your majesty gems no air they have weight means no gems. let there be only diamonds, well, there is a tradition. you and i will break the center of the composition, the center of the composition will be her majesty. witty your majesty this turbine belonged to the chinese emperor. i wanted to crown them. chinese let it be ruby

on the air is a special edition of the big game. today we are talking with the chief,

editor and general director of the independent newspaper konstantin nemchukov konstantin vladimirovich, you are very welcome see. i mutually talk. however, it will probably not be very pleasant, because i want to ask you about the rebellion. it ended more than a week ago, but quite understandably, it was, let's say, a delicate extraordinary situation. but what does this mean, many people, including me, have questions about this, and the first and main question. it's over. the rebellion certainly ended , there are no investigations, therefore , we do not yet know the true reasons for the true motives beyond those that are mentioned, and since the criminal case was closed. but i don't i doubt that the internal investigation

continues, then after some time we will probably find out more than we know today. let's hear what about this, er, colonel-general kartalov said recently. at the heart of the defense announced that all formations. those who perform combat missions must sign a contract. and everyone started this decision absolutely the right decision. mr. something in that case. the operation will not be. allocated funding

material resources for mr. prigogine this is the main, if not the main thing. and the following happened. first is money, second is stupid and exorbitant ambition, and the third excited state combined resulted in an attempt at treason and deception of one's combatants . this is an interesting explanation, and i personally think that it is at least largely correct. this means that they were. specific

motives are unique due to his combination of organizer and controlling person of a private military company, well, just a big businessman. and when a businessman is threatened with taking his money or at least least close his oxygen, but a lot of businessmen, especially those who came out of the nineties. a lot of businessmen take it very personally. but if this is the case, then it makes it very unlikely that someone will try to repeat the same thing. well, certainly in this sense, it is also true that here, uh, it was money motives that were the trigger, uh, which led to the events of june 23-24, of course. so i also wrote about this

a week ago and there it consists of two e, compound on one side. this is a contract with ministry of defense, which did not want to receive. as voiced. uh, vladimir putin, uh, numbers to keep. e wagner, they received about a billion euros, but the most interesting thing is that his own food supply company, the armed forces. concorde also, it turns out, for a number of years entered into a contract with the ministry of defense and received approximately the same numbers. and so, when he told himself to sign to the ministry of defense a week before these events , this contract was broken, they did not sign it. it turns out that he has double strike and does not receive money from here. yes, through this military line, he receives money for his food supply business. at the same time, it is interesting that, uh, receiving money in full, being on the payroll of the ministry of defense. and he also received money. uh for the food that he himself

ate and the fighters, so, well, this is interesting. it 's such a combination, but really about 2 billion e, dollars or euros depending on the exchange rate, this is serious money for him as a businessman. but what he turned it into insult such harsh rhetoric. this is where my question arises. how could the leadership of the army be watered with such words that are under the current legislation. i'm like a journalist. we all know after the amendments were made to the criminal code, the article for the discretization of the army. she acts, and here he was allowed to do all this. i'm interested in this question. why is the one who should monitor the application of the law and said. hey, stop three weeks ago, maybe it would be rather cold, but in general you can say. eat such a russian expression. uh, fire water and copper pipes. so i can say that prigozhin did not go through fire, water and copper pipes all the way successfully, that is, every element he had

was water, there was fire, there were copper pipes of self-promotion, but on the whole it turned out to be a fiasco. let's try. uh wah- reaction to the explanation that was given to me not so long ago, when i, uh, was on the separation line and talked to quite serious officers there. they knew everything about the prigozhina, all this is a flare exaggeration, but they had no illusions, what kind of person was this? and what is he able and of course him. eh, i would say not just criticism. a boorish criticism addressed to the department of defense leadership and leadership. it was a special operation at the same time did not cause any approval from these people, but they recognized that wagner fought well. they admitted that he performed tasks that would not be easy

to entrust to those at their disposal, but to normal regular units. 31 countries 31 nato countries against russia more than 50 countries support ukraine and every time ukraine loses, when russia grinds ukrainian weapons. that kind of weaponry, and as a rule, more advanced and in large quantities is provided by nato, is it not, as it were, humanly excusable that in this situation, when as they say, if something works, if something is not broken, you don’t want to go to acute situations in the midst of intense hostilities, and i don't have to tell you.

