i would like to ask you a question about the general state of russian-american relations. if there's anything that gives you hope, that there's going to be some positive change? thank you dmitry , i'm glad to be in your program and immediately getting down to business, i'll say that, uh, in a nutshell, our relationship can be described as worse than ever. this is not an exaggeration. i really don't think there's anything else that can be messed up, uh, in russian-american relations. the biden administration did everything not to leave the two of them literally stone unturned. ah, well, yes

perhaps a complete break, but still, i think it will not come to that. this would be both dangerous and wrong from every point of view. at least we wouldn't want that. and if we talk about, if something positive, probably with the exception. much has been written about recent successful prisoner exchanges in a high-profile humanitarian case . i will not return to this anything positive. unfortunately, i cannot mention this in our relations. it is difficult to state this, among other things, because i have been studying for quite a long time in my current position in other positions of russian american relations. uh, but

we're on the outskirts of a low point and it's not entirely clear. and if possible, get out of here, at least in some even relatively distant future. i remember how you, and many years ago, you worked in their no one, you were an adviser to the envoy in the absence of an ambassador, you led the embassy, ​​and i mention this not just to emphasize your experience, but to ask you a specific question to me personally then. nearly 20 years ago in it could not have occurred to us that we would reach the point in relations that exist today, and then the russian embassy was one of the most popular in washington then

, of course, there were also mutual contradictions of the claim, but in general these were relations that i would i don't know if you agree with this . what do you think, this is a catastrophic drop in the level of relations? this, uh, was a foregone conclusion. and you have uh, i mean, russia cheated and at the same time, american public opinion about the real intentions of the united states or something has changed seriously. changed in the practice of american foreign policy. i remember that time, and as a time of testing, they were different than the current ones, but it was also

not easy. uh, but also a time of some hope , at least hope, that pragmatism will prevail over ideology in us politics. you remember, there was a lot of talk back then about the role that the called neoconservatives, it was discussed how far the republicans stay in power, but allows us to hope for a more stable progressive relationship with russia compared to the democrats, and so on and so forth. today, all this looks naive, because we are aware that washington has developed a very strong inter-party consensus on an anti-russian basis. and uh, those on whom

decision-making in the united states depends, they are united by the desire to at least seriously infringe on the interests of russia, uh, what is called in the limit uh, inflict there strategic defeat is an official part of washington's current foreign policy, of course. this is radically different from what took place 20 years ago , but even then there were no illusions, relations between moscow and washington developed along a sinusoid, there were ups and downs, there were low points by those standards, when there were mutual expulsions of diplomats, there were events that, by and large not allowed to talk about the stability of our relations. but then what happened was that the american

political elites forming circles came to the conclusion that opportunities and the need to put a barrier to the further growth of the role of russia in the international arena, as an independent factor as an independent pole, the emerging multipolar system and came to the conclusion. i think that there is a certain historical chance before them, because if you do not go head-on for a clash with moscow now, it will be more difficult to do it later. i think there are certain, but a historical mistake, at least a major strategic calculation, because we will not bend under american pressure, as never sagged. and you said that relations could not be worse, but then you said that well, of course, there may be a break in relations

, but in this, but at this stage there is no point, but of course, there is one more thing that is worse than a war between nuclear powers and uh there is a lot of talk in the united states about the danger of escalation. true, he sees a paradoxical fact. mostly. this is a danger from russia , you see the dangers, not controlled escalation, mainly in ukraine, which could lead to a direct conflict between moscow and washington. speaking in terms that have long been used in doctrine, strategy, and military planning circles, controlled escalation is something that involves

decision makers constantly weighing risks and balancing those risks with the goals that , the relevant individuals and structures are setting themselves, we see in what is happening now in ukraine an unbridled escalation, an unrestrained increase in rates from washington and a number of other capitals the impression is that people are simply both laziness, they rejected all past experience. they have abandoned what was considered elementary security considerations for themselves and their allies, and like dostoevsky's roulette players, they threw everything they have all

