but the gift was carrying a stone , our mirror pebble here pleased. maybe you will remember when vasily

did you fall asleep? can you help my fairy-tale hero? and i remembered the deeds. you will forget about everything.

don't take it personally i'm

on the air big game today was a very intense day. vladimir putin held an expanded meeting of the board of the ministry of defense, at which the results of the activities of the russian armed forces in the outgoing year 22 were summed up and a task was set for the next year, including, of course. those related to the russian special operation on ukraine and in his speech. vladimir putin spoke not only about the tasks for the armed

forces, which is of the utmost importance, but i was confronting the west, but the hybrid war against russia imposed by them, and that it was the policy of the west that made the current tragedy the word that the president used the tragedy of the conflict in ukraine inevitable. hear what he said. the enemy worked very stubbornly and we must pay tribute to the effectiveness, none of our actions built these relations, which we probably hoped for. they weren't enough. uh, hmm no achieved were not effective and did not achieve the necessary goals. uh, i just want to emphasize this, but there is nothing to reproach us with, i say, quite responsibly. we have always, and you know my position, always considered the ukrainian people a brotherly people. i already think so now, and now i think so, and what is happening. this, of course, is a tragedy, our common tragedy, but

it is not the result of our policy, but on the contrary, it is the result of the policy of other countries of third countries, which have always striven for this, the disintegration of the russian world to a certain extent, but did not succeed and pushed us to the line where we found ourselves. for its part, defense minister sergei shoigu, who made the keynote speech at this meeting, noted that the west tried and continues to try to prolong military operations in ukraine as much as possible in order to weakening russia and only at the moment 27 nato countries have spent 97 billion dollars on the supply of weapons to ukraine. while at the front. sergei shoigu noted that nato staff officers, artillerymen and others are in ukraine specialists and more than 500 satellites of the north atlantic alliance are working for kiev, and vladimir zelensky's visit to washington began today. this is his first foreign visit since

february 24. and this visit was kept secret even from members of the us congress and high-ranking officials. the program of the visit includes negotiations with joe biden at the white house, a press conference and then zelensky's speech in the us congress for both chambers. what is done very infrequently for foreign leaders and what is meant to be emphasized? special location for him in washington, the stated goal of the negotiations between biden and zelensky is to discuss the prospects for a military conflict next year to discuss the prospects for resolving the conflict. according to an american official, biden wants to discuss not only what the united states is already doing, but also how to ultimately try to reach what president zelensky called a just world. this is a quote from a statement by a white house representative; other questions are the prospects for military and economic assistance from the united states for the preparation of ukrainian military prospects for us pressure on russia, and

so on. well, on the occasion of this visit, the united states today announced that they will still transfer the battery of the pro patret air defense system to kiev. and also precision -guided bombs for fighters and preta and guided bombs will be included in the new package of us military assistance to ukraine in the amount of one and eight tenths of a billion dollars. we will discuss all these developments and their likely consequences and prospects for russian western relations in general with the president of the center for national interests of dmitry simes and dean of the faculty of international relations of mgimo andrey sushentsov a dmitry andrey andreevich good evening. good evening dmitry well, the official purpose of zelensky's visit, as stated in the white house, is to emphasize the unchanging support of the united states for kiev and that the united states will support kiev for so long? as required, but all the american mainstream media wrote

that one of the real goals of this visit and especially one of the real goals of the speech zelensky a in congress. this is, firstly , to convince congressmen to accept, and the bill on the budget of the united states for the next year in the amount of 1.7 trillion dollars, not everyone agreed with this budget, firstly, only yesterday, and it was submitted to congress, and they are going to adopt it already by this friday, that is, the time for discussion is 3-4 days. and kevin mccartty has already spoken out against it. uh, future speaker of the house and senator rent paul, uh, and many other republican representatives, and this budget includes 45 billion dollars of american aid to ukraine for the next year, in general, try to convince congressmen. uh, approve this budget. and secondly, try to kill. e the rights of the republicans to continue to support ukraine next year, when they make up

