and it didn’t turn into a hot war, or i’m exaggerating too much, and yet you can hope for a certain improvement in russia’s relations with the united states and exaggerate. it seems to me, on the contrary, that you , as it were, don’t go that way, far in assessing the current situation. how do i order. i think that president putin did absolutely the right thing when he first mentioned the term war, talking about what is happening now in ukraine, this is, of course, a hybrid war, and a lot of things are happening there and a lot of things are happening around this , in addition to military actions, but a real war is being waged in ukraine. the second conclusion, which you know, is being made no worse than i am now in moscow and has become, in general, so generally accepted that this is a war on the territory of ukraine and russia started

this war in response to what is perceived as a very serious provocation and threatening actions from on the part of the united states and nato, russia responded to these actions and these actions included regular bombing. donetsk lugansk regular. so it was not russia that started these hostilities. so here russia - responded to this with special operations. special operations was the correct term for what russia decided to do, a limited military operation with specific goals directed against a particular regime in kiev that posed a great threat to russia and regularly broke all its promises, including

zelensky’s campaign promise that he would deal with the conflict and not will lead ukraine to nato so it all began. we can say that this is a stage, at least that's how it began. responded with a full scale war on the territory of ukraine and 50 states to train , arm and provide intelligence information to the ukrainian armed forces, and without this role of the collective west, of course, these military operations in ukraine would have ended long ago. under these conditions, when in moscow , as it seems to me, they look at what is happening in washington, they ask a question. is washington going to continue speaking out?

as if you want the main patron of ukraine , which organizes, actually equips , pays for the ukrainian army, categorically refuses to recognize that the united states is at least to some extent a participant in hostilities, when ukrainian artillery hits russian positions, then very often intelligence information in the direct mode of ukrainian artillery comes from the united states, but nevertheless. it is said that the united states is not a party to the war. and here is a very important question for me. and mark welcome to the program we always read with great interest and respect your articles, and you are in washington where it seems to me, that's what i just described

russian reaction. not only is it not accepted. well , in general, they don’t even believe in it. it seems like it's some kind of, but if you want, uh, russian propaganda that is easy and safe to ignore, do washington and i say the administration of the majority in congress understand, do washington understand that from the point of view of many in russia from the point of view of the russian power in the united states is increasingly becoming a key participant in the war in ukraine dmitry is an important question and unfortunately i think the answer is no, they are not understand here, uh, the white white house in congress u don't understand how u dangerous this is. it's an escalation game we're playing now and

uh, how uh our participation in this conflict is . well, slowly, uh, growing, for example, we spoke six months ago. in no case can we, e.g., transfer the patriots of the system to ukraine. uh, defensive missile systems, because they have to be. uh, uh, they should be run by american soldiers there, uh, in ukraine, but now we have decided that this is an opportunity to do, and therefore, uh, we taught a dangerous trajectory, where every month we don't we slow. we increase our participation. and it's very well noticed in russia, but i don't think it's not noticed in america, at least by many, and it's part of the general problem that we haven't been told exactly what our goals are. uh, if you will allow

the historical analogue, we won a lot of battles, but we lost the war, because there was no specific definition of victory and what needs to be done to win, and we are now falling. uh, in the same uh, vague approach, where and we can have some success, and our help. e ukraine, american assistance to ukraine plays a role, but it is not clear. what is the purpose of this assistance, how do we want, what do we want to see as an end to this conflict. they don't see it. not the majority of congress, let alone the administration, i accept that. well, what about the new composition of the house of representatives, where the control will be republicans, do you think that this is a new republican majority in

the house, and in the senate, the majority will remain with the democrats. do you think it's new a republican majority in the house will bring some concrete real change in the american position on ukraine and more specifically in the american willingness to seek a peaceful solution to the problem. not hiding behind, if you like, but the negative approach of ukraine, which is negative to a large extent, because kiev is counting on american help, whatever they do. dmitry this is a multi-layered question, i will answer it on two levels. e republicans. we must remember that we won the lower house of representatives in november with a very a low margin, if i'm not mistaken, only about 7 seats, and that's a pretty low margin and it means the