their chips on this card table in the hope that they will win, and i believe , this is an uncontrolled escalation in the previous terminological formats and in the conditions of the previous analysis of this kind of situation of uncontrolled escalation was considered that the situation itself will get out of control and there will be little room for a thoughtful, balanced approach, but to what is happening. uh, do i think it's probably not hard to tell what moods are now taking over the minds of those who are doing this in washington yes, and in a number of european capitals, especially eastern european ones, but i can guarantee you that we are in moscow and those who

direct the special military operation, those who give orders, who formulate goals? we act prudently in cold blood. we are not lose self-control and from this point of view. about any uncontrolled escalation from our point of view from our positions. uh, it's out of the question to be talking about it, maybe we 're still being as responsible as possible, but we're telling our opponents to our opponents that they're playing? with fire and the risks are very high, that is, the russian point of view, the escalation is carefully thought out and controlled. if you understood correctly, it is considered highly undesirable if it cannot be avoided, but you are not sure whether you can

rely on common sense and if you want competent washington planning is wrong? that is how you absolutely correctly conveyed what i wanted to say, and i will add to this the fact that our signals have been simply ignored by the americans lately. they don’t read the impression that colleagues there listen only to themselves and only those who are ready, those who are ready, in fact , to agree and sing along with the description of roles in the western circle, er, and the function assigned to kiev in this scenario. simply amazing is the score, which does not contain any dissonances. she is completely from start to finish anti-russian and people

spare no money no resources in the name of achieving the ephemeral. on the abstract and impossible in its formulation of the goal to defeat russia, this will never happen at the moment when it is necessary to understand that this goal is unattainable, perhaps it will become the moment when there will be chances for, at least a relatively meaningful dialogue with washington, while it doesn't happen. well , many years ago, when you were in a leading position, and at the embassy in the united states, i i remember how there were dinners at the embassy and seminars where i gathered, who is who in washington, i am embarrassed to admit, but i sometimes got acquainted with american politicians , including important senators, for example, how exactly in your embassy and of course, this

allowed not only probably, the american country and officials and experts could be better informed about this. better understand russian positions. right now, when i uh look, and after returning from washington and uh, talking to russian officials with experts and journalists. i have a feeling that washington dc has the most rough idea. it may be even worse with real russian positions and real russian motives, are there any channels today, are there any opportunities, and for russian positions to be more understood , it would be more if washington opened washington to such kind of dialogues. you know dmitry i

also remember the time you were talking about, and then it was something natural. uh, people talked. and in general, i always thought that washington is a city of conversations. everybody there around meetings of conversations of contacts of an exchange of opinions from the most general official and understandable republican statements of subjects to delicate thin. eh, before what is called. let's take a trial balloon. let's send now. oh, the truth in the context of what happened the other day, it also sounds quite ambiguous, but, nevertheless. and now what we see in washington , at least in the russian direction.

it's just some kind of ideological ritual - this is some kind of shamanism. this is a constant beating in the same tambourine. it is the constant belief of each other that already said hundreds and thousands of times, it is extremely unproductive. and most importantly, they simply don’t want to listen to alternative points of view, including our official approaches , but they are stigmatized in quotation marks as misinformation. this is all denied as an attempt to mislead. but you know that by and large the situation is, when is it necessary? listen to your opponent. we, at the very least, record very carefully everything that

is said by american officials and what we receive through closed diplomatic channels. yes, there are certain forms of dialogue - this is not a dialogue, like involvement, like engagement in english, this is an exchange of positions, this is a reminder of where we stand, but this is not the diplomatic work that was practiced before and which is, by and large, needed, we are open to discussion of any issues americans. after the start of their own, all channels of discussion were cut off, with the exception of two or three of the category, the so -called irritants. but this for all the importance of peripheral syu. we need to talk about security about strategic stability, we need to discuss how we

will continue to coexist in conditions that have changed radically compared to what it was not like 20 years ago, but two years ago. unfortunately , we do not record any readiness on the other side to conduct such a dialogue. and now we are leaving for advertising and will be back in just a few minutes. every century there is a country that claims to rule the whole world. every time this pretender to world domination seeks to crush russia and collapses, and to russia the united states of america was very similar to the roman empire while the war is going on, you can prove to everyone that your teeth are still sharp and your muscles are strong .