, uh, the majority in uh. to the house of representatives dmitri you agree with this and dmitry's goal-setting. well, actually, to be honest. uh, it’s more important for me to start with something else, namely, with the onset of president putin today well, firstly, because president putin has already spoken, and we we can already, as it were, uh, more or less analytically evaluate his performance. well, and secondly, yamskaya, honestly, with all due respect to the main essence of our era, their importance of speaking in the american congress. well, in general, it’s hard for me to usually take what zelensky says seriously. i’ll return to your question. and now i would like to return to another thing that you started with. why did it happen and in

ukraine, around ukraine, what happened and i don’t know if you will agree andrey well, in general, i understood president putin how the leader who said we came to the point that we came, we didn’t want to get there, we didn’t aspire to this, but we ended up in the patriotic war with the collective west. and what exactly is the nature of the involvement of the collective west, and i’m afraid to say , unprovoked long-term, at first sluggish, and then greatly accelerated nato aggression against russia, not russia’s aggression in ukraine, nato aggression against russia led. here's to the crisis that took

place. let's listen, as putin himself explained and what happened, but the main thing, if you want what assessment did you give to the motives of russia? russia 10 of its opponents, which prompted russia to start with a special operation, and then, when the scale of the western passion for this conflict became clear, and now move on to this new stage. let's listen. i have said this more than once, and even wrote in my articles. our strategic adversaries have the goal of disintegrating and weakening the disunity of our country over the centuries. there is nothing new here, too big, as they think, a country that poses a threat to someone, so it needs a little. pochikat break

always remember the centuries, that's where you don't look , such a goal has always been set. i must admit that i came to this conclusion very, reluctantly and, frankly, not quickly, although i did not like the expansion of eastern europe by nato expansion of admission, especially the former soviet republics, but it still seemed to me that the nats wanted to strengthen their positions, but somewhere they will know where to stop. why did i call it unprovoked nato aggression how did russia behave in the nineties andrei remember this it was andrei kozyrev at the head of russian diplomacy before him, gorbachev

did not require any written guarantees of non- proliferation. nato attacked. uh, nato allies to yugoslavia to serbia and in general. russia protested at the strongest protest was the turn of primakov's plane. well, the russian paratroopers reached the airport, about the reason they did nothing. then the american operation against iraq well, they also condemned this operation in russia, well, in general, they do nothing . and when gaddafi was attacked and torn to pieces, he didn't do anything either. russia for many years. first, of course, come with her, and then , under uh putin, i was already trying to find a common language with the west. so i can’t imagine how

russia during this period could provoke nato to russia as the main adversary even before the special operation against ukraine. i believe that nato now sees virtual problems that have materialized due to the existence of the organization itself, the meaning of its existence. after the end of the cold war, quite open. he is not clear. and here is the well-known dialogue between the now former secretary general of the treaty organization and then prime minister vladimir putin in moscow it was 2010, in my opinion, what exactly, when rasmuson asked president putin what exactly she could do for russia than she

could to help the president quite bluntly and unequivocally said that he does not see the expediency of the existence of this organization if nato wants to help russia because it would dissolve you. a there is a certain inertia of dynamics in existence such military-political blocs that are trying to invent threats that justify their existence. now nato is actually returning to those foundations, thanks to which it appeared in e historically after the end of the second world war and purpose, then. i remind you, the main teleposition was from the united states and great britain was an important number two in europe, the goal was to keep the soviet union soviet influence beyond europe and to keep the attention of the united states on european affairs and keep it in line germany, this is the well-known formula of the first general secretary. on this lord ismay the british. she is still working. and so the

amazing story rhymes in long cycles. suddenly we return to approximately the same strategic constants, the american task now is to eliminate any impulses towards a strategic auto. among the able-bodied countries of the european union, and we see how the large countries of western europe france italy germany are in fact more at risk of raising their voice. ah, and make an argument. let's start financing the world, not financing war and not in fact import metaphor slogans, which are now generously shared with poland by the baltic countries suddenly, the czech republic and slovakia, the united kingdom, which have become radicals, and we see how the radicals within nato, where did they get such a thing after all? here's more i see the baltics well, only the czech republic slovakia maybe i'm wrong, but it seems to me that they have some kind of rage in russia's relations that is disproportionate, and what russia

