will not be able to do this. uh, they say, yes, we can’t do it ourselves , instead of saying, so we didn’t want this, the question is not what they want, they may or may not. they didn't want it, they don't need it instead of getting out of this game. here

the united states is dragging them in this game, dragging them somewhere, they pushed them before. so that's more or less polite. and now, of course, just blockages with e, dragged and at the same time pocket them and opu. due to just this deindustrialization, therefore, they are all right in their reasoning, but the message is wrong, that is, there is a starting position that they put here, that this is a war against the russian threat. and if you remove this starting position, then everything is wrong, because there is no russian threat. you dragged the europeans into the european continent in e. war, and the europeans do not dare to remove this starting position. and if you follow him there, everything seems to be, uh, everything. logically. this is roughly the situation, that is, the united states and this is very important. they are what in america is called setting the narrative. yes , they set the basics.