i have inquiries, and i have orders. do you want to know whose are you going with us? guessed already. guilty if you don't mind about it

i know i practice the scientific methods called medicine in that case, use all the means available to you this time on me. look at this horror. nothing. in the speed of the afternoon and spread itching. well, preferably. you already managed to feel me during the rescue from the unicorn. why

not see it with your own eyes. maybe believe undressing in front of a man? all the more you courier, said there were screams and almost did it come to a fight? now my mission is much more important? what a spectacle

now you need to cleanse the body and give it a rest. and tomorrow i'll look at you and there are medicines for strengthening, please. i ask you to stay in your palace until morning, i will give you orders to give you a proper rest.

interesting dreams. it's so stuffy to keep the doors open at night. are drafts useful? it remains habitual to reach out and take.

good evening on the air, the big game today, vladimir putin presented the highest state award in the kremlin 's catherine's hall military and civilian hero of the russian spetspiration in ukraine, among whom is the military. e, the military commander of channel one irina kuksinkova, the head of four new russian regions, to the scientists, medicine and health care, industry and agriculture , transport and other industries, and tomorrow the president will hold an expanded meeting of the board of the ministry of defense, at which the results of the activities of the armed forces for this year will be summed up and a task will be set for year. the next these tasks will undoubtedly concern further russia's special operation in ukraine is very far from over, as the united states is doing everything to ensure ukraine's ability to wage war next year too. i hope, by doing so, to deplete russia, or even to completely defeat another proof

of this. the course was the submission to congress of a bill on the budget of the united states for 2023 totaling $ 1.7 trillion . this budget proposal provides ukraine and allies of the united states with fans next year the amount of 44.9 billion dollars in assistance of almost 50 billion. and this money is not included in this money, but in the us defense budget of 858 billion dollars, which was recently adopted by the senate and which also suggests. uh, the allocation of uh, separate military assistance to kiev. in general, in this total budget of 1.7 trillion dollars, assistance for ukraine is supposed to be divided into the following areas up to 14.5 billion for the transfer of military equipment for the kiev regime 12 billion for replenishing its own american reserves already transferred to ukraine equipment 9 billion

dollars for training equipment of the armed forces of ukraine weapons and assistance in logistics and intelligence, that is, imagine the scale of uh american intentions for military support for ukraine a 13 billion dollars for economic budgetary assistance to the kiev regime, and then smaller numbers but important nonetheless, $13.5 million is supposed to go towards overseeing the distribution of us aid to ukraine, a gesture apparently intended to gain republican support. which just insist on more oversight and audit, but special attention. i gave 126 million dollars to the next item. it is supposed to be aimed at preparing for a response to possible nuclear and radiation incidents in ukraine . a nuclear or radiation

incident in ukraine is too little, while the united states constantly accuses russia of being ready. uh, or maybe, uh, use tactical nuclear weapons in ukraine, russia is not without reason speaks about the intention of ukraine e. apply, a, the so-called dirty bomb, the use of which will just lead, but to radioactive contamination. and now the united states allocates 126 million dollars for this topic. that is, it turns out they are, as it were , preparing ukraine for the use of similar dirty bombs. or is it including money for an information company to demonize russia in nuclear matters. here's how you would explain this item in the us budget. russia has repeatedly, both through the mouth of the president and through the mouth of medvedev, deputy e-e chairman security council and other officials have

stated that we have a doctorate on the use of nuclear weapons. it does not at all imply the use of, uh, some kind of nuclear weapon in ukraine, and all this endless talk that we will use something there only leads to one thought that they themselves are going to use something, work and cheat and thief . yes, according to this principle, according to which voices always act , in this case they act, and look . they forced almost all european leaders to talk about this topic. here you are we won’t name a single one, we won’t find a single last name, whoever says something, like, ah-ah-ah, russia doesn’t use nuclear weapons there. why are they so hard on this topic? mochaga, they even forced him to sit down, pina spoke out on this topic, specially provoked him and said, so that if denpin also opposed the use, that

is, obviously, when all public opinion is preparing for the fact that russia supposedly can use something , and then suddenly, for no reason, somewhere something explodes, then they will talk. well, you said we claimed. we even shook our finger at russia . and look, it exploded. the same bomb, which means, let it be dirty, let it be something not like that. well, now, it exploded, especially since it’s a problem to launch this dirty bomb from some, say, kharkov border, yes, from a certain gray zone and declare, as it was in his case with the malaysian boeing, that it was the russians who did it, that here are our here the satellites again did not see anything, but it is clear that from here it was some kind, and now another radio interception is being concocted. how are they did it? e s in the case of god and uh will talk. look, not only the us was the first to use nuclear weapons on hiroshima and nagasaki. but now, in modern times, not in the