did in the regional e-dispute about ukraine i believe that strong countries are large countries cause fear. they are incomprehensible to their russia scares europe enormously and it is difficult for medium and small european countries to feel gratitude to russia, including for those objective things that our country did for them for the victory over fascism. or if you look deeper into history, for the victory over napoleon in 1815, and alexander i did not take anything from france by withdrawing troops from paris , moreover, even the card debt that russian officers left in the french capital was paid by one of the russian nobles, no reparations territorial acquisitions nothing was restored to the monarchy and some years. after that, the russian empire still guarded order in continental europe , and how vindictively then the same, seemingly

grateful countries, vindictively. russia took revenge during the crimean war, there was not a hint of gratitude, so i don’t think that these emotions are among the locals in general. international relations and we do not need to look for them. international relations is a field in which realism, pragmatism, common sense should dominate and it is inappropriate for us to take offense at the europeans. we must act in our own interests. and unfortunately, we state that now they oppose the interests of nato even in long historical cycles. this is not the first time this has happened. andrew , i completely agree with you. i most believe in the realism of international relations, and i’m definitely not in favor of relaxing on the state, especially on e, a whole people, but on the other hand, and as a historian and simply as a human being, to understand that in the behavior of russia like this could them uh, i'm sorry to annoy, how would you

answer this question dmitry well, uh, i uh, i think that here, uh, it affects, some almost primitive instincts, old fears, and long-term, many centuries-old envy. well, then i’ll tell you and it seems that russia set itself up when in the late eighties in the early nineties it created the impression that the russian great power was not just the russian empire, but the russian great power was over, and they had a feeling of relief at first and then a delight, and they thought that they had avenged themselves, that they had won. and when it suddenly turned out that it was delight, then he came, to put it mildly, prematurely. they really

wanted to find a big brother who would be ready to protect them. but if you want to show russia that other times are new orders, and it turns out that the tiny baltic states without any real even history of statehood, that they are now the new bosses. it seems to me that this is what is required. uh, almost freud to understand how it all happened. well dmitry i will answer you a very important question in a nutshell. which is quite rightly said, in in general, very few knew a lot, who knew in washington about this visit of zelensky, he was preparing in incredible secrecy. and this cannot be explained by security considerations alone, he was delivered on an american plane. uh, and in general, the united states has ample capacity to get someone from poland uh to washington it is, of

course, not only a visit uh between states, but it is uh, a political operation of the administration, which loses control of the house of representatives , and it seems to me that a war by his adviser is very i wanted to demonstrate that the president is far from lame. which can do some very important things in international relations. and finally, look, they want to pass a congressional resolution that russia is a country of aggression and, uh, in. in general, in many ways, this seems to be reminiscent of a resolution, as if russia were recognized as a country with a sponsor of terrorism in terms of what could be done, and not only in relation to russia, but also to any

states cooperating with russia within the framework of the revolution. didn't want this resolution because it would oblige the administration to do a lot of things, including against neutral countries and even american allies, which the administration does not want charm in quotation marks - this resolution about the aggressor gives the administration the right to do almost everything that it could do if you recognized russia sponsor of terrorism, but are not required to do so. this is what they say about the concept that russia allegedly lives not according to the laws or according to the rules of concepts. here is biden, he decided to live in international affairs and within the country concepts. he wants powers that would allow him to ignore congress as well. uh-huh people's right and act at their discretion. and here, it seems to me, the

