and in capitals around the world and in this sense , the president is easily ahead of everyone else. although many progressive far-reaching plans in kennedy's policy were not realized after his assassination, a few very significant ones remained. i think mr. kennedy has done a lot for civil rights, and that goes for the attorney general. they were both people of good will. and i think we need to realize the importance of this. i ask you to assure that you will not prevent these students from entering the building, that you are peacefully step aside, fulfilling your constitutional duty as a result, with the support of federal troops. the kennedy administration secured admission of black students to the public south. not finished yet. next

year it is the south that will decide. whoever becomes president will be who the south votes for, and you will see that the south will not support all candidates. that evening, kennedy addressed the nation. considered by many to be the best presidential speech on civil rights since abraham lincoln, with one man's rights under threat. the rights of all are infringed the rest, if the american, because of the color of his skin, cannot enjoy the full free life that we all desire, who among us will agree to change the light of his skin. one hundred years have passed since president lincoln freed the slaves. but their descendants and grandchildren are still not completely free. and this nation, despite all its successes and hopes , will not be free until they are free. all its citizens. we are facing a moral

crisis, as a country and as a people this seriously affects our country and everything. why are we we speak. i ask for the help of all our citizens. thank you very much. director there's a big game on the air today we're talking to konstantin remchukov, editor-in-chief and owner of an independent newspaper. konstantin are very glad to see you. thanks for taking the time, good evening. we are living. as it were, so to speak, at a very important and very interesting time, it is not always easy forever, interesting and what interests me especially to start

our conversation. this is your opinion on the meaning of the recent statement by president vladimir putin, his statement at the parade in honor of the day victory where he said that russia is waging a real war, i emphasize a real war. and not against ukraine, not against the zelensky government, but against the globalist. i say honestly. i agree with this. i am glad that this statement was made with such accuracy. but it is not always clear to me when i hear discussions on russian tv programs and read newspapers. it is not always clear to me what is from the point of view of russian experts. this means, what specific consequences of such a statement should be expected or even desirable

expect. but, firstly, i would like to say that such an assessment of the status of russia's confrontation with the west is a consistent and confident point of view of the president, because i am not only following his performance. sometimes you have to hear it in some other formats. uh, for example, we had a meeting of editors-in-chief. uh, on the eve of the ninth of may, uh with president vladimir putin and the essence of uh, his positions boil down to the fact that nato as an institution, in fact, is an anti-russian orientation of no other from the point of view of vladimir putin, nato does not have tasks more important than the anti-russian orientation, and he justifies

this. at the same time, when you start looking, approximately the time when these suspicions of putin were updated, i inevitably come to the date, april 3, 2008, when, at the nato summit in bucharest, uh , the summit resolution said exactly. definitely. we agreed today that ukraine and georgia will become members. nato this was april 3rd april 2008. if you look at a map of the black sea, for example, then you you will see that turkey is a member of nato romania bulgaria is a member of nato if it becomes ukraine and the black sea power, georgia then the entire black sea around russia becomes owned by nato countries - this is the first, second as a nato country there is a high probability.

at least it cannot be assumed. why not ukraine breaks the lease agreement with russia. uh, sevastopol of sevastopol and russian ships move out into the russian bay and are locked up. here are these countries. this is a completely geopolitical decision. this is reality. this reality. it's just that this is not the point of view of just the president. it's real. no, i mean that i was the trigger for so many things that then, i think, happened because they started watching. what is nato means and look. can nato accept its composition of countries that have territorial conflicts ? in this, but it also fits in, and the geopolitical, geostrategic and historical significance of the crimea in these cases

exists and russia pushes back. e into the novorossiysk bay, in fact, without the right to independently exit. wherever you are from this bay, then , uh, it seems to me from the point of view. e russia as a great power. this absolutely unacceptable subsequent development of events showed that the implementation of this plan, that ukraine should become a member of nato, uh, was consistently carried out moreover, here i was yesterday listening to jeff and sax, uh, a famous scientist who was a consultant to the russian government in the ninety-first year, who devoted 10 minutes. linking to the observation that victoria nuland was national security adviser to u.s. vice president cheney, during the bush era, then she was u.s. ambassador to nato, then she was