forty, fifth year, russia for the first time since those times uses nuclear weapons. yes, and against civilians, they will bomb the one who they do not feel sorry for, yes, they will take them there in kharkov and blow them up. yes, somewhere on the eastern not volvo, but it will be somewhere there in kharkov. yes , and some kind of children's hospital, so that it is more for the world community. it's a pity. well, firstly, they understand that the consequences will not be very big, because they will not blow up fully. oh such a bomb. and they need to designate a certain appearance that there is some kind of radiation going off scale, they will show everyone the geiger counter n-t-jud, they will also say with a test tube somewhere out there. look at the counter, it means, uh, radiation, so nuclear weapons were by name, but russian. well, then they will begin to unite the whole of europe, they say, look at you coming out. ah, so who do you stand for putin? you, it turns out, for the one who

nuclear bomb bombs peaceful cities. you are now for him. and you are african countries, and you are india and china, what are you doing? you, it turns out, means for this destroyer, which is scattered with nuclear bombs contrary to public opinion. we all warned him not to do this, but he does. this is a provocation obviously being prepared. well, what i say again, a small amount, after all. yes , even if the radiation is some kind of big explosion. after all, they don’t feel sorry for ukraine. absolutely yes, they can and zero allocate on by let's say liquidation of consequences. well, sort it out yourself somehow or make europe stand out. here in europe, some kind of radioactive rain, so to speak, some winds that will go to their territory, they will be told this problem, well, europe lets it spend money. and here we are there 128 e, which means small millions. so it seems to me that it is the preparation and accompanying this preparation, the corresponding pr-company, and the propaganda company, just 126 or

128 million dollars will be quite enough, i completely agree. this company aims to try to bring down the support of russia from the world majority, because the main failure of the collective west this year. this is actually relations with the non-western world and not the ability to mobilize those countries that you named, but to oppose russia, while the biden administration is clearly in a hurry. e with acceptance. uh, this budget is running out of time. actually less than a week. uh, it's already catholic and protestant christmas this week, and the convention will go to christmas. the holidays will return already new with the new composition of the house of representatives already with the republican, and the majority of the third of january and in this connection the administration. debidena wants to use the last remaining 2-3 days to approve the budget for the next one for the

twenty-third financial year that has already begun in fact. they start in october and work with republicans with moderate republicans and with republicans in the senate to ensure that military assistance to ukraine continues in 23. here listen to what the politician's publication writes about this. the white house is preparing for new challenges related to the winter war in ukraine and the arrival of the republican majority in the house of representatives, who promise to limit funding. kiev is primarily an administration. now he is putting pressure on congress to allocate more funds to ukraine within the framework. debated consolidated spending bill. the white house is relying on some unexpected allies of moderate republicans in the house of representatives who have spoken out in support of the funding, as well as on mitch macon, a senate minority leader who strongly supports aid to kiev , the pentagon administration and leadership have tacitly rallied with the

republicans in recent weeks to maintain that momentum despite pressure from some in their far-right faction. well, representatives of the extreme right, for example, magicar retailor green, are actually trump supporters who have advocated and continue to advocate cutting back on money for the military. support for ukraine vladimir sergeevich what do you think? succeed whether? first im u take this week. uh, this one, uh, bill, but about the budget and secondly. uh, will it be possible next year, taking into account the republican majority in the house of representatives, to maintain the current pace of, uh, military and economic support for ukraine well, the first, most likely, because an agreement has been reached. uh, with the makov mosque, this is the most important thing, because in the house of representatives there is a simple majority of votes, where today the democrats have it and in general, we are not at all interested in votes republicans, as far as the senate is concerned. there

the situation is more confusing, but the macon sword has already slyly said that we managed to hold our priorities. to a greater extent, we increase military spending above inflation, as for greasy spending, even though we increase them, inflation will not be lower. this is our victory well , under this, as they say, noise - this thing will pass. but we have to see two points, even i would say turned to three points. the administration was asking for $37.5 billion . here is congress. uh, approved already at 45 uh billiards. that is, even more than the administration requested, that is, the congress increased more, which once again proves that, indeed, as it were, well, the administration is in a hurry and, perhaps, under such general noise for the new year holidays. maybe today there will not be much attention paid to this, the second very important point that i want to draw attention to. here are the figures that you cited, which is 12.5 billion. here is the one that 14 gave direct