which made him uneasy. today , the position of the united states is such that we do not want to listen to you , even though the united states calls itself a democracy. in fact, observing their policies, it is impossible not to come to the conclusion that these are dictatorships of the elite. this monster is such a collective monster, he controls america , it is very strongly divided within the state of the trump byden strongly smashed across the poles. here is the polarization of america's premiere sunset. series they can't do anything since before, but in doing so they began to behave in a much more aggressive gamble. this is the behavior of a hegemon who is losing ground and most importantly is being destroyed from the inside

. sed snowmania for 499 rubles. mixit set for 259 rubles. deco screwdriver for 799 rubles. they say you need to get out of your comfort zone. but how long have you been in it for a month bam ends the schedule? look, you can enjoy peace of mind, like a cat on your belly, because mts messengers work at zero, and mts individuals protector artificial intelligence will save you from spam calls and send a report with decryption connect using qr-cotant. magnet buy cheaper. connect the acceptance of payments by qr-code in the tinkoff business application and accept payments via phone or terminal. open an account for business, but tinkoff.ru

receive credits instantly and without phone commissions. he gets up on his feet all day because of work. i drive little. under the sport daily basis, but how to protect the joint thanks to the special collagen form of the triple helix artem promotes support, health, joints with just one capsule per day to protect the joints and spine. x creating ideal images for an active life gifts for loved ones on yandex.market with discounts up to 70%. e.g. realme c33 smartphone for 7.990 hour the rest with a split later.

with products 100% natural magnets tantum verde tablets make sore throats hurt with different tastes in roaming it's more profitable doesn't change, just choose another opera in the application to set the conditions in your favor beeline is on your side with dasha and sasha again a specific bouquet period. yura has sausages on celery at nina and her son's pasta. and

we have a favorable gift period. pyaterochka helps out again. register checks and win prizes. pyaterochka rescues the vtb team will offer a solution when there is a deposit in vtb with a rate of up to 9.5% by a reliable bank, the day is growing much faster, and the details are on vtb.ru. and you are an athlete, a master of sports in profit. open a deposit with a maximum yield of up to 9.5% of vtb, switch to vtb and that's it, it will turn out to strengthen your immune system with an asset of 20 billion probiotics. magnet buy defender of the fatherland

and where all the workers in this office are here i have to believe that every one of them is a traitor or a spy, so the staff better stay away from us your documents. i had a direct order and how many reports have already been sent upstairs that you and the new

intelligence leaders are the germans of today. from monday, on first air, there is a big game and we continue our conversation with the deputy minister of foreign affairs, sergey alekseevich ryabkov sergey alekseevich you know that the american official position is the position of the biden administration, that any search for peace in ukraine should, in general, be focused on decision made in kiev and that of the united states well, here we are guided by ukrainian positions on practice. it just seems unbelievable to me, because when it comes to, after all, issues of war and peace involving nuclear powers, but it's hard for me

to imagine that the administration was not at all interested in talking directly with russia over about the situation in ukraine and some opportunities to control this situation, you have some serious ones. talks with the american country about what is happening in ukraine and how this situation could be overcome. over the past year, we have repeatedly sent signals to washington. they stop with the unacceptability of elements of his line that are important to washington. uh, with regard to ukraine, we have repeatedly noted that washington, in fact , is driving the situation deeper into a dead end; the crisis is growing primarily through american fault. the united states, for its

part, sent us signals in a number of cases, and i will not characterize them. e. from a meaningful point of view, but i will simply use the epithet of peripheral meaning not for the main aspects of what is happening, but for some fragments, the segment is there, which means they accepted decide for yourself what is the point in a dialogue with moscow on these subjects. they don't see. this means that they made a tragic choice, including for ukraine, in favor of continuing pumping this country with weapons to diversify the forms of assistance. full control in terms of military decision-making

providing intelligence assistance advice of any kind of macroeconomic assistance financial assistance they took ukraine into their code and turned it into an anti-russian battering ram without exaggeration. what can be discussed with washington in this situation from the point perspective of diplomacy - this is a huge question. i don't see washington's readiness not to the slightest degree to listen to our approaches to our priorities, what can we say about some kind of diplomatic or political process, it is generally impossible to talk about this in the current situation. well, uh, they say, uh , the president is working hard on the priorities of the war, that he has one vital