dmitrievs are right. speaking about the fact that many republicans, no matter how they relate to russia, no matter how they relate to ukraine. such an infringement of their prerogatives cannot please dmitry, well, the tragedy of the situation lies in the fact that the approach that you described in relation to the baidan administration, it fully applies to the policy of the united states as a whole in international affairs. and this is exactly what the united states is politically correct calling a rules-based world. and you brought a very important speech by vladimir putin and. really. you probably know, it 's better than me, and many in the united states see the current conflict as a way. well, i would say to solve the russian issue, to end russia in general, and once and for all, but to end russia to a greater extent. what was done in the ninety-first year, because then the impression really arose that russia had ceased to be great power, but then 10 years later, uh,

that delight. then you spoke was replaced by a feeling of bitter disappointment. and so, this disappointment is what causes in many respects the rage that we are seeing towards russia not only from poland and the baltic countries , but also from many representatives of the united states, and now they are trying to use this conflict. and in order to try to weaken russia so much so that she could not rise again and become a great power again, as she managed uh, in 2000. actually, with the advent of vladimir putin to the post of president and thus we are really dealing with an existential, and for some reason, conflict, but not only official conflicts expanded, or who interrupted and all the time says that russia is differentially interesting to ukraine . now it seems to me that there are social interests. uh, u esterah, because e nato

effective smell perceives this is no longer a conflict over ukraine around ukraine, but as a desire to become the complete hegemon of the world. here's for with one exception indeed, for the united states, ukraine is a matter of american hegemony, and for russia, ukraine is a matter of russian security and survival. not just even as a great power. in general, the survival and preservation of the russian territorial integrity of the preservation of russia a. as such, how much hegemony the united states maintains is an existential question. it's an open question. as andrei put it, he should not be less american- here is the current generation, and the american elite, they began to perceive themselves as a generation of

crusaders. and the crusaders can not be without crusades. you are absolutely right and nato was just expanding nato nato expansion was part of this crusade, and one of the main goals of nato expansion was , firstly, to consolidate american hegemony in europe in the field of security - this, once and secondly, to prevent the revival of russia in as a great power - these are two, and in order to make this prevention absolute, ukraine was drawn into nato and de facto, and even the de jure question was raised in 2008, when ukraine and georgia were promised membership in nato russia did not agree with this russia challenged both the attempts of the united states to consolidate its hegemony and the attempts of the united states to liquidate russia in general as a great power, yes and uh, that was the cause of this conflict. yes and uh, indeed we are

now seeing each other in an existential conflict, which is existential for russia and for those liberals and internationalists and science-conservatives, who believe that american hegemony is synonymous. and in fact the survival of the united states in the modern world and therefore the situation is so dangerous, because neither side can afford to lose, therefore the conflict. it seems to me that neither side can lose. eh, i don't think so. uh, how and who can win. i represent who can lose. i exclude that russia can lose because russia is a great nuclear power, and in russia there are advantages of e not only in strategic nuclear weapons, where, in general, i would say equality is closer, the united states, but in russia there is also a big advantage in tactical nuclear weapons. here with such a

combination. strategic parity and tactical equality and it is very difficult to imagine how russia could lose. i ca n't imagine how the united states can lose, because again they are the great nuclear tree and they have uh, both economic and military capabilities, especially if you're in a very big ongoing conflict. i'm wondering, andrey will? with all these younger brothers, i would say, and some of them became very warlike, younger brothers, some brothers are robbers. and here we are, uh, on the eve of the centenary of the creation of the soviet union it will be at the end of next week president putin has repeatedly said that the collapse of the soviet union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the profile of the century. we were also told that it would be a serious mistake to try to recreate the soviet union, and

he does not aspire to this in any way. and so, when i look at what is happening now in the world and how russia is imposing the kind of confrontation that, from my point of view, russia obviously did not want. he says i'm starting to wonder. but can it be that this crusade against russia can lead to the most unexpected results, can lead to the fact that russia will start to think through whether russia can agree to a return to that status? oh, who was before this crusade , do not these small state peripheries of russia run the risk of outwitting themselves? what do you think? i think these states are leading in many ways. e such reckless foreign policy, trying to become the center of attention of the united states and get the necessary material resources from them military political guarantees and they