what role did wagner play in the capture of artyomovsk i will tell you the following betrayal for me. cannot be justified by anything, because here is the philosophy of life philosophy war philosophy of struggle in life. it is very simple zelensky cannot give putin because he is an enemy, he can betray his opponent and this is how you can prepare. as he says, learn the lessons, how can i, if i trust a man to think that he will betray me? it's going to be a nightmare life. this is the first second, as far as heroism is concerned , and many wagner fighters have been awarded. e in the highest awards, including the heroes of russia, but now i ask you to think about the following argument, but it’s clear, that prigozhin was engaged in very powerful pr itself, and here is an idea of ​​\u200b\u200bhis fighters as

miracle heroes. he created to a large extent, but mariupol, which for 8 years the ukrainian government was preparing for defense , is completely unique. basements, underground rooms, and so on, where the most e, strong fighters of ukraine at that time, the troops of the armed forces not prigogine took the population of the city of 425,000 people, artyomsk with a population, in 71 days. i think seventy-five thousand, that is, right away, uh, seven six seven less yes, they took it in 224 days. they took received awards and so on, but military professionals should explain that the country's armed forces were less effective in capturing mariupol than wagner's fighters in capturing artyomovsk? i agree with you.

among other things, i separate what wagner did, what utkin and his subordinates did, and the wider and in many other ambitions of the rebel leader himself, but i tried to say a little different. i tried to say that in hindsight, we are all strong and now we understand what could be from this person expect. and i don't think that i knew someone and heard about someone. who predicted that this man was capable of becoming a traitor. moreover, he presented himself as a very powerful person, to some extent even terrible , not only and not so much, because he had combat units at his disposal, but because he boasted of his old ties with president putin, and now the idea that

he will go not just to the leadership of the ministry of defense, but against the highest authority. it was so counter-intuitive to people's bullshit that they just didn't expect that's what he's got. that's how the roof will go. okay, this man has enough of his motives. i will only tell you one remark. now, if you say that it was counter-intuitive and unexpected, then for me it was not so, because all 4 weeks, when he attacked shoigu and gerasimov with such dirty words, who are the president’s people with the most important on this special operation. it was already a betrayal, that is , it cannot be said that the acceptance happened only in rostov for me to attack the commanders who direct the operations like this in such a way that he wants to deal with them. he spoke about it openly and all the fighters could hear it in a

specific time. this was already a betrayal of constantine, it was outrageous. and it was a moral betrayal. you are right, but from this to the armed rush to moscow, i do not have to tell you. the distance is very large and a person who is capable of rudeness bordering on betrayal in relation to the leadership of the ministry of defense and a person who, then, what he did, are two different things here does not automatically follow from the other. i try to sit in such cases to give an american example. how many people does america take? uh, some kind of weapon is often an automatic rifle and goes to smash the mall, school, university, whatever, and then, when the investigation is carried out, it is explained. that there were many symptoms, that even someone there was

registered with a psychiatric gentleman, well, in no case with these people, but was not obvious. even them in the immediate environment, that they can be capable of such reckless atrocity, and i say this to the fact that it seems to me that all such atrocity has been committed, that this is a crime. in the end, fortunately, it failed and what to do on this basis prediction about the ah weakness of the russian government, that such phenomena could be repeated, that this would be a mistake, and i saw your quote in it. an article by anton troyanovsky, where is he? in my opinion, he is just quoting in the sense that, from your point of view, the positions of president putin have not been shaken. i, at least. so i understood your statement correctly, you understood by one simple reason is that i am monday