successively u.s. deputy head of the u.s. foreign office, and e noted . how is it that for 20 years there is one person who expresses a certain point of view regarding, er. what should be the fate of ukraine and russia, these should be countries that oppose each other. well, if you look at these things, uh, from the point of view, well, an objective history of how everything developed, then, it seems to me, nothing surprising. uh, not in the fact that putin, uh , now recognizes the nature of this confrontation, if we look at today's statement, it seems to me that there is even more evidence. today , us treasury secretary janet yellin spoke in japan , there is a meeting of the treasury secretary, central bankers the sevens and they will figure out ways to keep russia from bypassing the males, and this is

hmm her speech. uh, clearly indicates that the task of the west is to reduce russia's income in such a way that it cannot upgrade its military potential, if we look at , uh, military arsenals or modern wars or their characteristics, then we must absolutely admit it. that the nature of wars has not changed for many decades, if not centuries, it is the same people fighting for interests for lands for territories for e, some kind of privilege. but the nature of wars varies greatly depending on the technologies that are used in weapons today. the technologies that distinguish modern wars from previous ones are that weapons hit from much longer distances, they are much more accurate and finally. third. this weapon is much faster. if we take even

hypersonic e, missiles in this way and a longer distance, higher accuracy and e, greater speed is achieved using high-tech equipment, microchips and so on, so suffocation on the one hand is russia so e exponent on the other hand. china is fighting against it in about the same microchip fight. e from my point of view character. uh, absolutely clear intention to reduce the ability of the armed forces of these countries to withstand the constantly updated technologies used by western countries, which is not an existential threat. well, okay. and why is it not so easy to achieve. this creates an escalation risk. it pushes china russia closer to each other. why does the collective west take such a risk.

is it really because of ukraine? no, it seems to me that, uh, the collective west, china began , relatively speaking, to press under president trump and when ukraine was not on the agenda, but a huge list of sanctions had already been introduced, and then it was clarified and clarified and clarified and came to the conclusion that it is impossible for china to receive the most er, advanced. ah, semiconductors. china has invested in recent years. there are more than 10 billion dollars and simple conductors. eh, maybe i think increased production by 40-45 percent. and here are the most, uh, the coolest, smallest microchips that, uh, correspond to modern technologies themselves, they are made in taiwan and the americans have introduced, uh, a supply ban. uh, this type of chinese product is absolutely clear definition so that these semiconductors are not used in the creation

of weapons. i understand. uh, china is better than russia because china is really because of its very impressive economic growth because of the size of its population. and this everything is gradually being translated into chinese military capabilities. indeed, from the point of view of many american experts, china poses a threat not only to american hegemony, but if you like, even to american security and prosperity in a number of important aspects, but what? and such fury, such readiness to put pressure on russia all the time, and not only on the russian authorities, not only on the russian armed forces, but also by entering more and more sanctions, which frankly frankly fundamentally hurts the interests for the sake of normal russian people. why is all this

being done? collective west? no? well , it seems to me, well, my understanding is that it's very difficult to refute that from the very beginning. the west did not want russia to be very strong after the collapse of the soviet union, and because this is the order that is called the order based on rules. it was formed just after the collapse of the socialist system in eastern europe and the fall of the soviet union, since until then, in the conditions of the cold war , the norms of the international plan were in effect. uh, rights plus the recognized geopolitical interests of certain countries and somehow managed to negotiate. at the very least. and when the soviet union, uh, collapsed, when the warsaw pact disappeared, the americans realized that now the opportunity to create world a based on the rules that they would

dictate, painfully weak, uh, was russia uh. at this point, when they formed these rules. e, then it seemed that this is the result of the victory in the cold war. as russia gained economic power and began a second, but in that period won in russia, i did not live and i can tell you responsibly that at the beginning after the cold war, the opinion of the majority of not only american experts on american politicians was that russia did not lose the cold war. and that the whole civilized world won it and that the alternative to the cold war would not be american dominance, but the partnership with russia went on like this for several years, then all this disappeared somewhere and a new consensus arose that no, russia

