uh, the second part of uh, this call. uh, blinkin didn’t convey who they are, but this part the second part of the call is the true true interest, uh, the usa and the west outlined the old general, then lord stoltenberg, when he was in the republic of korea yesterday, in my opinion, he was there in one of of his speeches, he said that russia must lose, but it must be defeated, and the west cannot allow ukraine to lose, because then the west will lose and lose - mr. stoltenberg said the whole world if ukraine loses that is, he took the liberty, he says, not only on behalf of three dozen members of the entire atlantic alliance, but also on behalf of all other countries of the world, including egypt a and all other countries of asia, africa, latin

america and beyond, the lord said, therefore that 's because the defeat of ukraine cannot be allowed in the way that it would mean the defeat of the whole world. therefore, he said to nato and will realize his global responsibility. in my opinion, everything is clear enough here, we are not talking about ukraine at all , but, so that there is no ambiguity, how as if, uh, mr. lavrov conveyed the words of the ostalking. let's hear who said it in his own words, if president putin wins in ukraine it will be a tragedy for ukrainians, however it will be a very dangerous message for authoritarian leaders around the world, the message will be that if they use military force, they can achieve their goals. well, uh, he didn't stop with the fat ones. he also gave valuable

guidance to south korea that they should begin to expose weapons to ukraine, despite the fact that, according to the laws of south korea, it does not have the right to supply weapons to countries that are in a state of conflict, but he said tactfully that of course, it’s up to you to make such decisions, but other countries have already decided that, despite their laws, despite their rules, you can start to put up weapons , and not a few hours elapsed, as it was announced on behalf of the president of south korea that south korea would not supply weapons to ukraine. well, in general, there is, of course, a very interesting situation when the nato secretary general arrives in the capital of the south korea, which, as far as i know, has not joined nato.

and such an accession is not even discussed and is already offering south korea what it should do, and not what is called. in general, but very specifically, i propose a course of action that would inevitably create serious difficulties for south korea by its neighbors with china and russia with us. today, konstantinovich kosachev, vice speaker of the state duma of the federation council, i apologize for the advice. i was a state deputy. but it was a long time ago. for this you had a great diplomatic career. thank you. and you even worked with such an interesting person as yevgeny primakov, who, from my point of view, was not usually able to combine. but if you want. a firm firm hand and pragmatic flexibility now, looking at everything that's going on. you have the feeling that russia is facing something new. or is it in

general? continuation of the same game. eh, it's just that more and more new phenomena are strung together, of course, the second. you know , there was a discussion among international political scientists. uh, before the special military operation. and how to call it? uh, more and more complex relationship between russia and the west, what is it? cold war 2.0 is 3:0 there, i always put the point of view that the cold war. really never ended. it did not end with the collapse of the soviet union with the dissolution of the warsaw pact with a period in the 90s, when we seemed to be bringing our positions closer together and one of the obvious signs that the cold war e did not end and did not end. eh, obviously it is. that nato has not disappeared anywhere in the north atlantic alliance has not only

survived, although, logically, it should have been disbanded following the organization of the warsaw pact in force. in general, radically changed circumstances. he not only survived, but he began to inflate over time, he began to expand. he began to place members on the territory of the new state. e weapons, armed forces in e. a cut from the red opposing act, russia nato, he began to flirt with georgia, with ukraine well, that's all that comes after this and in the end he began to claim uh, global leadership. i, uh, i remember the gentleman, stoltenberg, who was now shown such picks of a personal nature, when back in the old days. uh, the russian delegation , including your humble servant, uh, regularly participated in the munich security conferences about five or seven years ago, uh, the next scene i sit, uh, in the hall, and mr. stoltenberg speaks from the podium, outlining. uh, the current concept of nato and

in this presentation he uses e he speaks in english, and he says that the neuts are from the territory of the lds stars biond. neitus, borders in russian. this means that the territory is the protection of the territory. e alliance starts outside. e nato is, uh, such an officially pronounced formula. then there is a change of roles and on the next one, and already i find myself among the panelists on the stage, but on a different occasion, and stoltenberg is sitting in the front row. uh, among the public. i turn to him, allow myself the following rhetorical questions. here is mr. stoltenberg. imagine for a second that russia, formulating its security policy in the same way as its territory of protection territory of russia begins. outside of russian borders, imagine for a second your reaction. imagine

the reaction of all other countries and centers of power. it would be such a panic. the horror that russia allows itself how so? it allows something there to do outside of its own boundaries. and uh, one could understand this feigned horror, but surprisingly, when nato proclaims this as its official concept, and beyond the borders , nato takes on new and new dimensions. first it's uh, nearby countries. a. now, as it turns out, and conditional south korea. this, of course, makes it uncomfortable , because the quality of the cold war that nato continues to wage for e, its own superiority to the completely surrounding world , the quality of this e aggressive policy , so to speak, begins to take on completely different very ugly forms no doubt. thank you, lieutenant general bukinsky is now a professor at the higher school of economics, and you also have

a very large not only military, but also international experience. i want to ask you. here is also a similar question, which i just addressed to mr. kosachev. so, when you look at nato's actions today, do you have the impression that this is not only quantity, but quantity turns into quality, and before you answer. i want to use another quote from south korea recently that us secretary of defense austin said let's listen. our commitment to the defense of the republic of korea remains unwavering the united states stands firm in its commitment to extended deterrence, which involves the use of the full range of us military assets, including conventional and nuclear weapons, as well as missile defense.