tuesday and wednesday since the main issue. uh, well, those who asked me endless calls to ambassadors and stuff, how the elite reacts i am monday, tuesday, wednesday. this week. i met with dozens of representatives of the administrative political business elite, and in this sense, you won’t believe it, this is the most vivid impression. this is a colossal unity around putin, because i realized that it was the elite on saturday and sunday or on friday saturday that looked into the eyes of a prigogine. she i saw that you are such an alternative to putin, not that their property is not that their property, not that their future is not guaranteed at all. and when he says, we go to rublyovka and we will deal with these people. they understood this, so monday, tuesday and wednesday for me, such a shock quite definitely led to the understanding that you will sort out

your feelings in general, and you understand that not any alternative to the current government is good. good, my experience is absolutely the same as yours. everyone i talked to they had a big breath relief when it failed. and just a great desire to be together, moreover, what i saw today in the news on dagestan shows that, in general, there is support from ordinary people, how putin was received there and i talk with people who do not necessarily belong to the elite. everyone was relieved, of course, moscow is, as it were, a special place, because parts of prigogine went to moscow, i don’t know how it was sharply perceived, for example, in the far east in moscow, in my opinion, for everyone, uh, if

want to arise, not only relief, there was no feeling that thanks that there is putin and thanks for being able to control the situation and the more, of course, we read from various sources of these negotiations, which led to a relatively peaceful solution to the problem, the more people understand why and they tried to inflict terrible blows on the advancing e columns, because there were negotiations and because they promised a prigozhina that while negotiations were underway against him there would not be a full-scale attack even under these conditions. i have a feeling that if someone, somewhere, first of all, outside the borders of russia, proceeds from the fact that the russian government has weakened, that the russian government now only needs to be put under pressure and that it will either lust or be forced to give in.

it seems to me that such expectations are erroneous, but to you well, it seems to me that this is also china's only one. here, more precisely according to my data, but it seems to me that prigogine is reliable in his ambitions. e. did not want to negotiate with anyone and started negotiations when they made the first preemptive strike, when he realized that now there would be nothing left of him wet place, then he began negotiations with lukashenka, and this, it seems to me, is of fundamental importance. i completely agree with you. and yet, this is the combination. the firmness of a preemptive strike and yet the readiness to negotiate. she was very important. and so i have previously touched upon in relations with the collective west, the russian government, in my opinion. very clearly shows his

willingness to fight to pay a heavy price and in no case back down under pressure at the same time saying i am willing to negotiate. and i'm in this readiness personally on acceptable terms, of course, i have no doubt. but nonetheless. that's what worried me when i read over the past few days a statement from washington, including the secretary of state. this is not blinkin and the statements of the british minister of defense volos and something like that, uh, and from berlin i heard that, in general, putin's power turned out to be not as strong as it was. and so , instead of drawing a conclusion, what could be the destabilization in russia, the destabilization of a nuclear power and definitely not in the interests. the west instead became. here to say that

the ukrainian offensive appeared additional chances. and kiev needs even more help to strike at russia, you know, on the one hand. you are correct in saying that individual figures in the west commented on the events in moscow exactly in the same spirit as you mentioned, but in general it should be noted that there was a meeting of foreign ministers now european. senators they wanted to formulate at least some position, but you know about russia and the rebellion at the ministerial level. they are not agreed and said, well. let then our leaders form this position at the nato summit, that is, even at the level of mini- foreign affairs today is the third and fourth day. after the rebellion. it turned out that they did not have this picture, they could not, and that every single foreign minister supported it. we are not able to formulate

here, as you said, when singles speak, because many do not agree. with such assessments, many say where you got it from, and show the facts, as soon as someone starts talking, listen, in addition to your desires, so to speak, give us the invoice then. maybe we will vote not agreed. they said, well, all right, these big people will meet on the lieutenant themselves. let them go on like that, were carried on, it will be there, yes, and then, please, let them formulate it themselves and this indicates that the emotional assessment. passing off a desire for really present real assessments, especially integrated collective joint substantiated it did not follow, until now it is introduced, serious decisions must be made on it assistance to ukraine, and not only now, but for many years to come. and that's what konstantin really worries me about. it seems to me that you would like an agreement to be reached and