republican leadership has an obligation to listen to every republican if they want to, uh, achieve any results and not fall into complete paralysis. and coming from this body, that vocal minority of republicans who from the first day had serious questions about our participation in this conflict is the essence of our assistance to ukraine and how we see the end of this conflict, these republicans. uh people, how's it been since irin and many others, and they have a real opportunity to influence the behavior of the congress. uh, the next uh, the next 2 years and you know, even the hawks, even the most violent companions of uh, kiev although they want an audit, we've

been talking for many months. hmm. uh, the senator option is all. uh, i wanted this a long time ago when they voted for 40 billion for ukraine, but now it's almost the consensus, uh, among the republicans, that at least an audit is needed. and it's hard to predict what will happen after that, but if it is the audit will show some massive violations and some other unpleasant facts, then the results of this audit. the audit of all our assistance, these are already about more than 100 billion oe, these results can. provoke new questions and may give uh to skeptics. uh, republicans in congress, uh, new patrons to keep asking questions and and other things can happen too, like, uh, as you know, the democrats really like to take, uh, a vote for helping ukraine and combine

that vote with other things that generally do not have a connection, such as voting hurricane victims, there is absolutely no connection in the yard, but they want to tie it up, like as a species, if you want blackmail, that is, if you don't want to help ukraine, then you want innocent people to die in florida too and one thing that the republicans can make it insist that the vote for aid should be separate, if we vote for aid to ukraine then we only vote for that, uh and the last thing they can do is uh. see pressure on the white house to match aid to ukraine with specific efforts. e on the diplomatic front. it is clear that the help will not stop. but we can say that this assistance should be part of some kind of diplomatic approach. uh, to end this brutal war. i

fully agree with the construction of the episcopal stamp that next year in the united states it will become more difficult, and bureaucratic and political er, to allocate aid to ukraine. at least write her, and open-ended checks are very revealing. in my opinion, even after zelensky's speech in congress 200 republican members of the house of representatives voted against a bill on the budget of the united states for fiscal year 23 and only nine republicans. among them are such odious ones as leaves, which will no longer exist, which will no longer exist, yes, the treatment is leaving. the members of the house of representatives voted for a, and this is a very important tactical change, but it is a tactical change. in my opinion, it does not change or cancel those fundamental problems that we touched upon at the very beginning of our conversation, and it seems to me that fundamentally, russian-american relations in the current 22 year have not reached

their bottom, when i spoke about the maximum that we can afford. this is confrontation management. i was talking specifically about maxim, and the most positive scenario, the more realistic scenario seems to me to be further deterioration, and in the course of russian-american relations. uh, increasing the quality, maybe not the quantity, but the quality of the assistance that the united states provides to ukraine, because i completely agree with mark that, uh, the trend of evolution is of concern. united states politicians the united states have convinced themselves that this conflict is not so much about ukraine as about the world order and the place of the united states in this world order is a conflict that will determine the prospects for the leadership and hegemony of the united states in the world system. so they convinced themselves, respectively

, this conflict has an existential character for the united states itself. they cannot afford to lose in it and therefore. the more difficult it will be become the position of ukraine on the battlefield. the american aid will become even more qualitative, and i do not rule out that in a few steps we will see more than just deliveries of the system. petri from which was indeed considered impossible just a few months ago, but also the supply of long-range missiles to long-range drones, which are considered impossible. e today mark e, do you share this fear and do you consider it possible that in a few months, if the situation worsens sharply on the battlefield, then the biden administration will say, well, now we must provide, and what they will really do with long-range weapons to ukraine.

uh, the risks of escalation are not only so hypothetical, but practically a threat. i fully agree with you that the most dangerous moment of this war has not yet come. the most dangerous moment will come when, well, when the dash if, because we can't predict what will happen for the collective west realizes that ukraine cannot win. uh, without the active intervention of western troops, and then the most dangerous moment will come, because, uh, the risk of nuclear escalation, which is far from small today, will become extreme, and this brings us back to this basic idea that was never explained to us. what is the purpose. uh, zelensky president zelensky moved uh, washington uh, recently and he is very clear, what is his goal his goal is a crushing defeat

of russian troops, russian troops should be from everywhere, including, crimea to admit defeat there should be reparations, and they should hand over people accused of war crimes. now if the president is biden, and the current administration shares that goal. uh, i think, and many republicans agree, that the american people deserve to know, they uh, we deserve to know what the purpose is, if we're spending this kind of money and running the risk of escalation, we need to know how the white house wants this to end, if the goal is crimea, if the goal is the complete defeat of russia and the complete victory of ukraine, we need to know this, but dmitry e. it’s hard to accuse me of optimism, but i’ll say one thing that i think is positive this meeting with zelensky with biden. and this is