priority in the issue of ukraine, namely, to avoid a third world war. however, the united states is supplying ukraine with more and more weapons and is not only supplying more weapons, but teaches how to use these weapons and gives e information of an intelligence nature. in direct mode, helping to direct american artillery provided in ukraine to russian targets, helping to kill russian soldiers and they say. now what can be supplied to ukraine and more long-range artillery and even the prospect of considering providing ukraine with military aviation. although so far the white house says that at this stage. they're doing it yet won't be from your point of view. is eh enough? russia explained to the american leadership that there are some things

i don't want to say, red lines on some invisible, if you want lines in the sand that if the united states crosses, it will have the most serious consequences for america. the video sequence that accompanied your comment by dmitry is an indicator. this is the armored vehicles that the united states , together with its allies, are collecting from almost all over the world. she speaks better than many phrases about whether there is room in the minds of those who make decisions in washington for a political solution is the absurdity of posing the question that a peaceful solution is approaching through further pumping of ukraine with weapons. moreover

, weapons of an ever wider range of more and more long-range heavy modern ones. this absurdity is obvious to everyone, except those who do it and continue. this policy. hopes for a military solution, which is unattainable, all this that is now being loaded onto the next sea transport will be crushed all these leopards, which are sent there from the world by thread, will be thrown down on ukrainian fields by our fire. i i will not list all those situations when we sent warning signals to the americans along various lines. which

, by and large, boils down to the fact that you don’t need to play with fire, you don’t need to demonstrate, this is a bet on a complete and uncontested escalation. you spoke about the risk of a third world war. i note the banalization of the topic of the use of nuclear weapons. this is a sad aspect of what is happening now in the public space, such things are not joked. russia has been and remains committed to the basic postulate of the permissibility of nuclear war. we do not have changes in doctrinal documents, which were also mentioned many times, but at the same time we see that the escalation course of the west has no limits and

a question arises. where is the line on which they will stop somewhere in general limit. playing with fire, which should appear, in the end, i would not like to play the role of some kind of prophets in quotation marks or a predictor here, but i think that what is happening now in the history books of the next decades will be described as one of the most difficult tests of the entire system international relations for all the time of its existence. as a matter of fact for all the time , not only after the second world war, but throughout the centuries, and the responsibility for this

risk, a colossal risk, is undoubtedly on those people whom we now see in this hall. it is they who bring the world to the edge to the line from which we must retreat. in the united states, it is often written that russia is objectively losing the war in ukraine and that for a long time russia will not be able to continue this fight at the current level of effort, but there are a small problem, like today eh hay, that russia that putin does not agree with this, and that they do not accept the version of the inevitable eh, victory of the collective west would it be correct to say that the whole experience of this struggle

is special operations of what happened before this decision go on a special operation, what does all this say that although russia , to put it mildly, they are looking for military adventures, but nevertheless the idea that russian resources and the russian will to continue this fight is, if you want, in a deplorable state, that this has nothing to do with reality , as you mentioned in moscow, at the beginning of your comment, the word objectively objectively loses and it is strange to hear this word from the same people who broadcast that war is peace, that only through the pumping of arms

has we will be able they will hasten the moment of a diplomatic solution. it's not even through the looking glass, it's an absurdist approach. e in style. uh, i don't know a wife, if you want people who are so immersed in the world of their own illusions, multiplied by hatred to my country. they are socially dangerous. they are civilizationally dangerous. i certainly tend to think that they just don't want to see reality like that. what is it, and what is reality? that we cannot be defeated in this fight.

