good evening on the air big game today vladimir putin held a meeting with members of the security council on ensuring the internal and security of russia, the reason was today's yesterday's attacks by ukrainian drones deep into russian territory today was such an airfield in the kursk region, and yesterday military airfields in ryazan and saratov areas where russian long-range aircraft were based and these attacks show how close washington is containing and arming the kiev regime he approached the threat of an escalation of this conflict, and against his own will, attacks against strategic aircraft. this is more than

serious biden administration. really does not want to allow a direct clash of russia on us. to do this, she does not expose the kiev regime long-range missiles, american fighters and air defense systems today newspaper. look twitched with a reference to american officials wrote that the united states even modified multiple launch rocket systems transferred to ukraine hires fire so that they cannot be used to launch long-range missiles with a target, and so against e russia a target. uh, and so against the targets on the territory of russia, this already indicates that washington does not believe kiev's statements as an assurance. eh, kiev that he will not strike at russian territory with weapons provided by the united states, and washington is reinsured in case kiev suddenly acquires long-range missiles from some other stages. however, at the same time, the biden administration

does not intend to eliminate the very root cause of the threat of escalation, namely support for the kiev regime. giving him more and more batches of military aid. let it be without long-range missiles providing intelligence and so on, because it is preserved. in general, wars in a hybrid state are completely fine with washington, but the longer this hybrid war lasts, the higher the risk of escalation, because kiev, as recent events show, is clearly out of control, and we will discuss this situation with the president of the center of national interests dmitry simes and lieutenant general professor of the higher school of economics evgeny buzhinsky dmitry evgeny petrovich good evening. good evening dmitry the united states has repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction with the behavior of the kiev regime. here you can recall , uh, the murder of darya dugin in the moscow region and the terrorist attack against the crimean bridge, but as they show, uh, the latest events with drones, kiev just frankly uh, refuses to either

listen, or hear, or he thinks, that the biden administration would not dare, and even criticize publicly. and the kiev regime not to mention freezing e or e, suspending e aid, but now the mid-term congressional elections have passed, maybe now is the time to somehow more strictly mark the red lines for kiev. uh, dmitry is a very good very main question. yesterday the secretary of state spoke at a hosted streaming event, where he spoke about the american approach to regulation over ukraine, let's hear it. it will almost certainly end with diplomacy and negotiation, but i think we should see a just and lasting peace, not a far-fetched one, we are focused on continuing to do what we have been doing. that is, we

want to be sure that ukraine has everything it needs to defend itself, fight back against russia and return the territory that was occupied after february 24th. we provide them with economic and humanitarian support and we do. it's every single day. so what are we focusing on? that's why i asked that we be shown this statement there is not a word, but yesterday's episode, but yesterday's attacks that's why i wanted to show this to you, because here speaking in a sharp twitch about the secretary of state was a great opportunity, but at least to say. and because we hope that diplomacy will ultimately be the instrument that will resolve this crisis. we appeal to both parties to exercise to behave carefully. and you all understood what it refers to, there

was nothing like that more than that. on several occasions, uh, there have been leaks to the american press of the buydn administration's reluctance to share intelligence information. e s kiev with information that would turn out to be targets on russian territory or give away the whereabouts of russian military commanders. at the same time, it was reported that intelligence information is being shared with kiev in direct mode, while attacks are taking place directly. i mean, ukrainian attacks help them dream of fire. and what happened yesterday naturally raises a very important question. and how did these drones, like these t-14-1 t141, how did they manage to fly so far, and

to some extent, they were still relatively, accurate. i called washington and spoke with an informed source in the administration, but first they sent me delicately imagine where , uh, giving the standard formula that they do not share, uh, intelligence data, which, in general, is quite natural and understandable, but i asked , but these are the actions of the ukrainian country that caused you concern. are you ready to say? uh, that what ukraine did was done without the sanctions of the united states and uh, that you expressed some kind of disapproval. i was told that given that what russia is doing in ukraine it would be inappropriate to express such disapproval. well, then i

turned to a source in moscow and a very informed source, including from a technical point of view, told me that this drone could not inflict. here are the strikes that he did, if he didn't get technical information, but guidance assistance from american satellites, they just don't see any other option. i am not a general expert in this area, and i was interested in your opinion. it can be said that there should have been some kind of american participation. or you don’t necessarily know dmitry, i’ll tell you more that it’s not just a matter of bringing or not leading. these tupolev swifts, uh, they were made. firstly, this is the development of the seventy- sixth year for service. they were adopted in the