new talk about what they call a just world. we have heard this phrase many times. and it's better than what we heard a couple of months ago when we said that you the very idea of ​​​​peace is offensive, because if you are for peace, then you are against ukraine and you and you are for russia now we say, well, okay peace. this is a good idea. we need a just world. well, as you know, uh, justice is a very subjective idea, and so. i hope this is the beginning of at least some dialogue about conditions that all three parties can agree to. i say three, i don't say two because the interests of the united states and the interests of ukraine are not the same thing and many are beginning to understand this. it is in the interests of ukraine that america lead its troops today. but this, of course, cannot be in the interests of the united states, because it will provoke a catastrophic conflict not only in the nuclear sense, but

a catastrophic war on the european continent . uh, just now president putin for the first time, as far as i know, used the expression war when speaking of the situation in ukraine i followed very closely. then , after that, the kremlin spoke peskov , the press secretary of president putin, if president putin had said something that he did not fully mean, then, probably, some kind of, if not a denial, but a clarification would follow , this was not, so i will tell her from the fact that president putin used this expression deliberately. and putin is a very experienced person, and he does not play with such things and does not throw words,

so do you agree with me that when president putin talks about war when he talks about a long-term e-program, but an increase in the russian arms system when he says that there are no financial restrictions and the armed forces will get everything they need does this mean they should understand who they are in brussels and in in other capitals involved, that in general russia began to get tired of the situation when russia conducts a special operation? strictly limited by the territory of ukraine, while russia is being attacked from different sides by different methods, for example, including outright terrorism, as in the case of the explosions in nord stream one and nord stream 2. i know too. you probably heard it in conversations with

officials in moscow that they were impressed by the words of us secretary of state this is not blinkin that peace in ukraine would benefit from the united states supplying ukraine with more weapons and more modern long-range weapons. and that the former american red lines, that they can be ignored, because since russia did not react to the previous violations, then it is possible, as it were, to go further. and this will only stay. russia to make big concessions. do you agree that this means that the united states needs to prepare for more than just russian toughness? not only to the specifics of the russian climate, which they talk about all the time, like in the manner

of napoleon and hitler, as a big factor in support of russia. well, they need to understand that russia will defend its interests on a wider front and more decisively. do you agree with this interpretation, i completely agree with this, and i even added that vladimir putin put the word war in context, and the patriotic war of 1812 and the great patriotic war at the event where he is. in fact, he spoke about this, and this suggests that the russian leadership not only understands that a new patriotic war is taking place, but an existential conflict. there is a conflict with the west, where the very survival of russia as a country and a great power is at stake, but also the fact that russia is already talking about it out loud and, of course. russian interests to keep the current hybrid war of the collective west and the united states against russia indefinitely

for a long time, especially since the scale of the involvement of the united states of the intensity of their actions is complex, not only in the theater of operations in ukraine but in general, uh, it is getting bigger and bigger, you correctly mentioned the terrorist attacks against the northern streams. yes, and if my memory serves me right 23, a representative of western intelligence, who was interviewed by one of the western publications, stated that there was no reason to believe that it was russia yes, and that is, of course, to keep this situation indefinitely absolutely unacceptable for russia, therefore, of course, russia is preparing not only for an existential, but a war on the territory of ukraine against the collective west, but russia, of course, will undermine the interests of the united states around the world and will seek to make the united states hurt, uh, with stamps, you heard that, uh, just now dmitry said and i think i understand

that i absolutely agree with him on this issue. i will add that all the latest public opinion polls, including even polls of such an opposition, if i may say so, and the study organization public opinion, how centralized they say that lately putin's popularity has increased. they say that more and more people are calling for russia to begin a fuller and stronger response, including a military response, to the actions of the united states and its allies. are washington ready for this, do they understand that when we talk about escalation, it is not only about escalation from outside. we are her patrons and not only from russia on ukrainian territory. well what's in