obviously, if i understand the minister correctly, and i know a little about the minister, and he is also a kind of experienced diplomat, because he led very large groups of american troops in the people's groupings, and in general knows how to clearly express his thoughts in the international arena, when he when he says the use of the full range of us military assets including conventional and nuclear weapons. he actually says that the united states can use nuclear weapons against north korea in response to any attack from outside, and north korea against south korea not necessarily with the use of nuclear weapons. is this new or something wrong, got it? and dmitry i think that there is nothing new here, because as soon as the term extended containment appears. this means nuclear weapons , this is the very notorious nuclear umbrella that the united states, so to speak

, opens from all its allies, so there is nothing new for me here. no, it’s another matter that, of course, in the current conditions. here is a nuclear territory in which we are constantly accused, that our leadership, that president putin although president putin only mentioned nuclear weapons twice, and he uh, not directly. what funds do we have? what should be taken into account, so to speak, that everything, so to speak, is not just a country. russia has other means. but nevertheless, we are constantly being accused of this uh nuclear rhetoric. uh, like saber retling? that is, there waving is a nuclear club, and they themselves are not at all shy to use. this is nuclear extended deterrence, that they will protect their allies with all available means. for them. this is fine. and now your , uh, first question about nato. you know, i, uh,

just started working professionally with nato in 1992, when russia entered the partnership for peace program. i must say that, of course, in the first half of the nineties after the collapse of the soviet union yes, even in the second half of the nineties before yugoslavia, nato, uh, was in confusion, you understand, the meaning of existence, the warsaw pact, has disappeared. has ceased to exist. russia has embarked on the path of market reforms. uh, democratic country. uh, president yeltsin, uh, speaks in the us congress, says god bless america but everything seems to be fine. everything is fine. where is the enemy? where is the enemy, and then, well, a little later nato got uh already. eh, existence. nato made a certain sense when they, well, first,

uh, started bombing yugoslavia, then u entered afghanistan. and after uh, the eleventh after 9/11? that is, nato, uh, already, and they did not hide it. and they even wrote in one of their concepts that nato is already acquiring a global function and is responsible not only for providing. eh, peace is in order there in the euro-atlantic region, but already afghanistan is already uh, well, then the asian ocean region was a river, it was mainly about afghanistan and uh states, uh, our former union republics of central asia, they began to actively infiltrate there and to say that one of nato's tasks is to maintain peace and tranquility order in the middle. well, this went on almost until the munich conference

of the seventh year, when president putin delivered his famous speech. well, that's it, i just saw the faces of, uh, americans. uh, i sat there, uh, sat cheyne rumsfield, i don't remember. well, in general, a large american delegation. at first it was bewilderment, and then, you know, some kind of relief. well, that's all, the end was sometimes revealed, but there was a meaning, finally. here they are, so to speak, tore off their mask. here it is the good old, uh, proven enemy enemy pass, well then the enemy at first is now the enemy, so uh, i absolutely agree with konstantinovich than that of the cold war. it didn't end there was a pause. there was just a pause when i needed to look for the meaning of my existence. this pause lasted quite, well, in historical terms, so

to speak, but this dimension is nothing. and so uh, as much as 15 16 years there, but after that everything fell into place. and now, if you look at what nato is actually doing. uh, oni is risen, that is, the american command is restoring its presence. in europe during the cold war , in fact, the fifth army corps is returning, while divisional headquarters are being deployed. here. uh, i’m sure that it won’t be long before uh, the strategic exercises of the reformer for the transfer, uh, the strength of the village , which are calculated, so to speak, several divisions, when the entire uh is involved, not like the transport aviation of the armed forces on civil aviation civilian ships will come to this, because everything falls into place. and we, in general, return to, uh, what nato is doing, uh, somewhere in eighties. and even i would say more,

even worse. i will never forget the episode. e in the first half of the nineties. in my center, when we had a fairly high-level discussion, and there was the deputy supreme commander of nato, general chalsboit, who was a prisoner of war in vietnam and grew from a captain when he was shot down to a full general a, there was a senator and your obedient servant and the senator said that in in general, he absolutely agrees with former president nixon that the most important thing now is not to miss a settlement with russia and that they do not understand those who want to expand nato and drag the united states into the balkan wars. what a historic

opportunity the united states wants to kill this window of opportunity. and then he himself proposed, he entered the board of directors of our center in order to defend, in principle, realism, the senator was called nothing. a few years later, he seemed to understand where to go, history and made his own conclusions. i don’t have to explain, but the general fighter general will not draw his conclusions against nato expansion or, alternatively, to invite russia to nato, he had to leave the armed forces. i, uh, began to react to this story even before you named the names and , uh, i began to react in order to argue with you, because it seems to me that independence from whoever later

formed their worldview in fact, at the heart of uh, anyway, lay the thesis about what needs to be provided. uh, the global interest of the united states of america, both of your interlocutors certainly belonged to patriot of his country, no doubt, and the dispute, probably, was not so much. and how many means? what is the best way to do this? somebody was skating, somebody was suggesting how to treat russia. but i have no doubt that there is, uh, absolute consensus in the american elites that us hegemony, us leadership, it can be called in different ways, this is a topic that is not discussed . here it is i absolutely agree with you. uh , the construction of a unipolar world, where uh the united states of america circle around them nato circle around them those who aspire to nato or at least recognize the leading role. eh, that same notorious