suffered, but defeat. that's what i'm trying to understand. yes, there is a certain logic of victory if you decide that you have won, then they have certain advantages from this victory, and when they begin to deny you this, as russia began at first a little primakov, and then more and more seriously under putin, this causes irritation of concern. well, what i sincerely cannot understand is why the collective west has gone so far. that we are seriously talking about the possibility of a third world war, the result, which for the collective west, to put it mildly, would be no better than for russia. this degree of fury of this degree, but if you want it is very

difficult for me to explain the centrality of the topic of the fight against russia for the collective west on the basis of geopolitical interests, and therefore i sincerely would like to know your opinion, because and you are not only an outstanding journalist. eh, but you are also a philosopher , you don’t understand the meaning of ideology, the meaning of ideas, the meaning of spiritual factors, and that’s how it all merged. what is the hatred in which russia today faces in the collective west, the hatred that, by the way, is not shared anywhere else and by anyone? dmitry, well, you started your speech, mentioning how at the beginning they said that it was not russia who lost, but this narrative is quite ideological. i can come up with these myself. it's a matter of interpreting the facts burn about the other. uh, if we take the autumn of the ninety-first year, uh, the soviet union the soviet union is disintegrating, it is already clear that

yeltsin is forming a new team of gaidar, uh, american experts are coming who have just worked in poland and in poland they recommended freezing the payment of the polish debt 35 billion dollars and explained that if the poles do not pay for this debt. this will create the prerequisites for the new development of the fish. these same people. they wrote in russia advised quite another. they advised exactly that seven ministers arrived. uh, the big seven finance came, uh, into gaidar's office. and exactly the same document was on the table, they ended, but he was responsible for the reforms. the negotiations are over. gaidar comes out with a pale face and says they refused on all counts, they said you will pay every penny in every

percentage. everything you won't have a year. here is this question about how initially, when the soviet union collapsed and russia took on the debt of the former soviet union, she did not receive benefits on any of the credits that the soviet union took for all countries, but, which later became independent, and then they were part of the soviet union, so i would like to say, that this initially from my point of view shows that there is no particular enthusiasm in fact, for russia to, uh, begin to develop rapidly and achieve some results hmm said i'm not very important from my point of view the right things. you said in fact i think that in the beginning there was the enthusiasm for cooperating with the new russia only, uh, this enthusiasm suggested that the collective west had a new favorite poodle. and when it turned out that this

is not a poodle, they are something completely different, but at first they can be a doberman pitcher, and then it turned out that in general a tiger. it was then, then, that the emotional, and then well-thought-out hatred of russia arose, well, there are aspects to hatred and ethnic russianness, and many , as you know, 25 million people. the russians ended up on the other side of the border in the moment when the soviet union collapsed, the problem immediately arose of the language of schools of culture, autonomy, in general, the existence of people who lived there, previous years and not according to their everests, they say they were abroad at that moment, and already then i was struck that uh, well how the modern world develops. so, uh, at the forefront, and very often the interests of minorities are put. there is even such a term as tyranny of minorities. what can it be ethnic er,

racial sexual cultural whatever? so you can protect uh, furry animals you can demand that fur coats not be made from them, but no one has ever seriously defended the rights of russians, and gradually this topic began to accumulate and they even continue to remain silent to this day. which is one of the motives. eh? the policy of protecting the people of donbass, which was formulated by the leadership of russia, is the protection of the rights of the people of donbass, here we do not look . they are russians, not russian-speaking or belong to russian culture at their very e, existence is worthy. and here is this aspect on which it still soaks , everything is hushed up, anything can be said as motives. why is there nato expansion to the east, even recognized. uh, supporting color revolutions is what the kremlin didn't like . yes, but it's never said that defending

the rights of russians was one of the triggers. putin's decision, uh, february 24, because in the end, if russia is not able to protect the russians, then in general in the world. there is no power that can do this. it's already existential. and this is where the philosophical and ideological choice is just said. yes , because i can, of course, continue remain the leader of the country. i do not defend russians, but whom i simply discriminate, then i cannot consider that my mission is successful. and so, if today we don’t hear that such a topic exists, we don’t hear at all at any level, then, it seems to me, this is also one of the motives that should be considered when we are interested in why such antagonism? so i told you one thing, what 's the thing about how uh respect for the rights of minorities that has become part of uh, but if you want, the new