in general, they can become more widespread phenomena and begin, uh, directly threaten american interests and even the lives of american soldiers and not only soldiers. you see, take it away from washington. absolutely . definitely, i agree with you. and there are people in washington who understand this, alas, and i'm not sure if these people are in the white house now, and i don't think that we are in a moral panic right now about ukraine, which is a bit like the iraq war, where there are reasonable voices of people, who said it's worth giving by brakes should change their minds it is worth thinking about the further consequences of their plugging them. uh, accused of being cowards weaklings and in this in the middle of this panic. it is very difficult to

think clearly and clearly, for example, about the consequences of what we are trying to isolate and turn, uh, make russia the next north korea, but this will not work, because russia is not north korea ira it is one of the largest energy exporters around the world . uh, russia has influence uh, almost everywhere in almost every continent for example, even by the ratio of russia to the key player in relations with iran, it is impossible to isolate russia the way we have isolated these other countries. and i think we are not even close to realizing the strategy of the further strategic consequences of this policy. i haven't even started talking about the chinese aspect yet i why is it beneficial for us to uh dignify russia's dependence on china i understand why it is beneficial for china i'm not sure why it is beneficial for us in this

strategic triangle between the us in russia and china so we are now only we think about ukraine and how to make ukraine uh win this conflict, we don't think about these secondary issues, which are very, very important and problematic. uh, when we finally start thinking about them, it will be very, very, maybe too late, because it may very well be 24 years old. there may very well be a new administration. and this new administration will have very difficult problems that they have received from the short-sighted policies that we are pursuing now, it seems to me that the republicans are in the house of representatives. they are they are just thinking about the chinese factor, they are insisting on a tougher policy of the united states towards china, and in many respects the concern of the republicans with the supply of endless american weapons to ukraine is due, among other things, to the fact that

it may not be enough just for, uh, building up the american military presence. e in the asian pacific region. it may not be enough for the supply of american weapons to taiwan, because the reserves are even american a-a, warheads and weapons. the wall of technology is not unlimited, for example, but it is obvious that already now the united states is faced with the problem of a shortage of artillery shells and is trying to solve this problem through supplies from south korea from other non -european even allies, and so on, because they themselves, but already lack it. i 'd like to finish with positive hopes, starting from the very important thing that, uh, bishop's mark said, which is that the united states does not explain to american citizens themselves to their american population. what is their purpose and my positive hope is that,

perhaps zelensky's visit to washington will eventually have a healing effect on the bidenn administration and on the united states and its politics, because indeed zelensky was unequivocal about what was right for him. the world is the absence of any compromises with russia and that he wants the united states to help him achieve, quote absolute victory, and i don’t think that this is the point of view that president biden personally shares and let’s say the average denominator inside the biden administration, because indeed, but bayton, even during a press conference with zelensky, spoke about a just world. in the run-up to the zelensky administration official's visit, there was talk that biden would try to probe. yes, what zelensky is ready to do, what he is not ready to do, that is, and here is the

absolutely uncompromising maximalist position that zelensky has taken, it seems to me that should make the united states push the biden administration to think. mark we have a lot. uh much has been said and left very little time. i ask you to quickly comment on what dmitry said because it is really very important. it is. joys in the white house and biden's personal president , they are increasingly separating themselves from zelensky's uncompromising approach. there is a concept. i think the initiative for serious negotiations and for, uh, peace can't come from president zelenskiy, he's just not in that position. it will never happen. if this happens, it must be the initiative of the white house. and for this,

a certain political capital is needed. i think this capital exists. and although there will certainly be republicans who, of course, will take it. it 's like an opportunity to blame whites at home for weaknesses and for what they've lost to ukraine. but in general, i don't think there's much appetite for this conflict. and if the white house, uh, takes the lead and comes up with some kind of pragmatic approach. i am not talking about specific conditions, because we are not even close to it yet, but at least the parameters in which we can work. i think this will ultimately be in favor of biden himself. he is the administration itself, because they will be able to to say that they uh invested in their contribution. we helped ukraine defend itself. and now we have helped. uh, so that there is this world process, and we are the key players. e in the contract. i think it's possible, but this requires an initiative that we don't see yet, i'm