collective west, that's all. the rest is somewhere on the side and here in this design, no matter what anyone says, i’m sure in the seventies and eighties in the nineties, and of course , until now, russia, our country has always been assigned the role of the periphery of this unipolar world with russia in this design. , it was possible to negotiate russia could be driven away, by force, to this periphery, but no one was going to our country. in any case, voluntarily grant the same rights to exercise their own national interests in influencing geopolitics. which countries have already appropriated to themselves? which way of building their own world they began, uh, much earlier, while russia, uh, there in the nineties there in the zero years, continued to remain in some kind of naive, expecting that now we will bring our positions closer and, uh, everything will work out

by itself. this is what actually happened now, this is the position into which russia was forcibly driven, the position of one of the peripheral countries of the unipolar world with center elsewhere. this construction has radically changed. when we talk about multipolarity, from my point of view, multipolarity has already arrived. here is a project for the globalization of the globe through the subordination of this globe to a single center. and as a matter of fact. i am sure that globalization was a tool in the hands of this collective west, and now one way or another , this process of one-sided globalization in its favor in its favor. the west is a thing of the past world anyway already. broke up in the center strength. it may not yet have become multipolar, but it has disintegrated at the center of power and beyond any doubt. russia has radically moved away from the position of this peripheral certain measure into which we

were stuffed into the position of one of the world leaders of this multipolar world. and i am sure that the very late senator mccain would not have liked this and would not have liked any of the american generals, no matter how they relate to the expansion of nato or others on this occasion. uh, geopolitical projects. where u me how are we somehow agree. let's agree where we are now. we agree on what needs to be done now, and we agree that it is unacceptable for russia. and we agree that there is such an aggressive hegemonic policy in america today. uh, almost that concept among the foreign policy elite. yes, because any any other design. why, if the world is unipolar, they sincerely believe in it. there cannot be other centers of power, and the emergence of other centers of power, by definition

, is perceived by them as their only threat. true, where we may not agree to be sincerely afraid, where we may disagree. it's, uh, was it inevitable in the extreme forms we see today, uh, nixon. as you may remember, there was an argument with khrushchev, and in the kitchen of the american exhibition in moscow in 1959, and how would khrushchev explain to nixon how americans would live under communism, at least? the grandchildren of the current generation onikshnyu replied that, in general, he does not foresee this. which, of course, he could not say to himself. uh, the granddaughter of khrushchev himself will live in the united states of america and take very critical positions, uh, in relation to russian foreign policy. well, okay, and the main thing nixon said then to khrushchev what is important for us for the americans

is not what you believe in, if that's what you think. that the soviet union will be ahead of america and that america is singing the path of communism for the sake of god. just do not take specific actions in this direction, which we consider unacceptable and which we will be able to effectively counter . and this is part of american political genetics, and that all people, but in american estebs in intimacy in the early nineties, that they had this code to one degree or another, but to reach such an extreme and stupidity, change and the arrogance that i see today in american foreign policy. no, i don’t think it was necessary , i’m absolutely sure that there could be other relations with

an element of competition with an element of dispute, and some even sometimes conflicts, but at the same time rational american leaders that ended with the president bush senior to these people you know well uh, brand scouts. i know his national security adviser, so they decided to simultaneously challenge russia and china pushed russia china a. closer closer to each other and for the sake of ukraine they put the world, but, if you like, not on the brink of the cold war. well, at least a nuclear war, but at least created a situation, as such possibilities are already being discussed. i don't believe it, by the way. that sensible american leaders would allow such a turn of events, although you can only one position, where i

categorically disagree with you. you just said that they are doing all these stupid things for the sake of ukraine. they don’t care about ukraine or for the sake of ukraine, they do it. they do it for themselves. right now, before the eyes of the whole world. here were the plots, but for them, so to speak, well, softer, remember how they promised , uh, assad to say something to him only a few days left. but he still, so to speak, having survived several us presidents , remains the syrian president. it was humiliating for the usa but it was still in limits. so to speak, there is a pain threshold. yes, what is happening now is already on the verge of a painful shock, because now russia has its own positions, its policy, its actions. here are the actions that took place in munich a in the seventh year. and by the way, before that , what happened with the turn of primakov's plane over the atlantic was still a demonstration of our disagreement with the trends. yes, and here are the actions, starting with the ukrainian plot of the fourteenth year to

this georgian eighth year and continuing with syria of the fifteenth year and of course ukraine 22 years old. these are very specific actions of russia that overturn this whole story, this myth that america is omnipotent and that the end of history has already come , no one has the opportunity or the right to act otherwise than this. what is considered and believed correctly in the united states of america, i do not demonize them. i'm just explaining that from my point of view, it is not ukraine that is at the center of this conflict with the united states of america and its allies now fighting for the survival of that unipolar world that they created for themselves and which, by definition , was doomed not now, but later we would have entered into such a clinch, but the later it would have happened. it would be all the more painful, because the unipolar world is our opponents. they are all 30 years old. they consistently