to be able to resolve the conflict around ukraine by peaceful means. i definitely want this. in short, it would definitely be in the interests of russia and world stability, and so i think that it would be interesting for the united states. but what's the problem? if i talk to russian officials, here are the arguments i could give them that they need to show at least some additional flexibility in the negotiations, when the secretary of state of the united states is the president of the united states and great britain france germany is now dagestalia, and they are blind on the lead, and poland has the baltic states. and, of course, this great kiev leader zelensky is being told that it is necessary to negotiate on the basis of zelensky’s formula

, nothing else can be done, that if putin does not completely capitulate and is not ready to accept zelensky’s formulas, then putin does not want peace and there is nothing to talk about. you know zelensky's formula is a formula of complete surrender. moreover, capitulation, even before the start of negotiations, as a condition for agreeing with russia, there must be a complete withdrawal of russian troops from all territories that ukraine considers its own. naturally, including crimea, send the russian leadership to some kind of special monkey court, and then pay multibillion-dollar indemnities. this is not in rubles, but in dollars. and at the same time, uh, they are going to the vilnius summit, uh, to inform ukraine that it will be accepted into nato as soon as

the war will end, that is, in other words, having agreed with ukraine, russia will give the green light for ukraine's entry into nato and plus obligations are given, at least they say that they will give ukraine the confidence to give it even more military support, that is, turn ukraine into a permanent threat russia, provided that ukraine itself receives nato guarantees that in any conflict with russia, ukraine can rely on the full power of this union. well, that's what you can then say in a conversation with the russian authorities. why russian government can consider that the way of negotiations has any chance? firstly, you listed everything very well and i advise those who hear you to write down what you said, because you exhaustively listed all the points of what was called

the strategic defeat of russia, this is literally an exhaustive package, because there is a phrase, which everyone can be, and when you ask for a check, and what is a strategic defeat? they say, well , in general, now you have listed everything inflicting a strategic defeat on russia fundamentally unacceptable for russia for the russian leadership. today for the people and so on. even about it it is necessary to forget, the second. here i quite often have a conversation with ambassadors and ministers of western countries, and when we reach a certain point of view. i'm just talking. well, i hear everything, please be kind. i to you. i give you this privilege. formulate the national interest or interests of russia let's say in the european region. it’s just that as you say, it will be so, and these are the most diverse diplomats of the entire spectrum of what is called the west, uh, at first they get lost i say. no, you are smart people. yes, you

think so, russia as it is, from kaliningrad to vladivostok, may have its own national interests. they say, yes, you can formulate them that it is in relation to security in relation to development in relation to the economy in relation to nato in relation to threats in relation to the arrival time dmitry you will not believe a single person. here are some of the current, at least politicians. uh, with whom i spoke are not able to even think on it very easily. i can believe it because i i remember, uh, i had a four-hour meeting with the brand over 10 years ago in washington dc. we discussed all these things. he was absolutely able to understand. we talked with him about strategic risks in the far east. we talked about a potential union and about balancing partners. it was a normal conversation. now here's a simple thing. well, please tell me, well, you imagine that you are here you name us. how can you understand the other way. you and her

are able to understand her in an interesting way, but this is not there, therefore, under such conditions, i would say geopolitical deafness. now is the time to wait. unfortunately, it is colossal that there will be some kind of realistic agenda for negotiations. i can't. of course there was. not just an outstanding person, but he was a national security adviser to president ford and then became a national security adviser to president bay sr. and they were close friends. they worked together in the nixon ford administration, they wrote books together. and, of course, bryansk croft always thought, and the national interests of other countries, not because he was so generous, and not because he had a special sympathy for russia, but because you can't plan a real