offer themselves as a frontier confrontation with our country, counting on the fact that someone else will fight for them and, uh, to unfortunately, here we see a certain repetition of history. the behavior of poland in the interwar period is rather pro-tunistic and often not constructive. uh. she acted quite so abrupt and sometimes aggressive towards the neighbors. now this group countries to the west of russia that offer themselves to the united states as a springboard, as a frontier of confrontation with russia, behave without responsibility in the sense that they are playing. in general, not on their own, relatively speaking, they expect that someone older will come and help them. will solve their problems for them and perhaps they do not realize that the attention of the elders is subject to high fluctuations now the crisis around ukraine in a year. it may

be a crisis somewhere in asia, then in the middle east, then some other major crisis, and geography is fate and geography is in no way change. once having broken a deeply structural relationship with russia, it will be very difficult. or it may not be possible to fix it for the foreseeable future and they will have to put up with whatever is to their east, essentially. they built their own wall, limited economic trade transport links as a result of their own strategic resources. social demographic economic will show negative dynamics and the question will arise of how viable it is without external replenishment. this a state that offered itself as a military foothold for confrontation with our country. in my opinion. this is one of the open questions that it would be useful for the elites of these states to think about now dmitry here. i would like you to finish today was very interested in your opinion. on this

issue, specifically on the issue of what risks these neighboring states with russia face. i'm still sure that russia has no plans to conquer them. i have absolutely no doubt about it, on the other hand. there are many things in international relations of which we can not be certain. for example, today there was, as i understand it, a very successful visit of dmitry anatolyevich medvedev to beijing yes, where he was received at the highest level and some very encouraging words were said to him about china's readiness to cooperate with russia the united states simultaneously challenged russia and china each for my own reasons and, as it were, with my own methods, here i am trying to imagine, but if, contrary to what they want in the united states, and how would our

habitual wisdom. what if the major conflict erupted in the far east before it uh seriously went up in europe if the united states refused to be distracted? by this conflict and to fight with russia they would have very quickly. a. well, if you like, there would not be enough energy resources. so these same small states, they would all be left alone with russia, they could not seriously expect that after all the rudeness with which they treated. e with germany and france that these states will seriously protect in the absence of american leadership? you have talked a lot with europeans and european foreign policy officials. they are here on this topic, what

do not think at all. if they don’t think, then why don’t they think, well, it seems to me, dmitry, that strategic blindness is characteristic of the current european, especially eastern european and baltic elites. and these are countries. uh, especially the baltic countries with very little history, they don't have any strategic experience. they have monstrous ambitions. and they have colossal phobias. and they have illusions, uh, self-importance, a and they are trying to settle historical scores. e with russia and recently. by the way, we discussed this on this program, and the current prime minister of estonia a. kaya kalos wrote an article uh, forino face a about the need for qualitative tightening, and the policy of the united states and the west towards russia is the key and the head of the key estonia. uh, uh, research center for international

relations, and uh, christy wright, wrote an article in foren policy magazine about not being afraid of russia's dismemberment and collapse. e russia and she. by the way, here is dimitri for you it will be interesting to consider that and the approach of george w. bush in the summer of 1991 regarding the independence of ukraine and his famous speech in kiev that the united states will not support, but nationalism and separatism. uh, ukraine in general, and christy wright believes that this is a wrong point of view, that bush sr. was wrong, that it was necessary to fully support and support the collapse, and the soviet union still needs to be supported, and the collapse of russia, these countries believe that, and the united states protect these dobi countries. the maximization

of the american military presence on their territory, you are absolutely right europeans will not defend them, europeans do not respect them and in many ways despise them. and western europeans are doing the right thing, and they annoy the old europeans in many ways, and they annoy the old europeans in many ways, and a. they do not even hide that their main ally, including within the european union, they are considered the united states and not germany, france, italy, not the countries of the european union, namely the united states states they are guided in many ways, interpreting in their own way, and the americans are the goals of american foreign policy. and also thinking that the united states will not leave europe anywhere. and that the united states will let them uh settle, uh, with russia, uh, historical scores, they are enlisting american support by insisting, as i said, on the deployment. american troops on its territory, so that