institutionalize the seven dollar as a world currency with control over international ones. finance in the institutions of the gradual seizure of the osce, let's assume in some others, this was all a consistent line towards the institutionalization of the consolidation of a unipolar world. and what's happening now is happening, when you can still change something in 10-20 or 30 years. this, perhaps, would be radically more difficult to do, if not to say e if not to say a difficult argument, because i think that i agree with you on the main thing, and you want, as it were, the genre of the transmission so before we have there will be a short break. i'll tell you just one thing. history is not a straight line and history is, er, not a one-dimensional process. and if something happened it is not necessarily that it was the only way it should have

happened and i think, i think, but in fact i'm sure if president bush had not been defeated in the elections in 1992. and if he had stayed in the white house, and there would have been no clinton squirrel presidency, i think that russian-american relations. they would have turned out differently. you can tell me at a certain stage at a certain stage, but you didn’t give it, but of course the dispute between moscow and washington is much wider than ukraine. but of the brothers , ukraine is a platform for this aggravation. it was required from my point of view if you want a certain talent in the part irresponsibility and absolutely. here's the cynicism and absolutely here's the cynicism, we'll be back in a few minutes and were just talking about what the majority in

congress wants to achieve. an analysis of the situation shows that there is an opportunity to strike a crushing blow. the decision to defend the house is obedient to the motherland the last time stalingrad on sunday on the first we did not call them.

already climbed the chief did not stop even higher another step another success. thank you for being with us for 30 years. megafon is just the beginning of the price of clothes, caftan brand, stylish, children's clothing from brand shark with discounts up to 80 percent.

kagocel from the first day of admission begins to reduce the severity of symptoms of influenza and sars , regardless of the type of virus, therefore kagocel is higher than the antiviral measure coupon 22 9

nuggets for 69 rubles. kfc tele2 presents tele2 with discounts on the purchase of gadgets and other entertainment for subscribers kupaty from turkey, all this is a dad from an ecologically clean region of russia recommended for children. what is the most profitable medicine for cystitis at a price not simple, alar, more profitable up to 50%, not prostenovar, cystitis treatment without overpayment

inspired by sports. pick up on wildberries a universal image for walking, training and outdoor activities from adidas to the case, they conceived repairs, they took everything from the bank for a loan of up to 5 million . delicious roast fragrant meatballs potatoes big boxing on the first fight for the right to claim the championship title live broadcast on saturday on the first do not become your framework every day every moment strive for

victory. after all, that's what champions do. liga stavok become yourself. washington's big game is on the air now. joining us via teleconference is mark bishops, a well-known national security correspondent and, until recently , a national security issue columnist for the magazine national interest. naturally, the question immediately arises to you, what do you think about the current approach of the biden administration to the issue of arming ukraine and to. er, a very important issue. what does the administration in ukraine want just uh,

help ukraine and defend itself or provide ukraine with offensive weapons so that it can return those territories that they consider their own and which today are part of the russian federation according to the russian constitution. well, this is dmitry, this is the main question. i don't think there is an easy simple answer. i can tell you that we have seen a certain logic over the past six months. first they say, we can't deliver. uh, certain weapons, like patriot systems. eh, americans. uh, they say that this weapon is too complicated, what this weapon won't make enough of a difference, then this weapon should. eh, very expensive. and that the ukrainians need to train for a very long time in order to use these weapons effectively in the wild, and then we see

how in a few months. they change their mind. uh, baitan administration, change their minds without explaining, why not explaining? what was the logic then and what is the logic now and is starting to be delivered, we saw this recently in tanks, where they explained to us for many months that it was pointless to supply machine tools to the front. i didn’t just change my mind and now we are being told about the f-16 fighters biden said, i think, yesterday or the day before yesterday, no. we won't ship them, but i think it's clear to everyone that this is not the final answer. this is the start of the dance. now i will not go and negotiations will begin behind the scenes. they will optimize how uh and do it more efficiently and i'm sure. eh, in the end. uh, in the end result, the ukrainians will receive fighter jets, that is, there are a lot of questions about who will be

the pilot of these researchers, because how you know, it's a very complex technology and an efficient pilot has to train for many years. and from which airfield will these fighters fly? uh, but that's probably the reason why they said now? no, they said no, to buy themselves time to understand how to do it how to do it? and it might very well be the end. uh, they'll say, we said, we won't do it. we are americans, but the poles can do it, they can do it, because they say, they are open to this idea, and i think we will see it in some form. and i think, the main problem is that this is the logic of escalation, the moment when we give up some type of weapon in order to put this weapon in ukraine, we de facto admit that we have done everything that we could do, and then we have to ask ourselves how looks like the front, what

does the battle look like and and what does this mean for potential negotiations? and how often is it worth these negotiations. it can't be for me. you know, i was a big optimist at the beginning of the presidential war. erdogan martin e. antalya e. came very close to what pere-e treaty to end this conflict and it didn't happen, and now i think everyone agreed from stoltenberg to dimitri medvedev that the treaty is unlikely to happen and this conflict will be resolved on the battlefield. well, when you say on the battlefield, what does it mean in practice, uh , davy dei shaws, who you know washington post columnist, who is an ordinary person in charge, uh, wrote in her conversation with anthony blinkin us secretary of state and based on this conversation , if it is correctly transmitted