an optimist. although it's more and more difficult, i'm probably still an optimist that it will be, maybe next year mark thank you very much dmitry, really. i agree completely with what mark said - it will probably be next year and only next year, because at twenty the fourth year is the year of the presidential election, it is unlikely that any administration will compromise, knowingly in the year of the presidential election, so if the biden administration is ready to be ready to take a compromise approach and recognize the realities of the window of opportunity - it's only next year dmitry i don't know where window of opportunity, because, uh, like you just said, 24. eh, they 'll be afraid. uh, that they will notorious weaklings. so sort of an opportunity this year, that is, next year, sort of on the other

sides. it seems to me that washington is still, if you want, the hegemony of those who believe that if they continue to put pressure on russia , this may work for them. the picture of the situation in russia and even the picture of the situation in moscow we see when i told literally days ago, but to one prominent person in the administration, how moscow restaurants are filled, how moscow shops are filled. he couldn't believe me. he must have thought, but once he said, i should kind of, i know that you won't say. and what you didn’t see, but maybe they organized such potemkin villages in the center of moscow, and therefore they still have, if you like, some more reserve of some kind of optimism about the fact

that russia can be forced, what about putin additional pressure can be applied. and here, of course, is a very important point, what russia will do because i agree with you and mark that, and the american society, in general, is not emotionally involved right now. into this great controversy and therefore the administration and i can do what they want in congress, but if there will be real american casualties, if specific things happen that will show the americans that this war is relevant to life, to their success, including economic, and if they have such an impression, then i want to tell you that i am absolutely not sure that the

twenty-fourth year of the election year will not seek compromises. no, and johnson was a christian for the year before she decided not to run, he was very eager to negotiate . sits there because the search for peace has become popular among most of the american voters. so i agree with you that it will get hotter before then. as there is a chance for some kind of detente, well, i think that a lot will depend on how russia leaves and i really hope that there will not be in moscow. but if we say so, illusions, such as the secretary of state, blinkin, you pressed, and they will respond. as you wish, but on the other hand, healthy respect for the russian will and russian capabilities. i think if it appeared in washington, then this would increase the chances of peace dmitry completely with you.

agree. many thanks to both you and mark for this very interesting conversation big game will be back in a few minutes. thank you very much. plastic surgery papers

with a new dress with a new chest of drawers with a new blender. meet the new year holidays with the ozone submersible blender redmond for 2499 rubles. multibaker redmond for 2449 rubles. we have new year more than once a year, so a gift is waiting for you every month. become our subscriber and get twice as much every month gigabytes of internet tele2 other rules.

lenta has everything for new year's purchases sausage bundle 249.99 per kilogram new year in sokolov 69% discount on everything profitable medicine and health products, you will find on health, for example, baralgin for severe pain or haratka baralgin and other medicines on health, 10% discount on the first order of applications for the new year you will think of something grand to reach new heights. friends

ozone exhibit with love filter pitcher barrier for 429 rubles. unison gatsby bedding is the best gift this season. more see more get 500 rubles. as a gift for any three films watched on the wing video service, turn on holidays throughout russia

. haier equipment inspired by life, buy sausage. dad can meat. play in the app win a wagon of prizes and the main prize car magnet will carry new year 's gifts in the sunlight mobile application with free delivery in russia sunlight is the perfect gift, you buy one smartphone, and the second is a gift because we are agents. because the caller is 10 eyebrows, get a second smartphone as a gift only for megafon subscribers. future already today,

buy high-performance stylish infinix smartphones with discounts up to 45%, a new birch tree to lower life by inclination. there is a big game on the air and we will continue to discuss the hybrid war of the west against russia and world politics in general with experts from mgimo and we just spoke with dmitry science and mark bishops about the fact that the ikea regime and its western patrons, and at least some of the they insist on inflicting a strategic defeat on russia to achieve an absolute victory and they do it, among other things, because and in order to teach a lesson

to other e countries of the world by another center of power, and thereby strengthen it, and the crumbling western one said this today, talking with the leaders of the russian media, e, russian foreign minister sergey lavrov listen about compromises, this is during a triumphant visit to the united states, uh, zelensky announced a just peace. this is no compromise. this is exactly what is now guided by and its owners no compromises. we will dictate our will that is why it is necessary to defeat russia not only on the battlefield, as they say, but also to inflict a strategic defeat, so that no one would be disrespectful. this is what, in fact, uh, is the specificity of the moment and the vast