we will do everything to ensure that the victory remains with us and that all the goals of the special military operation are unconditionally achieved and the last question concerns the revelations of saymore, who is well known and his accusations that the administration organized the undermining, and the nord stream one nord stream 2 and not just byte administration. well, the order was in cash by the president, that the organization of this operation was entrusted to the national security adviser to the president of the united states, jake sullin, and the director of the cia, and william bans, whom you know well from that time, and when he was ambassador, but in moscow, do you believe this accusation? do you consider them proven enough? this is

an outrageous act of sabotage, a terrorist act of unimaginable proportions. this is the transition of the us administration to a quality that, by and large, was previously considered unthinkable and an unacceptable strike on one of the key critical infrastructure facilities. but this, together with the theme, is a demonstration of the fact that, in a manner characteristic of washington, they tried to kill several birds with one stone at once . inflict damage, serious damage, we recognize this as a russian economic interest . along with this, again. show space in quotation marks of allies in europe, including the closest ally, and free up space

for export supplies of american liquefied gas, in my opinion, not bad. all this looks like in the calculations of those who planned washington and those who carried out this act of sabotage, then we have no doubts about the responsibility for the united states, and we will continue to work so that this does not remain in the past without consequences for the united states among the nearest plans is an in-depth discussion of this topic at one of the meetings. un security councils you said that you have no doubt that the responsibility, the united states, i understand correctly what you said is. uh, not uh, just because of uh, the credibility of symore's evidence, it's good that russia exists

some sources of information of their own and these sources reinforce your beliefs about the responsibility of washington. this was said, a few months ago on our part in this regard, our position has not changed. and the question is the reliability of the sources. it's just not worth it as a matter of fact already a proven fact. and you considered it proven even before how well you published your article, that is, there were sites. no, we still know it correctly , of course, regardless of whether this publication would appear or not, we would adhered to the same opinion, and you said that e would be unambiguous. if you understand correctly. uh, the russian response and mentioned the need for an independent

international investigation. with obligatory russian participation, the way the us allies in europe behave, including the scandinavian countries, are, in fact, boorish, not responding to our appeal at the highest political level, the way our specialists, including those from gazprom our investigators have been denied access to materials throughout this entire time. how they are not allowed to join the investigative actions. eh, this is also a signal in itself , regardless of the information that we have, which we receive on our own. this is also a marker of what really happened there and how it all played out. and after that

, the announcement from nato looks like the height of cynicism, and the fact that a certain group is being created in nato that will discuss the security of critical infrastructure. you present what the whole world already knows now. admit it. i think that without such confessions. trust in the alliance will continue to fall , including in countries that are generally anti-nato-minded, it is difficult to attribute. fine. so you mentioned, uh, an independent international investigation that it is necessary, you said that it would be discussed in the security council. he. well, in general, i think that russia has sufficient experience of that kind. e appeals that they e give the opportunity well.

designate to explain the russian positions, but in general, they do not bring immediate practical results, and i apologize that i ask you this question persistently. you are a high-ranking diplomat, and c. naturally. talk about seeking diplomatic solutions through diplomatic measures, but i heard in moscow from other people in other departments. that such an act , what was done opposite the nord stream , cannot remain without a significant answer, so that such things do not happen again. i didn't come up with uh, and i didn't get any impression of a login. dmitry, i am grateful to you for fixing our attitude to the political and diplomatic movement, i will not say a decision, but a movement towards the clarification of the truth.

i, like you, deeply doubt that the public on the other side will be ready to play by the rules here and honestly generally talk about some kind of dignity about observing the elementary norms of interstate relations of interstate hostel. if you want, you don't have to. you understand these crooks, these are people who cannot be trusted, and we do not trust them. what about different forms? the responses or reactions you talked about, let's see what will happen next and if something will happen to points of view. uh, acknowledging responsibility for what happened and establishing the truth through an international investigation, in any case , no cards are on the table in advance, but further steps. we will not post. thank you. and

the very last of the last questions. this is , of course, how they reacted. u on this situation in the nord stream those who are too. and if you want, but to the side, they also struck a blow. first of all, germany and not, and some other eu countries that hoped to receive russian gas. have you seen uh some kind of encouraging reaction on their part, some kind of pressure on the united states so that such things do not happen again or they act like indifferent puppets . unfortunately, nothing like the desire to protect themselves from such excesses in the future, somehow protect and advance their own interests. we do not see the total - and total subordination to the american

is not even dictate, but an american signal, and the breath of political air from washington is what today is the alpha and omega in the largest european capitals. of course in brussels as the capital. let's say the european union. thank you so much for this conversation. let's just say. it was a conversation, not too optimistic, but i think very informative and very useful for understanding russian policy and for a better understanding. how russia sees washington's actions once again great. thank you, thank you, and now we're leaving for advertising and will be back in just a few minutes.