support from 12 for replenishment. uh, here's 12 billion. we're resupplying. how can you tell? that because of all the changes in this help today, this article was, the most vulnerable was considered that if today somewhere stalls. this assistance is precisely because there will not be enough money to replenish stocks, since the administration has corrected this today, then it is quite obvious what is being prepared? well, military operations in ukraine or american assistance will continue and for the entire 23 years, that is, this is a bottleneck that was considered, because before that, uh, let's say in september, the pentagon allocated no more than 10%. and today we see half of it and this once again shows that today you understand that it is not at all possible that america is relying on some new fundamental forces. ah, the weapons. how much that's precisely on the dragging out

of this conflict directly on the territory of ukraine and the third question that i want to say about radiation things. ministry i emphasize the ministry of social services and health and social services has already spent 300 million dollars on the purchase of all kinds of vaccines and disinfectants. in case here any radiation impact, while this ministry is already operating. uh, bought these, uh, bought these substances or these medicines directly for, as it were, use inside the united states of america . here is this military hysteria but what has already been said that we are talking about, perhaps today, some radioactive emissions, which may be, the american public, of course, will be interested. will it end there something incidents ukraine or the european part? well, or environmentalists would appear who would say no. no , no, the whole world, as they say, may be

under this influence, which once again suggests that the united states of america is really just in case of an emergency, just for aggravation, maybe this card is used inside the political situation in the united states of america, maybe there were talks . they wanted to use on the eve of the midterm elections in november, but what other situations, when here's playing out this one, uh, there i don't know balancing on the brink of a nuclear war, maybe we should consider this as the most dangerous trend in the development of events around in ukraine around ukraine in ukraine here is the upcoming 23 year. i completely agree with you. we have already said that the united states often uses foreign policy inward political struggle, but uses confrontation with russia and china, while trying to solve its internal political tasks to ensure consolidation around the white house around the flag and uh, indeed, those tools that are currently being

used are extremely dangerous and fraught with uncontrolled military escalation. well, here's another problem that the biden administration is worried about, in addition to the republican factors. uh, in the house of representatives, this is how europe will behave in the twenty- third year, because the euro countries are facing an increasingly severe and energy and socio-economic crisis. and even within the biden administration, fears are growing that in this, uh, in this regard, european countries may begin to cut volume. uh, the help that they allocate to ukraine here. listen to what the publication of the politician writes, therefore, regarding the western alliance, although it continues to support kiev, it is experiencing difficulties due to the energy crisis and fears of the russian federation. biden. forced western leaders to pledge as much support to ukraine

as needed on the verge of a recession as the war has no end in sight, the patience of european leaders is running out due to the behavior of zelensky's aides. the white house believes that biden will need to be lobbied. keeping the course among european leaders as the number of strikes against civilians increases. and, of course, in many ways, the decisive, uh, determining factor for the policy of the european union will be in germany . european union, and for now, the position of olaf scholz, the german chancellor, differs significantly from the approach of some american hawks in the uk, poland and the baltic countries in terms of prospects, and german policy in relation to the

ukrainian conflict. and now listen to how recently, uh, olaf-scholz defined, defining the principles, but of his policy towards the ukrainian conflict. a and. a. he did this explaining, among other things, why germany wants to break ties completely with russia and does not want to supply ukraine german tanks. leopard 2. listen, it is important that despite the serious differences of opinion we do not let the threads of negotiations with russia be processed, we adhere to three clear principles. first, we support ukraine to the best of our ability. secondly, we are preventing a direct confrontation between nato and russia, and thirdly, there will be no unilateral actions on the part of germany . these are the criteria for our decisive but cautious policy, and artyom pavlovich will act next year as well, but, firstly, how will germany's policy develop

regarding the ukrainian conflict next year, and are the fears in the white house justified that support from both berlin and the collective european union may decrease and the second question for you? do i understand correctly that if we take into account the alternative for germany and the left party, then olaf-scholz represents by far the least confrontational approach towards russia among, let's say, german politics by far. it's so catchy. although he also there were many different statements, however, due to the fact that this politician is a representative of the social democratic party of germany, which, despite the fact that a is now trying to revise its basic foreign policy principles and approaches, nevertheless , compared to the greens, compared to the liberals, compared to the cdu, which are now in opposition, it still continues to adhere to the extent that the

current difficult situation allows, to varying degrees, a moderate approach, where this, perhaps, is one of the central plots here - this, of course, is the issue of arms supplies, since indeed the issue of tanks, germany was able to solve it in its favor so far, that is, insert ukraine with the latest german, despite pressure from the united states despite pressure from foreign minister helena berberg, despite pressure from other representatives of the german political forces. yes , here, in a sense, scholz managed to, let's say, come to his senses and the parties come to themselves, because when only the a traffic light coalition got to work, there were fears that the greens would aggressively push their foreign policy agenda . and, especially since they now have, uh, such an active head of the german foreign ministry as a channel on verbak, but nevertheless scholz managed to