policy towards another power. if you refuse to even analyze their interests and, uh, konstantin, do you know why this is happening? it's not because the current leaders, the current diplomats, are such total idiots. i see the degradation of the zapa. on fire, but , as they say, not to that extent, they do not want to analyze these interests, and equally they refuse to talk about the possible consequences of the use of nuclear weapons. by one simple reason from my point of view. because if they would start talking about these topics and thinking seriously. they are forced to admit that they must humble their pride, that they must moderate their ambitions, that they must understand that some of their actions may not have catastrophic consequences. and for them, you know it by principle. you do not interfere with my narova

, they do not want to see and recognize anything that could prevent them from being such crusaders, self-appointed crusaders in this situation. what to do such simple have the sayings been reinforced? yes, phil was beaten. uh, unfortunately in this position you are not able to move forward, so it's kind of sad, i had to admit. uh, the military confrontation will go on until someone still senior in the west buckles under the influence of any impulses of their own problems of not understanding a meeting with an intelligent person and does not say, listen a. maybe, indeed, russia has some national interests. it's so big, maybe it doesn't matter what happens on its borders. she has people live perhaps, the well-being of people is within

the competence of its leaders. and if we choke them with sanctions, people, uh, will suffer, and we, like, are not responsible for anything, maybe the concept of equal security, about which, uh, they spoke and which entered into any agreements makes sense in general what is equal security. and he will answer from now on. i think things will go a lot faster. and i think that this will come within six months is my forecast. so, i'm telling you today, november is december, and there will be a sobering up, because it is impossible to spin like a squirrel in a crazy century, but in a position of denying the fundamental presence of russia's national interests. this november, there will still be a year before the american presidential election. that is, i e proceed from what you assume. who is biden, and will also be

president, right? how will you achieve such an insight? it seems to me that there is a huge loss of resources. and the inability not the ability to achieve the set goals is contrary to the rationality that underlies how as a rule, in the west you can make decisions, but today you can’t even imagine the difference between pumping up weapons today and, say, in february a year ago. and what and what happened 18% of the territory. uh, ukraine has lost well. so, if i correctly perceive the first thing that is required for this, is for russia to be able to effectively resist the ukrainian counteroffensive and it is desirable to go on the offensive itself, but i won’t speak like that, but because the offensive

is always a big sacrifice, but the defense. so, which russia occupied if it is successful, otherwise at the end of november in december this vision will come and negotiations will begin. i repeat. konstantin nemchikov says that if the russian defense will be successful tokens, people will december washington and maybe not only washington will come to a sobering up. well, i think there might be an offensive element. if it turned out. uh, maybe, i think it would probably contribute to this sobriety. and so, it seems to me, absolutely right. thank you very much for this interesting conversation. let's go to advertising we'll be back in just a few minutes. and we will discuss with the leading expert in the geopolitics

of military affairs and international relations leading experts sergey karaganov about whether nuclear weapons can provide an opportunity to change the nature of competition with the collective west? tsyptsova intimidates crimea with an epidemic in odessa, the beaches are blocked , they have not only cholera there, usually they also attach about eight screenshots there, how infoboin specialists create terrifying sensations for the world media another action to cover up their piggy. and why the fakes about the kakhovka hydroelectric station do not stop, i found where the roots came from. true, against lies soon antifreak tomorrow on the ground and always on one tv dot ru pay

what will you catch up with? stop running after a profitable tariff with megapower, your tariff will be more profitable, activate them in the megafon application. the third column is ready for your fresh croissants and cocoa to go. welcome to the new arrival of the international brand. friendly service awaits you here cozy cafe and high-quality

fuel ok? how to choose a car at home difficult, who fits the car does not fit the price, who fits? the price doesn’t fit the car, and when i found the perfect car at the ideal price, the account goes for seconds to issue a tinkoff car loan for both a new one and a used car. he is so alone. i increase the power for data transmission. all systems in normal mode we are working to make your life better rostelecom's smart monitoring system solves internet problems before they arise for you rostelecom technology capabilities focus on photography stylish and powerful smartphones for your perfect shots.