super sales back, and today discounts on realme smartphones up to 40%, and timberg electric razor for 1999 rubles. and you know that in tinkoff investments there is a social network for investors, matvey subscribed to investors with high returns and how do they earn? install the tinkoff investment app and earn the largest social networks for investors. he is so alone. download the offer.

purchases in fix price even more profitable save here and now special prices on the fix price card it's good to be sad. but with me in roaming it is more profitable not to change the tariff. just choose another opera in the app to set the conditions in your favor beeline is on your side february 1st to 28th. shop canned food with magnet card, magnet family and magnet extra and get a chance to win a year supply of uncle vanya brand love fast. love long. love sweet. we are talking about sleep. what do you think about welson? you can fall asleep in just 20 minutes , sleep soundly during the night and wake up easily in the morning sleep lovers do not cause addictions. pay less sardines, fish, chaos, 690 to 5 million. and now, you use

shoes in children's loans from sovcombank intended. download the magnet app. play the game and win give gifts from the bottom of your heart big. kfc download magnet app. play the game and win, call to buy with a card from the application or register checks in the chatbot to participate in the draw. give gifts from the heart. gifts for loved ones on yandex.market with discounts up to 70%. for example, the polaris electric shaver for only 2.490 rubles. and a cashback of 300 plus ritter sport points is a variety of chocolate flavors that fills the day with bright colors. your day, your taste, your choice. 12 pro or

another model and we will return up to half the price to the account for new and existing beeline subscribers on your side, when at home it’s better for everything close interest decision money grows much faster master of sports with a maximum yield of up to 9.5% vtb and everything will work out. choose gifts for your loved ones and give with all your heart. great love comes magnet. download the magnet app. play

the game and win we give gifts from the bottom of our hearts magnet. there is a big game on the air and we continue to discuss american policy towards russia and of course what takes place in ukraine with a lieutenant general. it has been repeatedly said that america does not want from a practical point of view, nothing is more important than

what they say they do. and so. let's listen to just explained american policy regarding this state conflict. the us is not encouraging ukraine to return crimea, but it is only kiev who decides. the focus of the white house administration right now is to help ukraine advance east, which is to say, if i understand the secretary of state correctly. eh, it says that we, of course, want peace, but we will not only prepare for war, but we will move ukraine to ukraine what to do with american weapons, how to use them, including against territory that russia considers absolutely its own. you know, it seems to me that e- uh, well, those words that blinkin said. i don't know to whom they were addressed, but i don't

think there is even one serious politician in this world who believes in the independence of, uh, decisions made by the ukrainian leadership. this is absolutely, uh, absolutely stupid. uh, so i don't know, uh another thing is that, uh, the americans, of course, want peace. maybe, i don’t know, i admit that they would like to end the conflict, but naturally, only on their own terms , only, if russia, if they suffer a crushing defeat, then in any case they will lose, and this, of course, will not happen how they help ukrainians advance in the east. i don’t really understand, because uh, ukraine now uh is about the donbass, then they are on the defensive, right? there they try to counterattack, but all all their counterattacks safely, the losses are still

large, uh equipment, which, uh, the americans are going to supply. by the way, here, if you paid attention, then the latest rammstein , despite the preliminary announcements by the ministers of foreign affairs of kuleba that wait for surprises, expect, so to speak, epoch-making statements and epoch-making results. it will be aircraft. e. well, it's called themselves there are plane meetings in this er ramstein in brussels, but none of this happened, because er, i think that after all the americans, of course, they themselves should understand, or maybe they were informed of the position of the uh of the russian leadership. what if i have to, uh, if they really deliver combat aircraft to ukraine, then strikes at those on base airfields. and i