if anything, the united states intervenes in this conflict not because it is necessary to help the baltic countries, but because american citizens will suffer or die as a result of some kind of escalation, e military conflict, but if suddenly the united states weakens its attention, and really concentrates the maximum amount of its forces and means on china on european affairs, it is unlikely that russia will go to conquer, and poland and e, the baltic countries, and russia is no need. uh, russia needs to ensure its security. and this means building a perimeter that is not hostile around itself, this perimeter, of course, should include ukraine itself, and this means creating a system of european security in which russia would not be rush out, as lord said and his first. e. nato secretary general

and russia inside, where russia would be one of the stakeholders and one of the managers of this common european security system. let's dmitry, uh, from the point of view of sound logic. you are absolutely right. and that from the point of view of russia's long-term interests, and again, but to be responsible for the baltic states. it’s hard for me to imagine that russia would want this, but do you know from world history that not only warriors go very often not as originally expected, but it does not end, it happens not at all as expected and if small states. they behave not submissively too boldly, then when the moment of settlement comes, and they find themselves without chips, then, in general, they

can find out that even their sponsors will not especially take into account their interests, but honestly with the goat. uh, my heart is not bleeding now about the future of the baltic states. it's just a word. as you said about how blind european elites have become and how they understand that although geography is not necessarily a destiny, but for small states that live near russia and which have been spoiled by the lack of some kind of aggressive impulses from russia, what should they become, if you like, catalysts for a crusade. in general, they made themselves they made themselves, but prisoners of how this crusade will end and the results may not be to your liking. thank you very much dmitry andrey andreevich thank you very much. behind

this is a very interesting conversation big. the game will return to this studio in a few moments. everything would be fine if it were not for the damned betrayals in south africa colonel kozlov was arrested, it was a catastrophic torture. it was just a disaster. they handcuffed my hands behind the back of the chair, in general, my hands, everything was knocked down here for the fifth time. when you fall, you lose consciousness, they passed it there, your boyfriend is holding him, they beat him, they torture him. he didn't say a word without the right to glory today at the first you know, indeed our employee found we will work.

soon everything will be better, what is dreaming choose your gift. it's time for applications look in the beeline application choose an app and get a gift of internet for entertainment or minutes for calls to loved ones, even if they are far away beeline is on your side all year round.

and here comes our conversation. annoy game red 389 99 magnet will be lucky in the new year. limitless dive into the content in the depth of color in the magic of sound a life-inspired technique for making aromatic coffee and keeping the house clean. create a cozy atmosphere with discounts.

we have a new year. tele2 is not santa, so every month a gift awaits new subscribers at connecting your gigabytes will constantly wait for doubling, you also want to, then hurry to the tele2 salons for everyone, someone on january 17 will become our opponent. we will double the gigabytes of the internet. every month, tele2 has

different rules and more on the ozone submersible blender redmond for 2.499 rubles. multibaker redmond for 2.449 rubles. what where when the final of the year on sunday after the hockey time program for emotions at the maximum you need high odds for your

hockey application. until the break that the current ukrainian conflict is existential not only for russia but also for a significant part of the american political establishment, that neither russia nor the united states believe that they can lose, that for them, let's say, a loss in this conflict and, accordingly, each side constantly raises the stakes. we see that the united states is responding to the intensification of hostilities by russia, for example, by supplying a decision on this. this is actually the main gift to zelensky today in washington, and the transfer in the future will be a battery anti-aircraft missile defense systems. and the danger here lies in the fact that the parties will continue to step up their efforts. and at some point.