contribute. this is within some framework, of course, but the spanish will probably expect germany to completely stop supporting ukraine unconditionally. this support will continue, but it is important that germany firstly, the words of michelets clearly stated that there would be no initiative force here, which would go ahead of the whole west with some kind. ideas with some offers of money weapon something else, that germany will not do more than the united states will do the european union other countries, and other eu countries germany will go along with all this at once. it removes many questions about both military supplies and finances. and as for the issue of arms supplies, here we see that berlin emphasizes the weakness of the bundeswehr emphasizes that the supply of weapons and ammunition to ukraine exhausted the german thirst for the army, which, after all, should deal primarily with the tasks of defense, but

of its own country, if it comes to that, the european and european allies, but not to engage in charity, but emphasizes the difficulties accommodation related. and as for the reception of ukrainian refugees in the future, since it is expected that the wave, and refugees from the territory of ukraine will continue, uh, this flow will go on and on . and here are social services. they talk about that we are not ready to continue to provide the support that we provided in february march, and 2022, in other words, berlin is trying to show that there are limits just in the coming year 2023. and berlin will indicate this very clearly, where and what it can do and what it cannot do. and, of course, berlin would be interested in classifying as many potential actions as impossible in its foreign political activity with

regard to ukraine than possible. well, actually, it is very revealing and in in many ways a tragic situation that olaf-scholz, who played an important role in the destruction of german russian energy political relations, and under whose leadership germany abandoned the policy of not placing weapons in conflict zones, is indeed the least anti-russian german politicians among those who represent the german power. this is really it. here is the objective situation that exists in europe, yes, that is, we consider scholz to be a problem. not in russophobia today, but he is the least anti-russian of those that are represented in e on the german political olympus, including the current german opposition yes, again, if we take out the marginals, still in the face of an alternative for germany and the delinka party. uh, the left party, and it confirms. it seems to me that today in the west, there are

two approaches to the ukrainian conflict and russia, and the approach of the hawks , which include a on lena burbock, and poland in the baltic countries are part of the american politicians. they consider current conflict, as well, i would say a chance to once and for all resolve the russian issue, that is, inflict such a defeat on russia, after which it will no longer be a great power. and the second position, the position of realists of conditional realists, is olaf-scholz. uh, this is henry casenger. uh, this is another part of american politics. and this is macron for him, and they believe that, while trying to inflict such a strategic position on russia is too dangerous, that this is fraught with a world nuclear war, and therefore it is necessary to somehow agree, but at the same time ukraine must to remain as a pro-western militarized anti-russian and

nato-integrated country. well, here is such a common denominator between these two approaches in their position. it was actually formulated by nato secretary general jan stonetenberg. here, listen to his recent speech, most likely everything will end at the negotiating table, like most warriors, but we know that the result of these negotiations largely depends on the alignment of forces on the battlefield. so if you want to resolve this conflict at the negotiating table. guarantee for ukraine, the status of a sovereign and independent state is the best and fastest way to support ukraine with arms supplies until president putin understands that he cannot win on the battlefield and is ready to sit down at the negotiating table of his own free will. here. please note that stoltenberg is not talking about the defeat of russia, but that putin should not win, he says that ukraine must remain sovereign independent, that is, anti-russian integrated with nato ivan alekseevich, i correctly described this alignment

positions that are today represented in the west. a dmitrievich i think you described him quite correctly. e, of course, there are many more different categories of subcategories of subcategories of subcategories. but it is really possible to generalize in this way, always at a certain level of generalization, we sacrifice some details. it is not named. the only thing here is the category rea. you made her look very ugly. it seems to me that, nevertheless, within this category, a should be singled out. e those who really believe that it is not necessary to arrange a crusade hike. it is not necessary against russia, in principle, this is wrong. eh, that contradicts historical questions. this is contrary to the strategy culture of strategic thinking. this is a contradiction in international relations, it is impossible to destroy russia and remove it from the

world arina. but there are those, and you also classified them as realists. who would like to do it. well, he admits that you know we won’t pull it. yes. i would very much like to drive russia into a certain cage, which we want to take away, here is some kind of niche to petrovsky muscovy yes, well, well, we won’t pull it, we won’t pull it and yet these are two fundamentally different positions. they can tactically converge in their views, and on specific issues they can take the same positions, but still, these are fundamentally different positions. i think that kissanger definitely belongs to the first category, i completely agree here, but it seems to me that we will not find among the political leaders among the experts. yes, but among the representatives of the political establishment, and , uh, uh, among the heads of state, the ministers of foreign affairs. we do not find today