what discounts do you choose? the solution for every day vtb does not miss the most important moments with a free debit card. it is possible to make the house comfortable in one step without commission. to please loved ones with convenient transfers in russia and more than 10 countries in the world is not only emotions, but also up to thirty percent. do better every day. get a free debit card for vtb life all day long. to protect the joints and spine a fantastic shopping experience even during discount periods. halva just one card for

all purchases i don't like monday mood at zero. there are reasons to visit the earth today. monday is the day of gifts on my planet, the good mood of subscribers is a priority, no matter what you are the main tele2 subscriber, each client will receive three gifts to choose from. i also want to receive gifts, so i'm flying to the ground. on monday gifts for each tele2 subscriber other rules wow, tell me, when you see the sale of ikea goods on yandex.market, buy a mug for only 59 rubles. for inviting friends to tinkoff until june 30 and together participate in the drawing of 100 million rubles. take advantage of public services

here, you can easily create a package of documents, select five universities of interest and send documents for several specialties in each, doing the right thing is easier than public services seem. we have a big game on the air today, we have a special analytical issue and we will have a conversation with sergey karaganov, scientific director of the faculty of world economy and world politics at their school of economics and honorary chairman. the presidium of the council on foreign policy and defense by sergei is very pleased to welcome you to program and, uh, i had the honor of interviewing foreign minister sergey lavrov, what do you think, uh, the minister, is saying to me at the end of

the interview? i don't know, but he says, and i thought you'd ask me about the article to karaganov. that's how i say that i will have the opportunity to ask sergei karaganov himself. he says, well, if so, but it 's generally er to say that in general the article has become a serious event, if the minister of foreign affairs is expected, as a matter of course. it is clear that a question will be asked about your article, but we we'll be back to your article in just a few minutes. in the meantime, i want to ask you, but about our current policy, but about what is happening in the west as a reaction to the failed rebellion in russia. let's see, what did us president dzhabaev say about this? it's hard to say, but putin is clearly losing the war in iraq losing the war in his domestic politics

, the us president sometimes has problems with geography, but on the other hand. if he said that russia is losing in iraq maybe so now it's there who knows well here's more made an interesting and significant statement. uh, the secretary of state is still antoningkong. to the extent that moscow is distracted by its own internal divisions, the insurgency can help ukraine in the way that the dude is no longer on the front line, it can help the ukrainian counter-offensive because the wakner group was effective quoting sergey because i think this is a very significant statement . and the united states let russian diplomats know to russian officials during the mutiny, how they do not interfere in the internal politics of russia and there was also a leak from the administration

that they did not want to do anything. as long as it lasted, which could give the impression that the united states was supporting the rebels. well, we failed, and now the secretary of state says openly that, uh, that he failed and that we saw a very great danger of destabilization. no, it didn't. it seems to me that they have a normal reaction. we urgently need to talk. still, there are few countries with nuclear weapons, who can not happen. e reaction secretary of state. there seemed to be a moment of weakness in russia. and although the moment e is over, but still we must try to use and let's act according to the principle of press. here is how such a reaction of washington a from your point of view. uh, such a reaction from washington does work in terms of

the future of russian american relations. do you know dmitry hmm i 've been talking for quite a long time, well, by the way, you, in my opinion, are talking about something that is very unpleasant. the raw material development of the world is the steady degradation of the majority of elites in western countries, and its there are a little less western countries in the united states of america than in europe in europe, there is almost nothing to say, but here we see, uh , irresponsible people, uh, people incapable of thinking strategically, uh, both people are angry and uh, well, it's just dangerous and precisely for this reason, it is necessary to act as quickly as possible in order to bring them among them to their senses. uh, i call it strategic parasitism, which struck the whole world, yes , people lived for quite a long time in such pleasant conditions invented what war is. what is the danger of a big war? what