mid-eighties and by the end of the eighties, by the way, no one had drones, except for the soviet union, they made about a thousand pieces, but uh, unfortunately, happiness, but at that time there was no satellite guidance by the gps signal uh for having to uh use uh, satellite guidance. they need to be seriously improved the fact that they were finalized, because initially these swifts are reconnaissance bespi. lotnik, they did not assume the performance of shock functions, firstly, they were finalized from the point of view of tradition of shock functions, i admit that the ukrainians themselves could have done this, because after all, the military-industrial complex of ukraine at the time of the collapse of the soviet union, with the exception of the nuclear expression, was, perhaps . the most powerful military-industrial complex e in the soviet union was nuclear the entire detachment, of course, all this was on the territory of the

russian federation a. here the tanks are the same, but the drones of the tupolev design bureau, of course, were in moscow, but, uh, they were assembled in kharkov. i think they still have them. i don’t know how many of them they have left, but they remained, therefore, what is this, moreover, a good drone for its time, a range of up to a thousand kilometers. uh, he was very very decent. and what they did now, uh, finalized it to uh, a percussion variant, and plus, without the americans, uh, to finalize it to satellite guidance to american gps they simply could not, but this requires appropriate design documentation. yes, this requires appropriate supervision, therefore, i think that this is crafty, oh well, general. but we can admit from a technical point of view,

at least, let's say, the americans helped to finalize. well, they are called washed their hands and that they were not in the know, but the target that in this case, uh, was chosen by the ukrainian command, you know dmitry. i am ready, uh, to think anything about the americans, but i never considered them naive people, especially the top military political leadership. these are all pragmatists who understand everything perfectly, therefore, if the ukrainians turned to him with a request to finalize them. naturally, they should have understood that this is not just, uh, refinement for the sake of refinement. i do not exclude, of course, that the ukrainians could hide from the americans. uh, let's say the real target and time of the strike, although it is also doubtful, because the americans do not

hide this, that the ukrainians always consult with them. selected targets, and moreover, they must understand that this is a strike. on the base airfield of our strategic aviation, of course, there will be an answer. and he already was and i think there will be more, uh. we said in this studio last week that there was a pause in strikes on energy infrastructure. i think that now , uh, this pause has already stopped and it's obvious. uh, the strikes will continue, and the strike is no longer just, uh, cruise missiles, uh, sea-based and a limited number of air missiles basing will probably be more and more involved in strategic aviation. the same ninety-fifth, the same 160, or is it 122 dmitry, that's an interesting question. what do you think

and this is not a rhetorical question. what do you think, here in washington they understood that they were actually initiating a new round of escalation, or they already convinced themselves so much that if they say that america is not participating in the war, then russia will be guided by these american statements dmitry but, firstly, i would like to return for a little while to that very important speech by tony of the pancake, which you showed what in my opinion. uh, in this speech, blinky, perhaps for the first time in this conflict, defined the goals of the united states and he defined the goals of the united states as follows. ukraine must recapture all those lands that were lost to it after february 24th. this is at odds with the position of official kiev, which speaks of the need to return to the borders of the ninety-first year. yes

, but, damn it, set the task, respectively. based on the interests of the united states a, from the goal-setting of the united states, in the opinion of c, from the united states, according to glinka, the war should continue until kiev either returns these territories. what does it mean that he will not return the crimea? yes , and the donbass, that part that e was not under the control of kiev until february 24, he will not return. but uh, everything, he must return the rest. and until then, the war must continue or there must come a complete unconditional surrender, kiev in fact. here he formulated blinkin said that he did not want to see some kind of artificial inferior world. that is, he is not ready for any intermediate absolutely, that is , uh, everything that does not fit into this formula, yes, according to glinkin, it will be unstable false, but

wrong. in the world, this seems to me very important, because it sheds light on the american political position. now with regard to, and the risks of escalation. and, to be honest, i agree with evgeny petrovich. i don't think the united states has made any modifications to these drones into soviet drones that ukraine used because it is at the root. it just would really take the russian-american conflict to a new level. this would no longer create a threat of escalation, but the beginning of this very escalation, since the position of the united states, which has been repeatedly stated throughout this conflict , is that ukraine should not use american weapons. for strikes deep into, uh, russian territory, if the united states did something like that, uh, with these uh drones, which would allow them to strike

deep into the territory of russia like this, then this would mean an entry. not the united states in the war. i believe that ukraine did this without the knowledge of the biden administration in the same way as they say about what well-informed people in this area in moscow say that it was impossible to inflict. such a blow without the ukrainians being provided with the services of american satellites. that's another question dmitry yes, here we are entering a gray zone, yes, and since the biden administration believes that the provision of intelligence data is not equal, but participation in the war, the provision of weapons, but from the russian point of view, as i understand it, this is actually turning the united states into a conflict. it is very dangerous. yes, and if indeed the united states provided intelligence that allowed this soviet

drone. born in service with ukraine to fly to the ryazan saratov regions, yes, and get into the airfields where russian strategic aviation is based, then this is very serious. really. yes, if this question, no matter how they thought, it seems to me that they could not help but understand in washington how i will read in moscow, right? and then how they will consider in moscow and not how they think who they will determine the russian reaction. don't i completely agree with you, but washington a for many reasons, but is in captivity of the delusion, which is the following, russia will never dare, but cross the line and initiate escalation on its own, and therefore the united states may be in this gray zone, and the provision of intelligence is precisely the gray zone. and here's how much they will benefit.