day in the west of those whom you have attributed to the first category, who believe that there is no need to try. here, depending on what is considered the west, let's say so. considers uh a european country, yes, the president of a european country from my point of view, urban also thinks so, uh, thinks so, there's not only a question of what he would like, but can't. i think he seriously believes that this should not be done. despite the fact that he also does not need to be recorded directly in the camp of russia's friends, there are people in the bulgarian political spectrum, who think so and and so on, but you know, here we are usually in the logic of such reasoning that a burden that they have not taken on themselves will be such that they will change their minds. but uh, i still remain on the position that their main feature of these european, primarily trans-atlantic elites is not independence. they will never openly

go against their e overlord, they will not go. it's impossible. they can slow down. yes , so to speak, to sabotage a little, but also within certain limits, but you know, after all, she’s such a lack of independence, and she’s somewhere sometimes turns into e, such deceit, including deceit in relation to his overlord. here is from my point of view. even among these atlantic routes, european ones. the elite gradually develops the opinion that, and they will never say it publicly, but at least they start, as it were, backstage rooting for the russian special operation , why ? america lost this conflict. well, that's

all, uh, that means, uh, ukraine completely. burned. uh, the kiev regime was destroyed in the heat of this european struggle. well, that's how it happened and you understand, and they know exactly what to convince their whole ziren. they won't be able to, but if someone is overlord, then uh will make him feel bad. they, in principle, have already condemned to death. they will not stand. this is such a contradiction, when not independence and the inability to go with the surety, nevertheless, can turn into some deceit in relation to the overlord, but they will definitely never say this openly, therefore, therefore, you know such backstage- uh, there are those in europe who, uh, very silently, but are

rooting for the russian special military operation. perhaps, just at some stage, we will be able to build normal and neighborhood, i would say. the decision is precisely with these representatives of the european elites but for today. it was not by chance that i made such a generalization by presenting these two groups. and uh, uh, their presence, but it says that really the russian turn to the east today has no alternative, because with those schools of thought with those groups, which are represented in the west today, indeed, there is practically nothing to talk about, except about, but about how to prevent , uh, a direct military clash, preventing horizontal and vertical escalation. and i must say that russia constantly emphasizes the growing risks of such an escalation as a result of the ever deeper and more direct involvement of the united states and its satellites in the ukrainian conflict, but in the west, here are some american, and

politicians easily say that if such a direct military clash will happen then nato is literally one or two. fingers will inflict russia, uh, a military defeat. for example, today a member of the house of representatives from the republican party, lieutenant colonel of the national guard air force, by the way, the anti-trombist is a republican, but the anti-trombist voted one of the few republicans who voted for impeachment, and trump. uh, it's called hell, kiesinger, tweeted . here listen if the russian military is so pathetic, why hasn't nato defeated them yet? i hope this is a joke, the nato war against russia will look like a real

three -day operation oleg anatolevich clash, it will be very difficult to control the escalation and many military experts. they say that the risk of a global nuclear war. in this case, it will be maximum, and even not overcome. that is why we sometimes hear such statements. and this, by the way, is not the only case, i remind you that, again, the former american military, like stanley macrystal. david petros also, uh, they said that the united states would easily destroy the russian black sea fleet, there and so on and so forth. in this case, uh, everything, we are talking about propagandists. of course, they are in uniform. these people, but there are other people in uniform, such as a skotoratora, who give much more realistic means, and assessments of the current situation, when douglas mcgregor and so

on, who really argue, as a military man in this case, i can remember mili and many others who were really worried, who back in april predicted the end of russia's missile means defeat and so further. well, what kind of military experts are they after that, if their forecasts, so to speak, were not there. uh, there is, uh, a history of inter-uh nato, uh, various operations, yes. uh, with the same and cancer there or plum, and and so on to figure it out, and this is not the russian armed forces or the russian army, of course, they needed months of preparation, huge gigantic efforts, yes, carpet bombing, which were possible. just because, for example, an unmanned zone was installed in the same libya, when clear sky was simply opened there, who will give them such a conditional unmanned zone here and so on now, uh, by itself. most importantly, deceit. after all, the journalist in this matter. quite rightly he said, why

can't nato now defeat russia? and he immediately ran away from this question and began fix. yes, no nato, if there was a journalist, he understands everything correctly, he must already be at war, and they had 3 days and 3 months and three years. and as much as they like, they couldn’t do anything with afghanistan, and now they are fighting, what do we think, that the ukrainian army is really fighting the task of depilatization of ukraine and the ukrainian army was completed by our troops back in april and in may there was neither a fleet nor an air , so to speak fleet. not those tanks and, uh, self-propelled ones. and howitzers and so on that they had at the beginning of the war everything that is now. these are supplies of nato control systems, nato satellites, nato ones are working, and so on. this is absolutely direct, but nato's military operation, and therefore i generally believe that it is time