such is the danger of nuclear war and the elite , there were other, there social, social and spiritual processes that led to the fact that we are dealing with, uh, with uh, very weak intellectual ones. and moral vitamins, but the most unpleasant thing is that they will be worse in the future, you are talking about the degradation of a liter, but you don’t talk about the degradation of weapons that these elites in the country of weapons dispose of, but it develops in exactly the opposite direction, more and more new systems appear, and including semi-automatic ones, which, with the degradation of responsibility and competencies. elite it is becoming more and more dangerous, we are proud of ours, but hypersound, but like thank god that we did it and we have superiority for a certain number and years, but after some time, this kind of system and all others will appear

and on the other side. and we need to be even more careful or just discourage the desire to take risks in the other direction. ah, the other day he said, and that he admits you the possibility of a nuclear war, it also turned out to them that at the same time he showed originality property, let's listen. when i spoke here about two years ago and said that i was concerned about the drying up of the colorado river , everyone looked at me like i was crazy , and they also looked at me when i said that i was worried about putin's use of tactical nuclear weapons. this threat is real, but at a time when president biden, and admits the possibility of nuclear war, the use of nuclear weapons, and it is interesting that another point of view was expressed by his own cardinator for strategic issues

, admiral john kirby, listen to what he said admiral we don't see any indication other than raucous rhetoric that there is any intention to use nuclear weapons in ukraine and i can see that we haven't seen anything that would force us to change the balance of our own strategic means or take any such steps. he seemed to be calm and contented. he sees threats and now you appear with your article, which, uh, very quickly attracted, but i would say very serious attention, and in moscow and washington, european capitals, probably in some asian capitals, uh, and you say that not only does russia have nuclear weapons, that it is not only relevant. well, from your point of view , nuclear weapons remain a serious factor in international relations and can even

be used by russia under certain conditions , but let's better formulate this in your own words, and that's enough thought. eh, it's just that we a went on about this strategic provisitism of general calm, as well as the past of western concepts, yes, and rather recklessly, but set the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons. seelie mood so way. just the mood of strategic parasitism parasitism in the other direction. they 've stopped being afraid at all and now, uh, kirby is very many others. uh, they say there won't be just about nuclear weapons under any circumstances. and we talked about it in general. i believe that this is a frivolous a and for this it needs to be changed. e is such a position in our doctrine, a on e, because in this way our opponents are clearing

the way for an endless continuation of the war and for a military escalation in ukraine and however, in other places. yes, but you need to, uh, firmly say that if uh, things will work out. so then, in principle, the use of nuclear weapons is possible, although it is a terrible moral choice. i think this should be said directly. maybe, i think that this is not yet necessary for the president to do, but the duty of professionals, like me and responsible citizens. e russia to speak about it directly and speak. this is an option not only for americans, that is , for ourselves, because for a long time we, like ostriches, hid their heads in the sand, not noticing changing strategic reality, do not notice them, uh, the changes that are taking place in the world, including, uh, in the intellectual morale. e those countries that

now oppose us. the advantage of statesmen is that they can make decisions, the advantages of experts, including the most respected authoritative ones. like you, not being officials, you can be more specific and therefore explain to us under what circumstances you allow the use of nuclear weapons. what nuclear weapon? you say and why do you think that there will be no uncontrolled escalation after that? well, first of all, of course. i hope that my predictions or my wishes or recommendations will never be fulfilled. and she sees perfectly well, and what about the international situation

of the struggle of the west, more and more evil for maintaining its positions, which it held for 500 years and which have been quietly sinking for the last 570, but with different options, and over the past 15 years. just fell down. it's a desperate situation, oh that we've discussed many times, well in in particular, when discussing the book smashed here, you cut it a lot. and now there is a classic situation when a falling country can use anything and climbs on the rampage. this is the first. there is no need to allow this, and secondly, if we are on and a contradiction is accumulating around the world. this is not something for russia ukraine yes , in general, it goes to ukraine. uh, the war is not about ukraine when, of course, we are talking about ukraine first of all, well, it is right next to us. well, there is a struggle to