, one gets the impression that, in general, blinkin not only, uh, gave up hope or the desire to seek a treaty, but he does not consider them at all that it is not necessary to arm ukraine properly, including offensive weapons, including the possibility of combat aviation. and then uh russia what is called will understand that ukraine is too tough a nut, that uh russia will know its place, and what kind of, if you want, uh, strategic balance, as washington will say or intimidation of russia, as moscow will say what it can be , even better than some formal agreement. there is hope for many.

i think many in the biden administration, uh, but less and less what a pentagon, what, uh, ukraine can, if not win unconditionally, then at least u will win much better conditions for yourself than you would be now if you started now negotiations and we should note that i understand that the russian side is not interested in negotiations right now, because they believe that, uh, this is a war of attrition. uh, it’s also beneficial for them that after washington, this is the point of view, this is the official point of view washington yes, as i understand it, this is the official point of view of washington dimitria. i must say that this is in a sense my point of view, this is already because we are now seeing a large-scale offensive. and if i would, if they would ask me, then of course. they are confident in the success of this offensive. they think that after this offensive they will be in a better position than before this offensive, and in the latter you mean, the russian

offensive, yes, the russian east and south we see now uh, zaporozhye and donbass uh, maneuvers and i think that uh, it's worth it now. they don't even say know summer. e on rezakharov. and lavrov spoke actively about the idea that we can sit down and agree on something today, and correct me if i'm wrong, or you have a different position. today i haven't even heard of it. you know, i won't interpret what was said in the past by minister lavrov and the press, director of the ministry of foreign affairs maria zakharova well, i'll tell you that a lot has changed and one thing that i think has changed is washington's desire to negotiate or to at least create the appearance that washington is interested in negotiations. and, of course , how is it in moscow? it seems to me that the a's don't want to be in

the position of a petitioner and knock on a closed door, but i don't have the feeling. i do not know what you think konstantinovich moscow in principle, the opening and negotiations. and if we recall the latest experience of moscow's negotiations on the ukrainian issue? so here it is february 14 , when we actively tried to prevent a coup d'état, e power, which will compromise. this is the street that refuses to fight. well subsequent reforms and russia actively participated in the negotiation process to help ukraine go this way and we know how uh deceived the then president yunukovych, and after him russia as

a participant. in general, this negotiation process, literally in a day, the second experience of the whole story with the minsk agreements. this is also the 14th and 15th year of the negotiations on ukraine, when we actively tried to help ukraine preserve its territorial integrity. well , of course, on conditions. sorry for the tautology of securing the rights of the people who live. in the southeast, through kiev's direct contacts with donetsk and lugansk, and we know how the minsk agreements ended - this is the second extremely regrettable experience of the negotiation process. e russia in ukraine and the third story is mentioned. today. the history of march, 22 years old, istanbul and i will remind you that at that time russia did not just, as it were , participate in some consultations, but russia , by its actions from near kiev, from some other territories, withdrew troops where

they were already there, and at the cost of casualties, of course, so to speak, and through, so to speak, the corresponding reaction of russian society to these concessions, in general, but it demonstrated its readiness to negotiate in a real way. and now the third story on ukraine ended in the same way, because in the first, second and third cases, kiev was not going to fulfill its obligations under these agreements. and secondly, those who stood then and continue to stand behind kiev were in no way interested that negotiations lead to a result , russia now understands this very clearly. i think that we understood this before, but hope is dying, what is called the last, but now i am sure that in the current conditions we do not see the slightest sense in not negotiating something with kiev because he completely independent and does not make any decisions either at the negotiating table or on the sidelines and

there is not the slightest sense to negotiate with the west about what is happening in ukraine because for the west, now is the most the main thing is to achieve that very defeat russia that stoltenberg spoke about, and about which the rest of the western leaders continue to bear all this blizzard. therefore, yes, i, unfortunately, state a lot that the way out of this situation is there, here he is on the battlefield, not at the negotiating table. well, here we have an unambiguous dispute, because, although i clearly think i have repeatedly said that , unfortunately, in order for diplomacy to have a chance, appropriate changes must occur on the battlefield. and uh, this is for me absolutely unequivocal position. and it seems to me that it is difficult to come, looking at what has happened over the past year and before. i find it difficult to come to another. uh conclusion.

i, too, uh, will say from the fact that in a situation where it is difficult to maintain, but a complete victory over another nuclear one, that under these conditions at some stage there will be negotiations and there will be a new attempt to agree, and uh, at some i say, unfortunately, that this time has not yet come, if in moscow , according to ours, if in moscow they came to the conclusion, if the american administration, whether it be this or more likely the next one, that the american administration is ready for serious negotiations, then i think that moscow would also be interested in these negotiations. uh, for this, moscow does not have to come to some kind of conclusion. and for this, washington must change its position on the ukrainian crisis. do you understand? naturally, naturally, here we completely agree. only i want to emphasize that if you washington changed

its position from my point of view in moscow and would not say, and we dealt with all these years. you vile bastards, we do not trust you, and therefore we will no longer do business with you. this is not how i understand the position, but the leadership of russia. as you know, there is no subjunctive mood, but for a second imagine what would happen now if nato still remained within the borders of 1991, how much more secure and calm it would be world, as far as there would be no such conflicts in it. and even better, if nato in the ninety-first year, the most bloomed we started our conversation. here everything that has happened since then has been in a completely, certain logic of escalation of tension from, uh, stupid american confidence that sooner or later russia can be brought to its knees. this is the main mistake of the united