for our mass media experts to stop talking everything. it means that some kind of armed forces of ukraine are fighting there. the armed forces of ukraine must openly and clearly say that nato forces did it today, then they retreated there, which means that there are such maneuvers and other precisely nato forces and they are clearly no more. this must be understood and nato has spent almost 10% of their weapons, and in ukraine and a 100 billion dollars of direct military and humanitarian and other assistance that were allocated to ukraine what has all this led to so far, and they think, why they are not negotiating, by the way, with russia yes, because what they think russia is at the moment. persons in a winning position that russia , generally speaking, not only defeated a huge number of people there. not only that, at least 100,000 nazis destroyed. here is dynasification for you. so russia received 6 million. new citizens received vast lands the size of a minute with

belgium. that is, when aggregated to itself. yes , generally speaking, it has pushed its borders further, that is, generally speaking, putin is now on the winning side. well, what kind of negotiations to fix that's it? no of course they want to push back just in time for the month of february to come back. and then to negotiate, but here, as they say, the pipes are for them. uh, the further situation will only get worse, so those pigeons, let's say so obscure, as it were, who foresee that this is how happens and will happen, they therefore want to fix themselves at least now, but they are still in the minority, as soon as everything is different. i think it's just common sense. no wake up. well, at the same time, russia also in many respects wirelessly 10% of their weapons militarily, almost almost 10% have already been used by those average for a hospital, and in some european countries much more. yes, and if my memory serves me in a recent secret report,

which, of course, was leaked for the bundestag the state of the german armed forces christina lambert, the german minister of defense stated that if the war starts russia nato germany will hold out for several hours, here's the word about who wins there is no dart side that would not last, there are several hours or not, or several days. yes, there turkey, which is definitely not going to fight us, could hold out somewhere. and but uh, everyone else is funny, even. well, that's inside the uh united states uh. continues, and settling accounts with donald trump and uh, attempts continue. well, how to prevent him from actually participating in the next presidential election today, a special committee of the house of representatives, which is investigating the events of january 6, 21, when the capitol building was stormed the congress building, and recommended the united states department of justice of the united

states to file four criminal charges against donald trapp , that is, charges in the case of, so to speak, a guilty verdict, followed by imprisonment and among these criminal charges trump. it is proposed to change. including sedition. well, plus a conspiracy to obstruct the official work of congress, a conspiracy to make a false statement, and so on. and how he writes. that's what he post. but , despite the fact that these recommendations are advisory in nature, nevertheless. they are important because they set, first of all, a precedent, and never before has a congressional committee been asked to rule on blaming an incumbent or former president for criminal offenses is important in order to try to disqualify trump, but from running in the next presidential election. well trump naturally reacted to this in a predictable way to them. seems pretty adequate to me. listen. these

guys don't understand that when they chase me, freedom loving people rally around me, it strengthens me, what does n't kill me makes me stronger. people understand that the democratic investigation bureau is trying to stop me from running for president because they know i'm going to win. they also know that this whole thing with bringing me to justice, like impeachment, a biased attempt to take me and the republican party out of the game vladimir sergeevich well, firstly, how do you assess the prospects for criminal prosecution of trump. will he be jailed or removed? and secondly, if we assume that they manage to somehow remove trump from participating in the elections, are the democrats digging their own grave, because then ron desantis, the governor of florida, turns out to be virtually no alternative leader from candidates, and already and many opinion polls show that in the case of a-a rivalry , desantis, biden, desantis wins. the thing

is that now a lot still depends on the department of justice, because it must draw up an indictment, and in fact, this indictment should be brought against trump. and on the basis of it, an appropriate investigation should already begin, and so on. well, here you can make a few such, uh, well, or something, observations, first you understand what trump says and what was said many times over over the course of these five years, the best fight against trump is, as it were, to make him fall out of the media space somewhere, so that people forget about him, you see, well , the president didn’t forget about him. well, if you look at the american press today, you will be hit in the first place trump everything is discussed around trump trump is there, then trump is still ahead of trump and trump made a statement against trump and you understand trump will always be with us, so that there is nothing more