orthodoxy in the west, like uh, russians minorities are absolutely excluded from this. this is a discovery. these are new knowledge, new feelings, new emotions. get out your legs, which has never been, let's start with this, feature films have never been shot in space. how is yevgeny vladimirovna feeling all right? i am amazed , shocked, because this is a feat. so i was very worried, but everything is reliable. i am a doctor. i know you want to exhale crying call everyone you know and tell them to definitely watch it. the first time was

scary, there is infinity. it can't be conveyed words. feel the real cosmos challenge have dishwashing up to 50% off panty diapers, haggis 149 rub. in appendix

with dreams. find your home on tsian among a huge database of suburban real estate. meet the new card for life from vtb share free transfers and feelings catch 1,000 rubles. after the first purchase. get a new card for life on vtb.ru. your fresh croissants of an international brand are always waiting for you here. friendly service cozy cafe and high-quality fuel good? as at home weakness swirled

holy source, tune in to the purity of sensations, i'm a photographer. if in the pictures it’s easy for me to fix skin problems, then in life their disguise , not the exit of akriderm gk of complex action helps fight inflammation, reddening, infection from itching on the skin and gives more confidence in life and meals, and maintain healthy skin beauty we took a loan from sovcombank up to 5 mln

. this is a twenty- first century human smartphone in tele2, minutes and gigabytes are not never burn and gigabytes are transferred again where to buy at the post office

our film crew is now a woman who came to war is already a heroic deed. i have always said. give me a company of women, i 'll be the happiest commander in the world. a good reliable comrade with his woman is more willing in this work, especially diligent work, the most important thing. do not sneeze during the shot about the weapon, explaining that the weapon is being thrown to me, this must be done, and i will do it. and cry - it will be later. not both legs hit a few splinters of life in the event that the shelling can be repeated, what does a woman do in the war one big common cause bring

victory closer special report of a woman on the line of fire on sunday on first on the air a big game today we are talking with konstantin remchukov, chief editor and owner of an independent newspaper one from the foundations of the american political economic system. this is respect for private property. and literally almost every day we read about some new sanctions, new confiscations russian property. we are now reading that some resources are being taken away from konstantin malafeev and they are going to transfer them to ukraine; they are preparing a legislative framework

in order to transfer russian shares. without investigation, without the possibility of the defendants to explain their point of view, present their documents. so, how it turns out that in the struggle for western democracy, which includes, as a fundamental democratic right , the right to private property, as it turns out, which is very easy, in fact, without a serious dispute within these countries, the united states and the european union are going to such a trampling on private property in order to, uh, try to defeat russia. and this is completely, uh, obviously, that uh, the inertia of the struggle, uh, with russia by any means available. it seems to me that it has led to the fact that in

the heat of this struggle, and the people in the west who are responsible for the application of these sanctions have made these serious mistakes that will have , uh, long-term and unfortunately for them. uh, dramatic consequences. uh, that is, the west will cease to fulfill the role, uh, that it did it economically after world war ii, and uh, it's a man-made thing, because it's not just about property disrespect, because there's case law in a lot of countries. you know, yes, if they made such a decision regarding the property of the russian oligarchs, then it will always be possible, by analogy with the saudis, businessmen, first to foreigners and to indian and to some emirates, and then you look to actually. this is the first thing, and the second from my point of view is even more serious consequences will have here the dollar, e is the key

currency, and the world. the british waters agreements signed by america are responsible for the order in this area, money has certain functions as a means of payment. yes for example, yes went paid off the measure is worth the cost. how much should i pay for this glass of water? but one of the most important functions is that money performs the function of a means of accumulating wealth. and now, when the sanctions were introduced. on savings, that is, you can not use what you 10 years ago traded in something you saved up dollars. and they tell you now your accounts are frozen, you can’t, that is, this function of money that i have accumulated in an absolutely legal way, but now that i am under sanctions, i can’t use them, maybe even the leaders of america do not realize that they are undermining the function of the currency as a means of accumulation. they undermine trust and demand for this currency and the whole world is watching this latin