an escalation may just happen, the united states still believes that they control this escalation. and so. notice how the solution was framed. firstly, the white house announced that the us military would not manage this system in any case, that they would first train ukrainians on the territory of a third country they wrote that this is germany later, respectively, this battery will move to ukraine and will already be controlled by the ukrainian-born united states, the ukrainian military. secondly, also in the white house they said that they would not. here, i will even quote not tomorrow, nor next month, nor next year, the united states will not send troops to ukraine to directly fight the russians. thirdly, according to the publication of the politician, zelensky today will ask the biden administration for long- range missiles, and uh, large drones

range, gray eagle and reaper and the biden administration will once again refuse a denial. yes, and that's why the united states believes that they will still be kept. this war is hybrid, but i am confused by the very approach of the united states to manage the escalation. listen to what national security council spokesman john kirkey had to say about this from the very beginning, we were attentive to the fears about the escalation of this conflict, because we do not believe that the escalation of the war and its turning into the kind of war between the west and russia that putin claims it has already become. this, of course, is not true. however, russia will not dictate the terms of the assistance that we provide to ukraine. to be honest, andrey andreyevich is free to pose the question for me. uh, it seems very dangerous to me, because the united states

, in fact. they say we will decide what will lead to an escalation. and what will not lead, what can provoke a direct military clash. and what cannot, but they deny russia even the right to determine its own security and after all, this is the same position the united states took on nato expansion yes, we will not give russia a chance or the right to dictate. and where which countries should? join nato which should not join, yes, that is, we will not give russia the right to decide. what is a threat to russian security and how should russia respond to it and what is not we will not give russia the right to dictate where the united states in europe can deploy weapons? what a where they can't? the same logic. this is what this logic led to. and in relation to the expansion of nato and the buildup of the american military presence in europe, we know yes, but the united states is guided by the same logic in relation to issues of

escalation. the americans are now, in fact, trying to solve the problems that they are creating with their own hands, supplying ukraine with more and more advanced types of weapons and uh, trying to maintain control of this conflict, but there is always a question. to what extent are these efforts will be effective. this is a provocation, when a ukrainian missile hit polish territory, polish citizens of the united states died quite quickly . territories with a state nato with the clear goal of drawing nato into direct confrontation with our country. and where is this line, when the united states will lose control over kiev, which will commit some irreparable error. of course, kiev still gets away with bombing a nuclear power plant. and this is

covered by the whole west, like, uh, it means shells of unknown origin. yes monitors e mgt can not afford. uh, since they are not an expert on the sheet to indicate from which side these shells arrive, but for the ukrainian leadership as a whole it is typical for the line of such instrumental use of provocation in order to escalate tension on the eve of major summits, drawing attention to themselves and so on and so forth. i think u americans have a feeling that they do not respond to all the requests of ukraine and thus behave with restraint, and ukraine, i remind you, it asks for several hundred tanks. uh, a hundred missile systems, took, two fires, and so on and so forth, uh, and the united states, carefully or so prudently, is in no hurry to do it. maybe because these stocks in warehouses are coming to an end. they need to be restarted. well, they, nevertheless, are trying to support the initiative that we will continue ukraine for as long as it's necessary, uh, giving her every

opportunity to wage this war effort, but you can see kirby's caution in saying it, and because, uh, it's constantly shifting. here is the end goal. e military action. now kirby is already saying that it is not in the interests of ukraine that the crisis escalate, allegedly. yes, a few months ago. we have heard to the contrary that war will be determined by the outcome on the battlefield and all means are good. and i think that's enough. cool somewhat crafty, of course, a line that does not remove risks, spontaneous and unprovoked escalations and i think the united states is playing with fire a lot here. they can't vouch. what will be the final results, and they play with fire, when they believe that only they and only they determine the actual risks of escalation and the conditions under which this escalation can occur, but nevertheless, another gift besides epetrides. uh, except for the guided bombs that the

biden administration presented, and during this visit to zelensky, this is a bill recognizing russia as an aggressor country. eh, even though ukraine, as well as the countries of central-eastern europe and the baltics, which are friendly to it, so to speak, insisted that russia be declared a sponsor of terrorism. biden administration, this does not go and instead. the status of the country sponsors of terrorism, uh, wants russia to be called an aggressor country by the us congress. and as hill writes , this is purely. the symbolic act is a surrogate, yes, for which there is not even any legal basis. and there is no such concept even in american law. uh, country the aggressor is the bill that is being discussed, it will give the administration the right to impose personal sanctions against representatives of the russian leadership, but we know that