majority of countries in the world - they see it perfectly and understand it perfectly, well, more and more experts. in the very west, they say that such goals are fraught with very serious risks and are hardly achievable, and henry kisonger recently wrote about this in the spectater magazine, and professor london school of economics and political science vladislav zubok. e, who was originally a russian historian, but has been living in the west for 30 years. listen to what vladislav zubok wrote. for a complete victory, a very long war may be required, and its duration in this case will depend on political factors beyond the control of the west for those who call for a complete victory, the west should simply continue to supply kiev with the weapons and resources necessary for further struggle and wait until russia will lose and ideally not yet

putin will leave but an exhausting war. attrition has already caused enormous damage to ukraine and the west. just like russia, more than 6 million ukrainians were forced to flee the ukrainian economy is in decline, and the widespread destruction of energy infrastructure threatens a humanitarian catastrophe this winter, even now kiev is financially supported, supporting its activities only at the expense of billions of dollars from the us and europe energy costs in europe rose sharply due to interruptions in the usual supply of oil and gas, meanwhile, despite significant failure. the army regrouped and did not collapse. although it lacks the broad, deep support that ukraine has received from its partners and allies, russia is stronger than many might have imagined. well, based on this statement. listen to what vladislav zubok offers. the west must formulate a basic political vision

that will nullify the desire of ukraine and its most loyal supporters to defeat and neutralize russia if the united states and its partner fail to develop. such plan chances for a miles scenario will increase the war of attrition, the danger of an escalation of the disaster, as well as the severity of the post-war time andrey andreevich well, we see there is an understanding of the risks. there is, in principle, an understanding of what needs to be done, but can the west roll back in its position after all the statements, but that this is an existential conflict that will determine the future of the world order. what is it, a showdown between democracy and autocracy, that the role of the united states in the world will depend on the outcome of this war and etc. here, against the background of all this , against the backdrop of the position that britain still occupies, poland, i’m not talking about the baltic countries of ukraine itself, in the context of all this, the west can change its approach

towards those compromises that are written about by the teeth of public administration in the west in the united the united states, like ours, is based on budget cycles, and just in the united states a record defense budget was adopted with record funds to support ukraine. it is significant that articles are beginning to be allowed into the mainstream of analytical publications, containing theses that let's think about the formula for peace, why do we finance only war? let's think about what this endgame should look like, but it is clear that the entire budget process aimed at e. here is the cranking of the next round of the flywheel, yes. turning the flywheel of war again, at least on the horizon of the next six months, and maybe even a year, it has already been launched, and here i don’t see a situation in which the united states could put on the brakes. this brake is simply not provided for there. uh, zelensky's visit was specially produced to politically bless this record military budget to show congressmen to

congressmen. uh, a symbol, yes, an image of, uh, what the united states is helping and in general, they apparently have a surge here, positive hormones have occurred in the blood and they have seen the necessary some necessary feelings of testing, which it must be accompanied by large expenses for someone you sympathize with, ah let's watch this discussion unfold. it will acquire its significant meaning either as a result of some milestone events at the front, or by the beginning of the next budget cycle, when the question becomes substantive. do we continue this what for 1 year by that time, some things not only at the front, but also in the economies of different countries in the world can change the ukrainian crisis is not the only source of international tension. something else can divert attention and ultimately we're in these short cycles here and the united states is going into this new cycle with so

much confidence. well, here's the paradox, uh, with who is to come. it seems to me that facing the united states also lies in the fact that they unleashed this conflict and continue and drag out this conflict in order to prevent the formation of a multipolar world in order to strengthen american hegemony. but it was this conflict that became the most powerful catalyst for the formation of multipolarity, but gave such an impetus to the formation of multipolarity so powerful that it is no longer possible to reverse it. moreover, neither in the field, politics nor in the field of economics, this is also discussed today. meeting with russian leaders. the media spoke sergey viktorovich lavrov listen yes, it takes some time to get rid of these western dollar fetters. on the oriented oriented functioning with the west established

mechanisms for world development and servicing the world economy, it takes time too deeply mired in this system. uh, hmm, almost all countries. e for the post-war period, when these tools and mechanisms were still considered as promising and suitable for everyone, meeting the balance of interests of all states, but the process of understanding, and the risks of threats arising from such dependence, is very, very active, and i assure you that we will observe it in the near future. uh, downsizing. there is a very serious reduction in opportunities for the west, and to steer the world economy, as he wants and wants or does not want, he will have to agree that the role of the west and the main pillars of western