america the chinese are asians everything, because they understand that today they trade and sell . says the account is stopped, and your arrested and you can not use it. and i saved this money for old age. i wanted them, uh, to serve me later, so that i would not immediately spend them. therefore, these two things are leading to the undermining of the main ones on which the west existed after the second world war. property is questioned, it is not unconditional, and it is not forfeited in this sense. it is no different from the practice criticized by the west, for example, the soviet union when e in totalitarian state could uh confiscate property. eh, just like that , without a trial, the decision of the troika is now being accepted by the same troika. it's the same decision. and finally, your currency is not needed, because such risks associated with the accumulation of this currency, no reasonable businessman. can not

afford to become not only a means of accumulation, as always, and e financial transactions of the currency become a means of war, probably undermines the mistrust in the experimentation. yes, they say so, but the calculation tools, of course, therefore, uh, i'm talking here, let's go. this is the logic of why e dollars e will lose its role in the world? why other countries will switch to other currencies in their calculations not because other currencies are better than dollars is not the dollar as before. this is, uh, a very good currency, but because the policy of the current authorities. this is the one that shows that if , uh, a means of payment turns into a tool for punishing the confiscation and expropriation of the lawless, then why should i, uh, take the risk and make a deal in this currency,

uh, with such an interesting conversation. well, i simply have to ask you about china, i have to ask him, because, firstly, the outcome of this struggle between russia and the collective west will largely depend on the position. china has, of course, other very important countries. er, india brazil but china for a number of reasons is the most obvious force here, and which will influence the outcome on the nature of this struggle, well , the second. you know china well , you have written about it many times and your opinion is very interesting, who will still make china in this situations where his sympathy, as it seems to me, is with russia , but when his economic interests are in many western countries, and as you rightly said, despite the vastness of the chinese economy, china still depends on the same e chips that well are not under the control

of the collective west but which is the collective west in many ways. if you want can regulate in such a way that china is not like what china will do in this situation, china here at the moment. here is today the minister of foreign affairs. china there he was in germany the day before yesterday. yesterday was in paris today near flew, and he is trying to convince the european union. and that the european union should not blindly follow the interests of the united states of america if we analyze the whole range of relations between the west and china now, from my point of view, it turns out that there are such contradictions, that there is no unity at several levels, there is no transatlantic unity, we know, as a macron, being in beijing from surveying from the policy of the united states of america towards taiwan the second level within the european union there are countries with

different points of view, the third level. within the countries themselves, there are various political forces that uh pursue different interests, and finally, the fourth level of business in these countries, for example, the head of the association, uh, of the united states of america semiconductor manufacturers made a statement. the chinese semiconductor market is the most dynamic and largest in the world, and the concern of the us administration that prevents the supply of these conductors is hindering our business. we want be in that market, because if you're not in the most dynamic market, you end up losing. and these four levels of contradictions. they are not removed now. west uh, western europe uh, is trying to find a new slogan for the german chancellor shel. uh, speaking in the european parliament. the day before yesterday i said the following phrase. we must not break off relations. with china, we need to control risk smartly, and

they control risk control. they use this, uh, phrase where the risk is. here, and he says, this should be the slogan, what derisking is to control risks it means to reduce long-term economic dependence on china and the americans, uh, are talking about going we say that we are turning to countries india indonesia and vietnam to take china's place in global supply chains so that we also reduce risks in dependence on china, that is, there is an economic struggle. china is trying, taking advantage of its development energy. e. to influence the various partners, the outcome of this struggle, based on these contradictions, which i said is not clear. no one today, but china is fighting for its economic interests. i must say that the russian leadership understands this, so they do not insist when they behave. uh, not quite as loyal as we would like to understand