states of america, this is russia's absolute misunderstanding of the essence of our people, the essence of our people , the essence of our nation, the essence of our lord , russia's complete misunderstanding is a complete misunderstanding of the russian people. these are very, uh, dangerous misunderstandings, which, from my point of view, among other things, are not in the interests of the united states itself. and unfortunately, like you, i have no optimism that this situation will change in the near future. all that e divides us in this, e dispute is that, firstly, i do not think that such a situation it was bound to happen in the current extreme forms, if another president won in america and i believe that in moscow the readiness to negotiate remains. if, as you rightly said , the position of another country would change, we

could agree on this. we agreed perfectly. mark thank you very much. thank you general i have a question for you, returning to the idea of ​​nuclear deterrence. if i understood you correctly, you said that nuclear deterrence is what, and it is wider than just , uh, preventing another country from a preventive nuclear strike, that nuclear deterrence implies that if you are a serious nuclear power, then in the treatment of you, your uh , rivals your opponents your enemies reckon with the fact that you are a big great nuclear held rights. what am i, uh, now we are talking, uh, in the collective west and not just

some kind of hysteria of the possibility of application dissipative weapons, but about what russia and the world are trying to convince. and what about the fact that russia has thousands of thousands of warheads? it is natural to their delivery that it does not matter at all, that russia can be disregarded as a great nuclear power, if there is such a phenomenon, if such a plan is back in the west? dmitry but before i start answering this question. shame on me to say a few words on your previous discussion, you understand, here, uh , the idea of ​​​​peace negotiations and is russia ready now to conduct any negotiations? i think that it is absolutely not and there is no point in doing it. now there are some negotiations until we liberate those territories that, e.g. part

of the former dnieper former donetsk region uh now donetsk people's republic within russia zaporozhye region, kherson region, uh until they are fully liberated. no negotiations. there can be no question. moreover, i will tell you that from the point of view. well, a purely military military political there is needed in addition to these four areas. uh, actually, release something else, maybe reach odessa, maybe, uh, the kharkov region in order to be able, so to speak, to talk about something more specifically, and with our counterparties at the negotiating table, so now sits down at the negotiating table. uh, i think it's completely pointless, because we didn't fulfill our tasks and, uh, about ukrainian ukrainian tasks. today you know, because the question is that russia should now sit down at the negotiating table.

they have such a question, because no one no one e russia e negotiations on minimum acceptable conditions and does not offer what he is talking about, zelensky supports him in this nato includes the defeat of russia and the surrender to russia of at least all the territories that, e, ukraine considered its own until the 90 first year , we are talking about that russia should pay some kind of reparations, but the point is that they want to change the political system of russia and that russia will not negotiate on this basis for me. it is absolutely obvious that, firstly, it is a fact, and secondly, it is absolutely true that the question is worth it. well sorry question friend. does this mean? what, but russia is not interested in

any kind of contractual option, and i can tell you two things about this. first, even if russia was not interested in this, then take such a public position. this would be a gift to russia's enemies who really want to prove, uh, that russia, unlike them, does not seek peace. although, in fact, i am convinced that everything she is the opposite and the second. uh, the kdv wrote that russia should return it to itself before the negotiations will have sense, then you also said to assume that this operation will be broad, but nevertheless not limitless tasks. and if this operation does not have limitless tasks, that is, it means, it seems to me, but at some stage, but negotiations. they will not only be possible, but also expedient. and so i don't understand why this

should be denied, of course. at this stage, russia does not offer minimum acceptable conditions, and russia must stand its ground. it is on the battlefields and that is what is planned no controversy. at least, at this table. i don’t see dmitry on this issue. i, uh, you didn’t understand me. i say again, russia always says, we are ready for negotiations, lavrov says this , the president says this, but on russian terms , taking into account the situation on the ground on the battlefield. that's the position of russia, so i say that russia is now, uh, this is not yet a general offensive. it's still like that. eh, well, let's put it this way. e tactical successes in certain areas. i hope that a little later i don’t know when in february in march, but russia after all, the subject, because the forces are prepared, and the technique goes. uh,

the industry has already woken up, unlike let's say. so the americans are still thinking, and therefore they have all the prerequisites for starting the broad line. i hope that they will u be implemented, but i have named the minimum set of tasks, uh, that russia should fulfill from my point of view. there are several words of thought. i have already spoken about this many times. there are people who believe that it is necessary to reach the dnieper; other people believe that it is necessary to reach the western borders of ukraine only then, uh, the operation will be completed. this i do not know, and no one knows, except for the supreme commander-in-chief and, probably, the leadership of the general staff. what are the ultimate goals of e russia, therefore, i have absolutely no, e, contradictions with you here. now answering your question on nuclear deterrence. naturally, and it has always been like this, uh, mutual respect

from the united states and the soviet union , then the russian federation as the owners of the largest nuclear from e, our two countries control 90% more than 90%, e, of the total nuclear potential. e of the world, uh, should treat each other, with respect and uh, the essence of nuclear deterrence lies precisely in the fact that, uh, before taking any action, the country still must take into account. uh, a possible reaction from the opposite side, to which, in the end, i repeat my position once again. there can be no limited nuclear war, escalation is impossible, that's all. this will lead to mutual destruction. by the way, about the supply of weapons. i believe that the moment of truth will come if it comes. uh, when will a decision be made to supply ukraine with combat aircraft?