dominance in the world economy, such as the dollar, for example, will weaken, of course, of course sergeyevich absolutely right , it's a process. we observe we only in at the very beginning of this process. ah, well, to amuse you a little. with a touch on my colleagues, i concluded a wig on a box that by the end of the twenties the dollar system would collapse, and this one would remain, of course, as one of the currencies would not take far . also a role. that's when we win this box this studio. i enclose. in general, these events well jokes aside. e. they said absolutely right, dmitry vyacheslavovich, you understand any civilization, any country that begins to get in the way of this wheel a story that unequivocally started its muscle movement. it will be him. in general, much has been destroyed. really. today we see that dollars play less and less of a role. just the other day, information came that russia and india are switching to settlements in national currencies, new

transport corridors of russia and iran are being built, that is, we see how this developing world, which we just recently looked at, well, from top to bottom, like something here, that in the periphery it is in general, really formed an alternative system and moreover, it concerns the financial sphere of the logistics sphere and international trade. we see the emergence and growth of new international organizations that must update this existing system, which is now already operating on unjust principles, so i think so. well, if you make forecasts like this, i believe that this issue of the next decade is very important for him. well, this is historical standards, nothing at all very soon we will see a completely fundamentally new world and russia will ambiguously take a very worthy place. well, it seems to me that one a very important example of how the west is trying, but for the time being, to maintain its dictatorial position in the global economy is the idea of ​​​​the price flow uh- huh, which is to dictate the will of the west to third countries and the relationship of third countries with russia and this is a

very important case. and from the development of which, from the resolution of which, respectively, this is the dominance of the west in the world economy, or it will be confirmed if everyone follows this price ceiling, or vice versa, it turns out that this dominance is already is absent, and russia naturally favors the second option and says that it will not supply oil in any case, not only to the west, but to the west, and so the united states the european union imposed a partial embargo on the european union, but nevertheless russia says so about the fact that it will refuse to substitute oil, er, in those countries, which will demand to include in the contracts this reference to the western price ceiling, and this was announced this weekend by russian deputy prime minister alexander r novak and the minister finance, and russia antonnov, listen in particular. uh what anton said we will not insert

oil under contracts where price restrictions will be indicated, uh, which western countries offer this is excluded. it was our leader who told the president of the russian federation that russia would supply oil under agreements. uh, which will indicate will be on the ceiling will not. we will look for new markets. we will look for new logistics, perhaps it will be more expensive, but in principle the position that it is our main supply energy resource at some prices that western countries will set. we won't, we won't allow it. here the consumer dictates over the market methods, e.g., because today it is a limitation of prices to offer. themselves and introduced

against russian manufacturers tomorrow western countries. they will think, they will think, they will lead prices for others. uh, means manufacturers. that's not the point. we cannot say with this. oleg says something you agree that e price ceiling. ah, it is aimed not only at limiting russia's oil and gas revenues, but at what, in principle, to replace the market with the dictates of the west. and if this is so, then this applies not only to russia, it generally applies to all manufacturers, and all manufacturers should not allow this to be really somehow carried out, of course. this is true and there is an understanding of this, because, as i have already said in this studio. these are exclusively political tools, this is a tool. and this one? uh. in general , intimidation is a bad tool. rather, and it was absolutely rightly said that today it is russia, but russia is a powerful country with a large margin

of safety, the economy is sustained and develops further. yes, but tomorrow it may be a country that cannot resist so much. therefore, this diktat is some kind of intimidation of other countries. it is clear that even more pushes away from this current system, whether we like it or not. well, we sometimes have some experts even like to scold globalization. here it’s not that, it’s naturally a lot, but whether we like it or not, we now live in a global world in the world of the victorious capitalism. we are no longer broken on the block. in any case, the economic ones are very tough, as it was in the 20th century. and this means that it means that one market has closed for you, but another one will definitely open for you. and these are the methods, you know, as they demonstrate, the united states europe these methods because of this. well, in general, from the cold war from the 20th century. they don't work anymore. and now, this is what russia is striving for. what china is constantly talking about, at the twentieth congress, it was not only just the other way around for an open economy, but for what he the western world spoke ten years ago, and what today has turned into, in general, a