that they have their own interests, but uh, the long-term logic, it seems to me, is that china is a strategic adversary of america and china most likely understands this current affairs. but if you look at 10-15 years, then the struggle for the top of the world between china and the united states of america, china cannot understand that he is an enemy of the americans and, most likely, uh, the west in general. well, and, probably, e in beijing understand. what, uh, if russia had been defeated in this fight, and china would have been sitting on a hill at that time and waiting. how will the conflict between uh naval washington end, if this happened, then in washington they would not feel any sense of gratitude to china, but they would say, well,

look, we managed to put them in their place once. and now, therefore, we must really remove them, like an important serious factor, as a serious competitor of the united states in beijing, that if russia could not cope, and with the collective west, then the next one would definitely be chinese , or i'm simplifying. no, i think that the chinese generally understand everything, but they are defiantly in last place. took a position on uh, as if not to comment on some things with words, so that these words would not be found fault, but the reflection of the correctness of your hypothesis is the statistics from january 1 of this year to may 1 of this year according to the china customs service between russia and china increased by 43%

china's exports to russia by 67% by 67%. it's the same, but phenomenal by 2/3 over the previous year. at the same time, we look at how, despite all the rhetoric of germany as the main european economy, it has reduced trade with china by 12%. and increased trade with america by 14 , there is an obvious reorientation to the american market at the expense of china, so the chinese see all this, but i say they do not comment, but increase their exports by 43% with russia by 67%. this eloquence of any words does not happen, so the americans are trying to figure out what is behind this increase. isn't hidden in this increase in trade the supply in russia of what the west does not want

russia to receive. well, uh, the west doesn't really want russia to get anything. at this stage, but of course, the priority for uh is washington and brussels. you're absolutely right. these are those things. these are technologies that are either related to the defense industry, or may have a dual use . constantine is huge to you. thank you. we spoke very complex non-one-dimensional things. and you have an amazing ability to explain the most difficult things in a way that a normal person like me can understand, thank you very much and we hope to see you again, everything will be on our program soon, this is the pain center of the era of nerves, if anything from me turned out like this thanks to parsnips. my connection with

voznesensky is not a single one. we are dissolving in human numbers, it is not by chance that he was a mournful friend. yes, that is, he was interested in what is happening in europe in poetry in literature in music in modean style, you were a happy person when you have the opportunity all your life to do what you love on the ninetieth birthday of andrei voznesensky the premiere of a documentary film today at the first, of course, we will warm up with you. i will never see you. in general, i don’t know, wait, oh, even sunbeds

were occupied. in the sense of go have fun mts travel is a reliable hotel booking service with free roaming and cashback, have time for may tinkov cashback, bitch, contacts of seventy percent in popular categories when buying in your favorite stores. checkout any tinkoff card participates in every place from may 15 to may 28 and get up to 70% cashback. he is such a one body and hair care for the whole family. collect a collection of superfood flavors from the mission more volume more benefit choose with discounts on wildberries tele2 this is a smartphone of a 21st century person.

it's also a translator. let's better i will transfer it to high-quality internet mobile internet beeline has become two more reliable beeline on your side. wow i wish now kfc whole basket crispy and juicy crust.

choose your basket from 169 rubles. why do we so much is it for roasting krishna to fry everything? this is for fish for meat. and this is if someone asks too many questions a new collection, royal kyuhyun pans with a discount of up to 70%. save magnets and get the price even lower in the magnet app. meet the new card for life from vtb, share free transfers and feelings. catch 1,000 rubles. after the first purchase. issue a new card for life on vtb.ru.

and how is the internet at speed? well, how is it? even faster, but you can connect, only with us activate megapower with 5g and it will be faster megafon is the number one mobile operator of all. tinkoff cash loan to the card immediately deferral of the first payment up to 90 days issue a cash loan and receive money right now. he is such a premiere on football with denis kazansky on sunday at the first big bookmaker of the russian

premier league there is a big game on the air we just talked from konstantin nemchukov about the current situation, quite serious dramatic, but far from hopeless. and now let's look at the lessons of history, how it was possible in the past to put under control, serious conflicts between the great powers. how the soviet union was able to simultaneously defend its interests and ensure that confrontations did not get out of control, let's start with the cuban missile crisis. after all, it is a strict quarantine on all deliveries of offensive weapons to cuba. all vessels of any kind going in the kitchen. from any state or port they will be