. when in america so it appears and what are we going to do, you know? he has already become almost a member in our family or something like that . we need to find out what trump does for breakfast for dinner for lunch and so on, the second very important question from my point of view is, well, maybe today it’s just the intensification of the internal struggle in the united states . , de-republicans opens only the second. uh, flo is the second direction counteracting this and it's already passed our beat. they will still be forced to defend, as if trump, as representatives of the republican party. and this means that, in general, it is guaranteed that uh hmm really, probably, here is the congress of the 118th convocation of undermining undermining and exposing. so to say, the biden will start with the same force, or at least the symmetrical answers that

the republicans are simply forced to put there , from my point of view, you understand so clearly. well, uh, with a semantic moment. now, if you look at these four accusations, the word conspiracy in english conspiracy is present in three out of four. yes, and i must tell you that this is very unfortunate from my point of view, so say the wording, because the whole american culture today it is permeated with this conspiracy motif. and when you run, that's what it's like to say and the term that circle of conspiracies that trump involved conspiracy supporters. this is the most uh, republicans can tell aidan he didn’t participate in conspiracy schemes at the end of the day, the democrats don’t deal with this problem and off they go, because you know in america i said many times today that this is the conspiracy culture that pervades today american poli. the field it leads to the fact

that this is e ideology of hatred. you see, the split of society, it is gaining more momentum and more and more is happening here. i may well, i’ll quote here, i’ve already quoted a lot with the permission of our presenter - this is a statement by vice president pence, who, as it were , understands that this is his garden, a pebble, that this one, that this is a recommendation from the events committee on january 6, america will split even more, so i think that this is set completely at the same time, the correct diagnosis was put in such a position that each of the parties is narrower. well , it is already, if you like, in such a semi -belligerent state, not just ours are being beaten, but it is necessary not only to protect ours, but also to beat the opposite side, and plus a very serious blow is dealt to this. in terms of the institution

of presidential power and in this regard, we must understand that these are the statements of the committee. in general, they strike at the image of the united states of america as a world leader, as a world hegemon. this the main thing, because it weakens, just the claims of the united states of america to lead the whole world, to set its own standards, and to impose it here with the idea of ​​democracy, especially in the fight against totalitarianism. here is authoritarianism as it is understood today in modern washington, at least for me today. it made such an impression that in essence here is the house of representatives under the control of the democrats. well , in essence, maybe somewhere, it turns out to be the united states of america in this country disservice. it gives, in general, the world. the media to our media that's it, it's possible to discuss all this today and show really that the american democra. today it is not just

imperfect for you, maybe this model has already turned into an authoritarian form of government with only a liberal tinge. so, i would say this. the paradox, it seems to me , is that really the actions that the biden administration is taking in domestic politics and the problems, uh, which are becoming more and more obvious uh, inside the united states undermine american soft power and this halo of the united states like the light of hd-democracy, but the intention of the biden administration is the opposite. yes, they think that, having got rid of trump, they will cleanse american democracy and revive, and american global leadership. and at least leadership within the western bloc, but it turns out really the other way around. and one more thing i would like to note the peculiarity of the current american policy, if domestic politics really leads to increasingly split, then foreign policy towards

consolidation based on confrontation with russia, china and the consolidation of the entire western society of the western community, that is, not only my american politics and society, but also the collective west, and indeed the united states has already switched to a policy of a new global confrontation and from russia to china, russia and china are not even considered as two separate adversaries. but as a two-component, and an enemy against whom the united states wants to unite, and western community and in fact revive the old western-style e. ah, the last cold war. now, if it was not possible to extend the american world order to the rest of the world, then let's revive the old one. uh, the west of the past cold war, eminent american experts write about this, professor of print princeton university aaron friedberg listen. having failed in yet another

attempt to build an inclusive world-spanning order, liberal democracy must again return to a more reliable a position to defend the perimeter of an extended but still not global bloc of liberal nations , strengthening the bond between its members and protecting their open societies and economies from being infiltrated and exploited by war in ukraine is a growing threat. china's response to taiwan highlights the continuing challenge of containing america, and will have to work harder in both theaters to keep more ground forces in europe and continue to build up its air and naval forces. in asia, this will require larger defense budgets than at present, which impossible to support politically unless the rise in american spending is accompanied by a significant increase in spending by prosperous allies, america's recent events also make clear the danger of over- reliance on hostile revisionist powers only for war. she was able to wean europe from

russian energy. this is wrong western countries should learn this lesson and act now to reduce their vulnerability to coercion or sabotage by transferring critical supply chains from china well indeed one of the main differences between the current confrontation and the last cold war is interdependence. uh, the close economic interdependence of the united states with the country that they declared their main adversary, as well as the remaining residual interdependence of europe and russia, since. well, indeed, europe continues to, uh, buy russian resources. we continue to buy, although to a lesser extent and to a much greater extent, european goods. and here is an illustration of how politics determines the economy, and not vice versa, yes, but professor aaron friberk proposes not to bring the state of relations, not confrontation, into line with these economic realities, but bring economic realities in line