i have already said in this i will repeat that the airfield network of ukraine is currently not adapted to receive western aviation, especially heterogeneous western aviation . despite the fact that they seem to meet, but in general nato criteria in general, these are different aircraft with different characteristics with different service systems, that is, you need to create a repair base serving the base. the airfield network of ukraine to a large extent, disabled it either needs to be restored, but restored under the fire of russian artillery, and e-e missiles of various classes. this is a rather pointless exercise. and if they are based on the territory about what, by the way, the archipetes told him, if they are based on the territory, but of the adjacent countries. and yes, even with uh american or

european crews. well then, i think that the russian leadership will have to to make a painful, of course, not simple, but completely obvious decision, these airfields - this aviation should be amazed at the airfields on which they are based, and even here, even if this country yes, even if these are nato countries and then. after such strikes, our former nato partners within the framework of article 4 will gather to confer whether they will use article 5, but even article 5 is not an automatic, so to speak, not automatically military response they will think and let them think, because any response - this is, uh, uh, so to speak, without one second of a nuclear conflict. well, look at the feeling, firstly, you are absolutely right on the issue of airfields as an absolutely legitimate goal.

if aircraft will rise from these airfields, striking at russia or at the russian armed forces. i would go a little further here. sorry, i missed one more thought, come on, if there are ukrainian crews, if it happens that they will prepare ukrainian crews, this is an even more dangerous option, because let's say here are ground-based medium-range missiles range. in the ranges of 55.000 averaged states not yet. they now have an experimental batch, which they made based on the mk-41 universal installation, which are integrated with the ijes system, and have already put the first batch to the pentagon for testing. but when they will be put into service, these missiles are still unknown. but if the planes are the same f-16s, they already have missile weapons that can hit targets at uh, a distance of several thousand kilometers, this is extremely dangerous, and it would be even narrower. and that is why i am here

maybe even more, uh, tougher stance than you. i believe that reliable ee deterrence implies that the enemy must have every reason to believe that the entire russian nuclear arsenal can be used if necessary, and i would not give anyone any guarantees in advance. under what conditions will it not apply? at the very least, it seems to me that this would be the correct setting, not only in case of conflict, but also for its prevention, your last word in this segment. i mean that, in fact, in this way russia is now behaves and behaves. we do not let anyone forget that russia is a nuclear power, but there is no such exhaustive city, and so to speak, nuclear weapons are not

relevant here. here it is semi relevant here it actually naturally exists in the russian nuclear doctrine with the famous two chinas. yes, and opportunities. the use of nuclear weapons, but everything else is natural. this is also a variation of the situation. and i think this is absolutely correct, the far-sighted balanced position of russia was taken and agreed now short advertisement. and after that, we will return to discussing the situation in ukraine and we will have a teleconference. they just shoot peaceful areas of the city and kill civilians. i went to fight as an artilleryman. i think why not sit and wait until they call me, but they didn’t call me, i took it myself and left. before that, only in complete games, the guys saw all kinds of weapons , months of hard training,

the boys come. after they visit the combat, their view changes. child grab the ozon winter clothing sale in

your hands and dress profitably april dress for 439 rub. jacket finn flare for 2.99 rubles. tully trousers for 179 rubles. sovcombank get down to business right away, conceived repairs, took everything from the bank, a loan of up to 5 million. and now you are already sporting from the color of the wallpaper to children's loans from sovcombank in the branch, and he says it was designed to strengthen immunity, 20 billion probiotics. are you buying a magnet?

i heard a lot about your tele2 exchange, but show me that i will first receive discounts when buying gadgets and other subscriber entertainment from the package for the first time only tele2 subscribers have a new currency. and i told you that you can use it in different ways minutes for which you paid a profitable exchange of tele2 minutes other rules magnet cosmetic takes care means love face cream 649-99 magnet cosmetic

home textiles from the brand vasilisa choose bed linen and other assortment with discounts up to 70% on wildberries i don't want to spin around technology . let them spin around me hair choose me a movie for the evening. he guesses my desires. there must be fresh food here. i love experiments, let hair be responsible for the result let technology revolve around us, and we use them and enjoy life-inspired technology, big lots of

chicken and french fries new big. 350 minutes 35 gb popular social networks and video services for 399 rubles. in all salons megafon has already achieved a lot. already climbed, the main thing is not to stop even higher still success. thank you for being with us. there is a big game on the air and

now we have a buzz, where a military expert, call sign politician and a participant in the events taking place there, will talk to us. thanks a lot. you are in the center of events. you know, what is happening on the fronts of donbass and as i understand it, there is no radical change yet, but there is a significant revival of russian military operations. and there is progress in certain areas, promising progress. this is your impression too. say yes, first. hey, good afternoon dear friends. um, well, it's day 342 of a special military operation. i want to say

that russian troops are advancing along the entire line of battle, contact regarding the donetsk direction, russian units are attacking several sections of the front advance. e allied forces from the recently liberated force. these are blessed. e in the direction of praskoveevka and krasnaya gora there. there are fierce battles going on right now. the dark ones would like to emphasize that let's take it, artyomovsk bakhmut. all right there. i practically lost the centralized supply in my grouping in the city , so i believe that the last e that will be encircled in the future is still waiting. uh, apu groups under ugoldar and seversk, russian troops break into the enemy’s defensive lines ongoing offensives. uh, our allied formations are confidently advancing in the coal area, they are fighting, bitch, the nazis