returned if a cargo of such weapons is found on them. in 1962, the world was on the brink of nuclear war during the caribbean the crisis situation arose when the united states discovered soviet missiles with nuclear warheads in cuba, which were deployed there in response to the deployment of american missiles in turkey, which directly threatened the security of the ussr, us president john f. kennedy announced a blockade of cuba and demanded that the ussr remove the missiles. against this background, there was a threat of a nuclear confrontation between the two superpowers, the world was hanging by a thread when both sides began to prepare for a nuclear war. anxiety has reached the status of one step away from war, the fact is that two the most powerful powers more than anyone else . destruction everything that we have built everything that we have worked for will be destroyed in the first day. do you deny ambassador zorin the fact that the ussr has deployed

and is deploying medium -range missiles and launchers for such missiles in cuba, yes or no, do not wait for a translation, yes or no, i am not in an american court and therefore, well, i don’t want to to answer the question asked by the campaign prosecutor, but even in this difficult time, diplomatic efforts on both sides and a decisive role did not stop. in resolution the crisis was played precisely by the diplomats' personal contacts. went to the ussr in america dobrynin with the brother of the president of the united states stressed robert kennedy is to as soon as possible. to obtain the consent of the soviet government to stop further work on the construction of missile bases in cuba and to accept, under international control, the world that makes it impossible to use these weapons , instead of the us government, they are ready to give assurance that there will be no invasion of cuba. and that other western countries are ready to give the same assurances. hemisphere.

but what about turkey - i asked robert gennedy, if this is the only obstacle to achieving the regulation that i mentioned earlier, then the president does not see insurmountable difficulties in resolving this issue - robert answered as a result, the ussr agreed to remove the weapons of sale, and the united states promised attack the island and remove their missiles from turkey. this was one of the most dangerous moments in the history of mankind, when the world was on the verge of a nuclear catastrophe. the cuban crisis is spoken and written a lot, and the first impression most observers of experts, especially in the west, was that khrushchev turned out to be an adventurer, and in the end his knees trembled, and president kennedy confidently beat him. i think that it was all much more complicated, firstly, the very fact that the kennedy administration raised the question that the soviet

union was obliged immediately, and withdrawing its brace missiles was, of course, an example of double standards, because the united states placed nuclear missiles in the most beautiful way missiles with nuclear warheads in turkey near the border of the soviet union and no one i didn't see anything wrong with it. and this despite the fact that in the united states there was a significant superiority of strategic weapons, that is, washington wanted to have an advantage in strategic weapons and a monopoly on medium-range missiles that could reach not only the territory of the ussr in general, but even moscow . in such a situation, khrushchev made his decision to place missiles on cubes. and secondly, the result of the crisis. no, of course, khrushchev did not give up khrushchev insisted that the missiles be removed from turkey and guarantees were given that there will be no invasion of the kobuba. moreover

, the danger of an invasion was very real , shortly before that, there was an invasion organized by the united states on the cup of cuban emigrants and florida. well, and finally, there were preparations and there were attempts of several assassination attempts personally against the fidel castor, that is, khrushchev had every reason. uh, at the request of cuba. try to guarantee her independence. that is, and at the same time in the process, if you want to even out the nuclear-missile balance between the soviet union and the united states, this goal was achieved, but, of course, this church was achieved to remove soviet missiles from cuba. why did it happen? because there were very different interests, but as they say in such cases, nothing personal was done, and assessments were some kind of moral assessment of the actions of another

country. diplomats worked energetically with the participation of heads of state. and, finally, there was. ah, a secret channel. in the soviet case, he had the kgb involved which helped him better understand what high-level diplomats were saying. here is the ability one side is hard enough. i'm not even afraid to say ag actively defend their interests combined with artificial diplomacy and with respect to the opponent. this is what helped to defuse the cuban missile crisis and create conditions in the future for the improvement of soviet-american relations . the next serious crisis in soviet-american relations with the potential for nuclear escalation is much less known, and

even less understood. i'm talking about what happened in 1983. after being shot down in soviet airspace korean civil aircraft and the situation arose extreme and extremely unpleasant e first with great indignation in the united states gradually with great indignation. and serious concerns in the soviet union let's see. a korean jet plane is shot down off the coast of a soviet military outpost. among those killed in the crash was a congressman from the state of georgia. larry magnolia , we will definitely find out what his wife has to say about this. she believes there was a conspiracy to kill her husband and is now thinking about to try to become his congressional successor, september 1, 1983.