with confrontation, that is, let's go back to that past cold war as it was without any interdependence, without any interconnectedness. here is the western block and that's it. ah, dmitry vyacheslavovich, i clarified a little, but before that, a small, but significant, uh, such, as it were, a passage, i would say for author, but a very significant semantic spoon did not take place to universalize the western world. it's just. it's all true. yes, he admits. no about the fact that prosperous allies. no, no more prosperous allies. it used to be. if you , uh, crawl under the american military-political and nuclear umbrella, you can get rich. now these are vassals, from which america can take whatever it wants at any time. we are seeing this in europe, yes, they are taking away industry, they are taking away technology, brains will very quickly flow away the most

soon, so this is it, well, as it were for the author. this is a passing lie, but it is a very significant one, but a lie. now you serve in america. that's the full length of service, in the sense of the word, from whom something can always be taken away at any moment, if you serve america and then about relations with the rest of the world. why i would clarify your logic a little, uh, dmitry vyacheslavovich, because from my point of view, they, uh, want to use interdependence, but in the following way, from their point of view, but still the whole the rest of the world. although he got rich on globalization, they depend on them. yeah, so their task is to use their pupation closure in this western world of theirs in such a way as to undermine the opportunities for development outside this western world. and they deeply believe. we must admit. do they believe

they can do it? that is, by the way , this is a fairly common american tactic. if you look at how america got out of various regional conflicts, if america is from somewhere after all. she crawled necessarily this region set it on fire. well, the most classic example is , of course, america's retreat from vietnam, they crawled out of vietnam and, therefore, set fire to all sorts of wars and instability in southeast asia, here again retreating from their hegemonic-globalist position. they want this non-western world to be even worse than, uh, than theirs, and they hope to use this very remaining interdependence. in this way, uh, in this way, they are counting on the fact that they will close in themselves. them will be better than in the rest, but in the world, but in fact in fact, in fact, in principle, they may be right. if the rest of the countries outside

the west follow the path of isolationism, because the same path that the western countries follow, then, probably, indeed this will be the path. it is a dead end, but we see that both russia and china and many other states outside the western world understand that our task is not to go into isolation, to shut ourselves off, to cut ourselves off from foreign markets, but to create a new version of a fairer globalization. and we are interested in each other's growth. we are interested in cooperation, and we see that this happens in practice it has an institutional expression. brix shos. uh, the extension of brix is ​​called brix plus, so their bet is that they will shut down, as the borel used to say in his garden. yes, and in the jungle, then it will be every man for himself and massacre and complete decline. this is wrong.

or rather, from their point of view. it's a bet right, but they just don't get it. how much the world has changed and how much consciousness has changed in those countries that have felt it. that it is possible to combine sovereignty and development without to sacrifice neither one nor the other, well, in this strategy of pupation or the consolidation of the collective west, there is one weak link. and this weak link is the intensive relationship of europe, including germany, with china. and that is why the united states is putting pressure on berlin in every possible way, so that it, too, uh, pursues a policy of decoupling, that is, decoupling the economic divorce of breeding with china , which is what the school is in scholz. at least he doesn't want to. yes, he went, and to beijing, he talked. there, sitting on a ping-pong, a very large delegation of german business was brought in and volkswagens bass and other leaders as well german business. and after that, sholtsev published

an article in the foren face magazine, where he also wrote that he did not agree with the dna policy and would carry out, well, as it were, others, but others carry out. relations with china the united states is putting pressure in every possible way and is trying to increasingly involve nato, and the main instrument of american dominance in europe, nato to contain china, was declared in the new nato strategic concept in madrid, which was adopted this year. well, listen to what ambassador of the united states of nato juliana smith said today, emphasizing just this two-pronged partnership between russia and china as two common threats. russia-china are increasingly using common tools that nato should worry about. there is no doubt that both the people's republic of china and russia are working to divide their transatlantic partners. and

now we are fine, we understand, we are increasingly aware of these actions and intend to fight against we have seen them exchanging hybrid warfare tactics. i think china is watching very closely how russia uses disinformation and tools like coercion or energy security, malicious or malicious cyber operations for clarity, we are talking about trying to understand how china operates in the euro-atlantic region and around him, how can he, through some of his actions, create security risks or vulnerabilities for the entire alliance or individual member states artyom pavlovich will olaf scholz be able to resist such an american approach, will germany be somehow what you wanted the united states? you perceive russia and china as such a single inseparable threat to the entire west, that is, to the entire nato, that is, including europe, that is, including germany , well, here.