are already there in high-rise buildings. uh, they are constantly covered, and our artillerymen are there with high-precision russian rszo a number of weapons. i would like to emphasize. what is very interesting now is that in connection with the deteriorating situation on the fronts in ukraine, they called for how to start maximum mobilization, trying to shut up the formation. holes at the front command of the apu. uh, urgent in order, it transfers reserves in the artyomovsk coal direction. uh, it's desperate, after all, attempts to hold the line of defense of the bandera continue shelling. unfortunately, peaceful cities, but i want to say e in december, there were still more frequent shelling of the donetsk people's republic of the lpr, but now they are becoming less. here's what 's interesting, e members of the ukrainian formations e units in general

, information is already being disseminated about huge losses, e among various formations. and i think that he is now in a very active phase in general. russian troops, but throughout the whole , as it were, all the lines of defense of contact. i would like to emphasize. eh, plus everything. yes, what a row, what officials back in the west now you were discussing. uh, just about the position of the united states of america and the countries of the west. uh, i still consider the time, uh, on the ukrainian conflict. uh, now the majority of american politicians are on the side of the russian federation. e, were confident in the expediency of delaying hostilities, in their opinion. kiev had a better chance, probably, to win a protracted protracted conflict. and how would uh, i think that they uh, now information is being massively disseminated in this that there will be and tanks will come, there or leopards, and abrams and in the future. uh, colleagues were talking

about fighters there, f-16 planes. i think that they are completely already, well, getting into a situation of desperation of desperation in general. i think that the defeat of ukraine itself e. stick out your own armies. it is inevitable. i have a question for you. here, in principle, i have everything, yes, well, i have another question for you. uh, it wasn't just what you said that impressed me. well how did you say? you are clearly not just fighting , as it seems to me, you have a good optimistic mood, does your optimistic mood reflect the general mood in the russian troops on your front. first of all, i want to talk about volunteer units. of course, they are very confident and emphasize all the same there are volunteer units, where people come on call. uh, as if by my own desire, i want to say that we receive a very large number of calls to

our address almost every day. e 20 to 30 calls are received there, that people are ready to even come there with their friends. e eager eager to fight a huge desire to fight nazism with the brown plague, but in general the attitude is very positive guys , decisive, especially experience. i would like to say that the volunteers since 2014 have many guys who are here. i myself understand very well when i visited even in 2015, when young guys of 17-18 years old came to fight and now they already have a lot of experience. uh, here, of course, the russian armed forces are now federations lead and i would consider very active and very professional in their activities. uh, in general develops in relation to fighting. thank you for being confident. thank you and thank you, first of all, you found uh time and thank you for

your fighting good mood, which is also very encouraging. thank you dmitry thank you very much victory will be ours. thank you, you expect e that over the next two to three months, and there will be an offensive by the russian army. yes, i'm very into it. i hope i repeat again, because everything the prerequisites for this have been created. uh, the reserve personnel that was. provided during the partial mobilization of 300,000 people , they are already fully trained , most of them are already in the zone. ah, a special military operation. the rest is, so to speak, a part in reserve. uh, a smaller part of uh, the equipment is working properly, the lack of a rocket about it. well, the west does not believe it, of course, but the situation on the battlefield indicates that artillery

shells are being delivered with conspicuous regularity. also in abundance, so everything, everything goes to the fact that uh, well, you can’t do without offensives, because with these small tactical squeezing ukrainians out of e. settlements such as bakhmata, i think it's a very long time. we have not yet involved strategic aviation , practically no. well, carpet bombing, of course. as they say, this is not our method, but a certain stage. i think that taking into account the fact that our opponents are destroying hospitals, there are railway stations and markets. it seems to me that there is no need to be shy, and in the course. e of the upcoming offensive. need to apply all available conventional means. what kind of advice do you have now to the federation? you were in the state duma. you are an experienced politician. you interact with people a lot. you know your colleagues who represent others, and the districts represent other districts.

do you have the feeling that the west put the hopes of the west on the radical opposition that pressure on russia will lead to some kind of retaliatory pressure on normal russian citizens who will turn, for example, to you as legislators and say that this war must be ended at that some compromise must be found. and what is it, the pressure can even reach such a level that it would pose a threat to the authorities. you see, at least some signs of such a phenomenon somewhere in the middle of the transmission. e stated that the authors. and here is all this ukrainian provocation. uh, they don't understand russia at all right now on answering your questions. i want to confirm this in an exhaustive way, and i and all of my colleagues without exception. that's when we work in our

districts, when we communicate with people. who are watching what is happening already, what is called from a distance none of them observed hand. i'm sure everyone sees this as part of their own destiny. as through their own lives, practically no one anywhere ever questions the validity and correctness of russia's actions again. i will repeat. i'm not talking about those people who are somewhere around here, uh, in foreign capitals are now trying to organize some alya uh on behalf of russia uh, civil forms of the state of civil society in russia are absolutely in this part. yes, and in all the rest it is stable calmly and confidently in our own abilities. confident in our rightness. they say that the russian federal channels say, uh, in the west, they especially say, uh, a radical position.