even relatives are already in relation to everyone. uh, representatives of the russian leadership, these sanctions have been introduced. that is, it is really such a symbolic act and a suragant. why does the biden administration go for this surrogate completely, it’s clear she wants to maintain the possibility of dialogue with russia on those issues that she wants, according to which she is interested in, by the way, today in the senate. of the united states lynn tracy has been confirmed as united states ambassador. v. russia, yes. but the fact that the united states wants to maintain a dialogue with russia, but on its own terms and to talk about topics that interest the united states diplomatic channels between the united states and russia continued to exist; this is always important in

times when tensions are low it is important, but especially when tensions are high, that we maintain the ability to talk to each other and send messages back and forth. we have also made it clear that we are not going to have any negotiations with russia about ukraine and we are not going to negotiate with russia at all. what other country in the world. we can discuss issues that are important for our two countries. we want the united states although we want to be able to discuss issues that are primarily in line with our interests and can benefit the rest of the world. that is why we raised with the russians the need to continue negotiations on strategic stability on a new offensive arms reduction treaty. ivan alekseevich well, it’s clear that in the conditions of a hybrid war it is important to maintain the possibility of crisis communication, but do we need, in general, the approach

formulated by e net price so that we can talk with russia on those issues that we consider necessary and here are the agreements with nv-3 and here is strategic stability, despite the fact that the main threat to strategic stability and the main threat of nuclear war is not at all an agreement with nv3 and not inspections. and just the policy that the united states is pursuing in ukraine , and as he said, there is no price list for them to talk to us about. uh, russia certainly does not need such an approach, and it will not be accepted by russia. quite obviously, but the preservation of diplomatic relations with the preservation of diplomatic contacts. and unfortunately, they are now with us, well, in a crumpled state, because, on the initiative of, uh, the american side, there were expulsions of diplomats and the seizure of diplomatic property, and so on and so forth. that

is, uh, the embassy is now working not u defective uh, and obstacles are being erected. uh, the change of diplomats, when new diplomats should arrive to replace those departing home. this is not normal. it would be desirable, of course, to introduce it into some kind of status channel, but the american side categorically prevents this and does not allow it. do but diplomatic communication. yes it is will be, but it will be just like that. well, it's kind of the technical side of things, but no dialogue. eh, this is what the american side wants. that is, what we need , we say, supposedly we will discuss no, this will not happen. that's for sure. and russia just refused. for this reason, from holding consultations on the implementation of the start-3 treaty, which the united states wanted to reduce only to the issue of inspection. well,

returning to zelensky's visit, this visit. uh, zelensky to washington, of course, is intended to emphasize that the united states will support ukraine as is their favorite mantra for as long as it takes? yes, while zelensky is important as an instrument, and american foreign policy, but it can still change. and this is how expert e writes, oddly enough, the atlantic council, this is one of the most russophobe. and such liberal interventionist american inteks, but still there. eh, a sane thinker wormed his way in, and harlan is an ulman. but he writes that over time, when the united states will no longer consider, but the continuation of the war. e in ukraine in their interests. well, for example, they will really enter into such a sharp confrontation with china and will be on the verge of a war with china that it will require the concentration of all practically forces and means there, and in this case the united

states can approach zelensky approximately, as the united states did with the afghan regime , which they had supported for the previous 20 years. listen to what karl writes to ukraine and its president volodymyr zelensky, as it seems further the authority to dictate the conditions for ending the war, but at some stage the united states will acting in their own interests is possible, as the trump administration did, agreeing to withdraw from afghanistan by shooting, and not with the afghan government. and although there is a firm agreement between the us and nato regarding support for ukraine will this cohesion continue if the war continues indefinitely yuriy viktorovich do you think this is a real prospect for ukraine yes, i think that this is a real prospect. and i believe that the americans are excellent strategies. they, when they plan something well, they think everything over and look at for many years