repeat once again the basing of these aircraft on ukrainian territory is out of the question in the foreseeable future. and why are they so sure that they cannot be based on the ukrainian church, purely technical reasons, firstly, the airfield network of ukraine e. she er, was pretty much. uh, critical damaged in the first months. uh, special operation. of course, lanes can be repaired and taxiways can be repaired, but uh for operation. uh, western planes. it is necessary to create a system of e, repair and maintenance. it's not just some know it's a tank. maybe some kind of mobile there, huh? make a repair shop with an airplane, so it won’t work ; airplanes are serviced after each before departure and after landing. eh, they are being repaired, too , it is also impossible to distill them somewhere else for repair. uh, so they should

be repaired at the airport. that is , there must be an appropriate structure at the home airfield that allows aircraft to be serviced and repaired, and during the course of aircraft combat operations. naturally, they can receive various injuries and land in emergency mode. so i don't see the possibility. e based in the sixteenth, for example, at the ukrainian airfield. even plus, uh, one must keep in mind that the airfield network. uh. this is a completely normal target for defeat on ukrainian territory, and these airfields regularly, as they say people regularly fly there, as people who say where is located in the zone of a special military operation, of course, you know better than me at the time of the war in korea many years ago, soviet planes by soviet pilots took off from the territory of the

people's republic of china and fought from the sky with american airplanes and returned to their airfields. and it did not lead to a direct clash between the soviet union and the united states. i mention this, uh, because this is the comparison that how do you you know, they often do in washington when they say, well, yes, in moscow there is this kind of threatening rhetoric. uh, in fact, moscow will not go for this escalation jump. how will you respond to this? z. well, first of all, you see, all these parallels with the korean war , after all, 70 years have passed since then, just in case. a lot has changed, eh. and therefore, the planes are different and the possibilities are different and , uh, relations between countries are different, what happened in the fifty-third year later, uh, 7 years after the end of world war ii, uh

to allow a direct clash there, uh, the soviet union of china, with the united states. i think the united states both the soviet leadership and the american leadership understood that they did not need this clash for the sake of korea. it's a completely different thing here, ukraine is not korea, russia is not the soviet union and the united states is not the united states that was the year 53. so now the stakes are much higher, but for me personally. uh, correct me if you don't agree, the main joy is tom what, uh, ukraine is not just a territory next to russia is part of the historical past of russia, russian people live there and for russia this is not some kind of peripheral operation. that's why i say that ukraine is not korea and the rates are now e times higher than e. it was

in the fifties during the korean conflict that the united states was sure that putin was bluffing. well, i don't know how else to convince them, heh, that putin is not bluffing. and if, uh , putin, uh, decided to, uh, so to speak, conduct special military operations in order to protect the people of donbass, despite the fact that after the recognition of the independence of the republics , putin publicly addressed the presidential one. stop shelling the donbas otherwise. we will have to intervene, we have recognized their independence. and when, instead of stopping e, the ukrainian leadership decided to intensify the shelling. well, what do the americans say, so we knew that there would be a russian invasion. well, and that no one has been hiding this for the last few days, when the group was concentrated and after the actual ultimatum of putin's ultimatum , which was not fulfilled. it seems to me doubt

there is no doubt that the operation will be, uh, no one had granik in washington, new complaints about putin say that he is behaving incorrectly. let's listen to what the leading diplomatic correspondent sneng elantonsson has just said. on the eve of the anniversary of the russian invasion next week, us and western leaders are preparing for a show of unity and strength designed to prove once and for all that nato is involved in the conflict for a long time and until the defeat of moscow in order to end the war on ukraine, on terms acceptable to its president, volodymyr zelensky, their west will need to convince russian leader vladimir putin that he is losing his fortune in this putin does not think he is losing the outside world knows that putin does not there is no diplomatic framework for ceasefire negotiations and you live in moscow you

teach imo you meet many people with officials with experts with normal people who are not involved in decision-making on foreign policy we have an idea what are putin's positions at least as the president these positions form? tell us the general atmosphere in moscow and the opinions of the people you meet. you see some kind of pressure , some prerequisites for russia to admit defeat. i think that these people, as if they are in another reality , i often remember the words of energy in the fourteenth year. she said that putin is in a different reality. and after that i am convinced many, many times.