yes, but this is misleading. in fact, because it will inevitably come. if we continue to e move along the same path, then the moment will inevitably come when this very escalation will occur, which no one really wants. well, here we need to actually, what does escalation mean here, uh, we often ask ourselves questions. why hasn't the transport infrastructure been destroyed in ukraine so far ? why haven't the tunnels been destroyed? why not destroyed bridges? why not destroyed? uh, for example, the same uh, depots, while strikes are not being made on them, strikes are being made only on the energy infrastructure. yes energy infrastructure. especially now, strikes have begun to be delivered against e-objects that generate 750 e with a voltage of 750 v. that is, already on the distribution network of ukraine. uh, yes, they are reducing the pace, but uh, they cannot completely

stop. u-e supply of ukrainian troops with western equipment yes, production enterprises that are engaged in repairs are being destroyed, but repair of e complex american technology, it is already carried out on the territory of poland, therefore, uh, but russia, uh, has always said that all the purposes uh, which are related to the delivery of uh, heavy equipment. e on the uh line of combat contact on the front line. they are all legitimate targets, so i don’t think that this will be regarded by the russian side as some kind of terrible escalation if we start destroying ukraine’s transport infrastructure. therefore, it seems to me that the americans are playing such a very dangerous game here. russia has everything opportunities with the same long-range aviation. the same cruise missiles, the same drones. eh, we showed our

capabilities. we showed that all these idle conversations, that everything is running out for russia, that all the microprocessors that they all got out of the vacuum cleaners, they all have also ended, and now we found out that the teachers are the wreckage of russian cruise missiles, which were determined in ukraine and it turned out that nothing ended, damn, the prescription of production. yes, moreover, if the top political leadership anatolyevich medvedev, after all, he himself, the secretary of the security council, says that you are not worried at all. enough is enough and nothing will end. frankly, i believe him. yevgeny petrovich, i completely agree with you that these actions lead to further identification of hostilities inside ukraine and russia will certainly intensify its attacks on and in the ukrainian infrastructure. but when we talk about

escalation, we talk about the risk of a direct military confrontation, russia nato russia united states first of all, it's dmitry that i wanted to point out, and even though the biden administration in a way does not want to allow this escalation and does not provide ukraine with long-range missiles and so on, but inside the united states in the united states senate there are many politicians, including republicans, such as state senator gaia ropportman or idah senator james rish , who, by the way, is the main republican on the senate foreign affairs committee, who openly say what needs to be it is necessary to provide ukraine with long-range missiles. putting ukraine in an air defense system is a no-brainer, and moreover, senator risch even said that he wants the risk of escalation to come from the united states because it will keep russia on edge. yes, they do not make decisions, but they create

a certain political climate, from which zelensky just repels, and seeing such a position and a similar political atmosphere in washington, zelensky comes to the conclusion that everything is allowed for him, because in the conditions of this the position occupied by the portmanch and the biden administration like them is unlikely to go as far as to sharply give ukraine a hand with redmi 3 e washington e, believes that e putin is a generally cautious person. uh, a man who knows how to wait for the right moment. well, in general, he believes that, uh, he had , uh, from the very beginning. some incredible aggressive plan to restore the soviet union and maybe even the warsaw pact is imperfect another impression of president putin i think he is really a cautious person and that

does it really have a strategic direction? well, in general, when he came to power, he was not set up to create artificial conflicts, but to engage in the rise of the russian economy and create more space for russia in the system of international relations. on this system, it turned out not to break that every time russia asked, at first it asked in such a very delicate tone, then more insistently. well , then it began to demand every time russia asked that its interests be taken into account and its prospects taken into account, every time they said, no and they said no, with some tone of apology. i would like to meet you halfway, but, unfortunately, the answer was not no, but a combination of rudeness irony and

who are you, i say this to the fact that, uh, i have no doubt that if russia does not strike on the territory outside ukraine then, this is clearly a strategic preference of the top russian leadership, but if i were those who make decisions in washington in brussels, i would not proceed from the fact that this position will continue indefinitely, regardless of what they do the united states and here is a push at all. here's to this trait we don't know where it is, but i don't know what you think then about the general. well, there's some sort of no- return feature somewhere. and it seems to me that this is another step on the part of washington's kiev in this very undesirable direction. you know, of course, there is such a feature. and uh, i still believe in the