parody of here. in general, well healthy common sense open market, free and trade. there is the removal of barriers and so on. today he stands for it. you develop china, for example, because it brings benefits and profits to everyone and will bring to everyone. and of course, i repeat, the old methods of dictatorship. eh, some kind, yes, all kinds of ceilings. uh, well, the more we see that this is the ceiling. he didn't really have much of an impact. the russian economy. yes, the price is a little higher on some day, a little lower on some day, but in general it still keeps at an acceptable level, brings us profits, but suffers. as a result, it is the final buyers. won. here are the statistics. europe has already lost about one trillion dollars. that's for these gas refusals from russia. well, beyond stereotism. if you like it so much, then what russia china is doing is the countries of the guardianship - this is true. new globalization within the world majority. here sergey viktorovich lavrov suggested that e west in will eventually negotiate, but

until that moment e has come, and the united states, instead of negotiating , instead of forming joint international nations. order, but at the same time they are conducting a double confrontation e against e, russia and china. moreover, according to e, one of the most profound western analysts, and harvard university professor stephen old, the goal in the policy of the united states is precisely to defeat both russia and china listen to the united states now trying to defeat the two great powers. simultaneously. we are trying to help ukraine inflict a military defeat on russia and at the same time do not abandon attempts to inflict an economic defeat on china, and every time we walk on a fine line. in the case of ukraine , it is necessary to defeat without provoking an aggravation of the conflict, especially a nuclear one. and in the case of china, not to destroy the world economy and not to provoke the chinese into any

actions, for example, in relation to taiwan. these are quite ambitious goals of the biden administration. and i'm not sure that everything is complete realize. how much they are trying to do and how difficult it can be, but first of all, it seems to me that the task that stephen walton described for the united states is indeed much more difficult than what they faced during the cold war. and secondly, because it is infinitely long. that's the way to go to the edge, trying to defeat other greats. m powers and at the same time not break loose. there is no way to destroy the world economy in an escalation and so on indefinitely, because this cannot be done. and then what. then, but it is necessary to start from where everything begins with the direction of changes in the world. clear. and so sergei viktorovich lavrov said this and his colleagues commented on the speed of these changes depends on the one hand. how much on

how active those who want change are, huh? secondly, how stubbornly resist those who want to slow down these changes, who are trying to stop the wheel of history again, as they once could, for a moment, in the early nineties. we see that many countries world majority in the head. everyone already understands, but they are still afraid to act, among other things, because they are intimidated when the united states is not able to lead. this is such a subtle game, oh, that the wolf is talking about, because in order to play this game at all, they need a lot. to act rudely, you need such pressure and such rudeness, such pressure on others that creates unacceptable risks, therefore, play this game for a long time and play this game for a short time . can they play this game for a long

time, they are not capable, and one more, but a moment, why is this one so what is it about? here andrey andreevich likes to say that the quality of the players on the other side, here is the level of their training, it has decreased, and therefore the structural realities do not allow. they have to play hard. so the risks increase to an unacceptable level and the quality of the players on the other side does not give them, but their goal is to have a chance for a subtle game, and we are good at it. seen at the beginning of this year is to brute force to try everything quickly. uh, quickly solve everything uh, and then a very logical question arises in uh, which you started. and if it doesn’t work out like that after that, if this first rough attack doesn’t work out, what to do next and the kisangers for a subtle game they have for a subtle game. well, there is an

administration manager to find, sanja, to some extent not the right one, because, and once again we emphasize the structural reality. uh, oxygen changes. i'm used to the game of great powers, but i ca n't possibly be able to play with the world's majority sour. e learn too. in general , a person is already e at a great age and then the question arises. can they roll over? can they change their mind? can do they back off? this is a very logical question . you started with it, and we know all the practitioners in the field of international relations and theorists that the americans change their shoes in the air, what they themselves call. it's very easy, if it's true, they need to change position instantly. why they can't do it in this case and we see that in some other cases, they resigned themselves to their loss. of course you are. in iraq, just last year in afghanistan

, they wiped themselves out and moved on. why in this case they can't do it for one simple reason, that they are used to the fact that their loss is just their loss, yes, they adjusted the cap and moved on, in this case, they understand that their loss. this is the victory of russia and the victory of all the rest of this very world majority. but this they cannot allow. that's what they can't come to terms with, so they drove themselves into a dead end, into a dead end situation. so let's say, uh, made a bet.