the passenger boeing 747, which flew from the usa to south korea, was shot down by a soviet fighter over kamchatka, as a result, all 269 people on board the aircraft were killed and again a sharp aggravation of relations between moscow and washington the united states accused the ussr of deliberately destroying the aircraft and began to carry out risks of measures against moscow such like stopping negotiations on nuclear disarmament and a ban on the export of high-tech goods to the ussr after the barbaric act committed yesterday the soviet regime against the commercial liner, the united states and many other countries of the world came out with clear and convincing statements. in which we expressed not only indignation, but also truthful demands to state the facts. how can one treat a regime that so broadly declares its vision of peace and global disarmament, and at the same time commits such a terrorist act in cold blood, killing innocent people, how can one trust advice when they are so screaming goode about this disgusting case within what limits can to have a legitimate and mutual dialogue with

the state, in values ​​that allow such atrocities. and what should we think of a regime that has one set of standards for itself and another for the rest of humanity? the ussr rejected all accusations in general, because of such a categorical position of the united states in moscow, the impression was created that america was deliberately distorting the truth when speaking about the deliberate destruction of a passenger plane in the kremlin , they thought that in this way washington was looking for a pretext for a preventive nuclear strike on the ussr, it was irrefutably proved that the invasion aircraft of a south korean airline. into soviet airspace was a deliberately carefully planned reconnaissance operation. it was controlled from certain centers in the united states and japan, a civilian aircraft was deliberately chosen for it, regardless of, and possibly based on, human casualties, hence all the grave consequences of this emergency incident. what is it called in the western press? naturally, all responsibility for what happened lies entirely with its organizers, but nevertheless a serious aggravation in relations between moscow and

washington was prevented, despite the incident with god in february 1984 , george w. bush flew to moscow for andropov's funeral, who at that time. was vice president, usa sure, it looks like serious but for real uh, incomparable in seriousness and the incident with the caribbean crisis. and i think, and i think that the situation was very threatening, it was very threatening, because president reagan reacted so sharply to the situation with the karelian plane, because he already had the feeling that the soviet union could not agree on anything, and as he said that the soviet union was an evil empire, but at the same time in moscow and yuri andropov

, soviet leaders who were already sick, but were quite capable of adequately performing their duties, at least for level of analysis and leadership of his entourage or andropov came to yes , the united states apparently go very far, reaching intentions. and that this is not just a rhetorical attack on the soviet union. this is not just a false accusation that the soviet union knew that he shot down, but a civil aircraft. by the way, this was established quite accurately today. nowhere else is it disputed. so andropov decided that this was all a verbal cover for information. if you want to prepare a nuclear missile attack on the soviet union, the situation still developed with the fact that at that time special exercises of the united states and great britain were already planned under the name, and ibn, a capable shooter,

a capable archer and within the framework of these exercises , variants of a nuclear strike on the soviet union were played out. kgb residencies to monitor as closely as possible what is happening in washington and london and see if there are any signs of preparing an attack on the soviet union and at the same time andropov gave the assistance to put the soviet nuclear missile forces on high alert and began to develop appropriate plans for fortunately, the soviet reaction that took place in moscow became known first to the cia in washington and then to british intelligence and personally to the prime minister. and so it happened that

at the same time they turned to ronald reagan and warned him she was in the highest danger. he was a staunch anti-communist, but he was also a political realist. he asked that we urgently give a briefing to the pentagon on the possible consequences of a nuclear war. reagan then wrote in his diary that the presence at the briefing had an extremely sobering effect on him, and he wrote in his diary that something must be done to immediately put an end to this danger and urgently changed plans. how this war game was conducted, as well as a capable archer and moreover was opportunity found. create