prudence of, uh, the american leadership, or rather, even prudence, and a certain pragmatism, uh, it is not at all accidental that the president is biden. uh, whatever, the spell is that we will defend every yin every day of our allies' territories, but we don't want to, uh, get into a direct confrontation with russia nato of course it's the united states when he says nato this is the united states so uh any clash between the armed forces of the united states and the russian federation will inevitably escalate, including nuclear it will be a global catastrophe. i don't rule out the option. uh, you know such a coalition of willing when united will say. here, poland wants to fight, well, fight, but it's not necessary. this is, so to speak, your personal polish matter, but here, of course, the poles

are already not in vain here when he spoke. not there pranksters. he also says he no longer wants to fight with russia, but another thing is that she can be forced to cross this line. this will be it, of course. eh, very like that. uh, i would say, a very dangerous step on the part of the american leadership, which, despite everything, keeps its allies in a certain place everywhere. dmitry i have a question for you. and we were just talking about the most important issues of war and peace, and i have a question. if so, more of a local significance. uh, the latest scandal. uh, with the tv company rain which was declared a foreign agent, which i decided to leave. e is from russia who settled mainly in latvia and who, well, was very vehement in her condemnation of the russian

special operation and created an impression in every possible way. that in this war they are on the side of russia's enemies, i don't think i'm on them yet, in my opinion, they said, this is uh with complete frankness themselves, and suddenly the latvian leadership closes this station. look what the minister of defense of latvia said about them. i think that the rain should go to work in russia and the residence permit should be cancelled. well, here is a brilliant example of western tolerance and a very good illustration, but an important illustration of how these dangerous younger brothers in the baltics are set up and how they feel about russia and even the russian opposition. although if you look. in general, this is borya in a glass of water, because leading a rain channel. he did not, contrary to the accusations against him

, call for support for the russian armed forces. everything he said. it is that when they try to investigate, some wrong actions during the mobilization and it is natural to investigate everything, to expose the russian leadership, it would be nice to look at the same time, and what is needed? there are russian mobilized people, and somehow this topic is also raised, that is, this degree of extreme indignation. she was very for me. revealing. in general, i noticed that no one was practically back. but still, it seemed to me that when a crusade for liberal

values ​​was announced, it seemed to me that at least to create the impression that the right one, but they could say, but the latvian brothers, the younger ones, somehow went too far, but that’s okay no what do you think, dmitry, i completely share. uh, your confusion, but i understand it. it doesn't call. i have a surprise, but because in this case or their behavior. uh their behavior, but because ah-ah's in this case, it seems to me that we are confronted not only with an extreme manifestation of russophobia, but the baltic countries , they have demonstrated it recently, not for the first time, yes, the previous time, but they made a statement that the european union should in no case take, for example, as russian citizens who fled from e-partial mobilization. that we don't want any russians at all? that is, in principle, yes, and

now they are demonstrating approximately the same approach, but the absence of condemnation from the west and this story with tv channel rain. this is a private manifestation of a more global more systemic phenomenon. and what is this phenomenon? it seems to me that the editor-in-chief of the journal of russian global politics russia in global politics fyodor aleksandrovich lukyanov explained very sensibly. i’ll just answer with his words, listen collision with rain normalization of the situation, a full-fledged cold war, in which there can be no ideological semitones, the side is chosen clear and unambiguous. under this lined up all the logistics and mat, providing a deviation from the canonical position of the corresponding block is not allowed and entails sanctions. that's exactly why the west does not allow freedom of speech, because the canonical position has been established in the west, which is

that russia is evil and the west, respectively, is good , and everything that deviates from this canonical position , any semitones, they are suppressed and eradicated in violation. of course, this most notorious freedom of speech. we are in a new state in the new edition of the cold war, and which has in including the ideological and information dimension. actually. this is part of this new cold war - this is confirmation that this is what we are dealing with dmitry well, as you know, a significant part of the cold war, and since the first half of the seventies, i have lived in washington and the cold war. she was, as it were, sometimes dangerously close hot, especially when they collided. uh, roland reagan and yuri andropov and there were suspicions that someone was carrying a nuclear strike on someone, but i want to tell you this i didn’t

see hatred for russia during the cold war, dmitry, but you came to washington at a more mature stage of the cold war. thank god you did not find the period of maktism in the united states right now. i think we are in about the same article. and so, what's the difference that we are cortism's time, and the president is a truce of his statehood. secretary. his defense minister is a general, they were, uh, opponents of the soviet union, but they were sane people. and he changed the pipes for the general, who was also sane to people. and now we have not only insane in congress, but the administration lacks them. i want to say one last thing. i know some people who work. and uh, it seemed to me that despite the fact that i absolutely did not share and do not share their position. it seemed to me that they still had the feeling that they were

professional journalists and some respect for their profession. now they explained to them who they were, they explained to them that they were not freedom fighters in russia, they explained to them that they were vlasov