prevent a third world war. well, it's coming the fight to stop the west's desperate counter-attack which is reckless pointless and er, dangerous. e. e, the struggle to lay the foundation for a new, more just, a world order. well, there is a struggle going on to end the western yoke that e has brought over mankind for 500 years. although the west, we were part of europe, gave humanity a lot, yes, both in culture and science, but to a greater extent it raped and destroyed. uh, and now she has the opportunity. no. we are including it, but we decided this opportunity, undermining the basis of its 500 years of dominance. uh, military superiority. and so now there is a struggle going on. for at least the appearance that this superiority still exists, in order to roughly

speaking make the whole world, which is moving away from the west very quickly, believe that it is still strong. everything is gone. he still needs to bow, and you still need to obey. but the main argument against the use of nuclear weapons is the main argument you are well aware of, namely that if you start using nuclear weapons, then most likely it will not help avoid a third world war. it means to light the fuse. and after that, you yourself said that men, artificial intelligence, and so on begin to work. and what will remain on this planet is difficult to be sure. but during the years of the last cold war, mythology was created by very correct mythology. i myself participated in its creation. and that any use of nuclear weapons

will certainly lead, but to a worldwide thermonuclear conflict by the end of mankind. uh, i'm afraid it's a myth this myth was useful, but at some time, but understand that this myth is now working for the forces that unleash one war after another and which undermine. uh, all decorum uh, world politics in international relations all the rules, yes, so you need to look more realistically at a single weapon have a friend. i god forbid it will be applied. on top of that, it will be used in very limited quantities. and what i am writing, again, as a very undesirable scenario, which needs to be considered, which and about which our opponents should know there is a series of small group attacks on a number of countries

europe and the united states of america will never respond, but with a blow, that is, not to the connected states, of course. of course , this is all about under no circumstances should the united states be hit in this situation on those countries that now directly support the kiev mercenary regime. well, uh, washington supports the kiev regime in europe in europe with a small group strike. it's not that scary. it doesn't matter because hundreds will die. and why are we sure that e will not be the answer to this e, or an immediate e, e blow. uh, american first turn. is this the nato doctrine, uh, in russia at the control command centers or what? it’s just that no matter how we start exchanging gifts, you can’t do an experiment here. if this goes wrong, then i don’t have to explain to you the consequences of the sharp risk e is high, but we are studying the history of nuclear, and the us doctrine well, ours have also closed nuclear. i came to

the unequivocal opinion that the united states of america, after the soviet union already in the 1910s, received the opportunity for a responsible strike of a retaliatory strike against the united states. america even i have some papers that say the fifty-first year. although at that time we practically did not yet have the opportunity or a retaliatory strike, but they believed that there was never considered the issue of a strike on the post-soviet unions. eh, a lot of things were said and written about this in the soviet union in russia a. well, first of all, they were wrong in the soviet union too. and , by the way, i didn’t say, this is a russian marshal and general, because i was afraid that with this tense situation that was in the eighties, they learned about it suddenly in despair, and the situation rolled rocking. uh, by the end, anyway

, suddenly someone will decide to strike. as for the strike itself, the americans have never considered this issue. doctrine it was it was a bluff just as a bluff is and as we know, that is, the american willingness to use a nuclear arsenal in response to a strike against someone other than the united states itself is a bluff so it is absolutely. damn although, of course, and when such a possibility cannot be ruled out, but this is a bluff, moreover, the majority doctrines, even in the times of the so-called massive 250-s of the early sixties and the provision for real such operational ones did not provide for strikes, but for the limited use of nuclear weapons. e, perhaps considered, but only on the territory of western europe, if the soviet troops, uh , counted eggplant. but when such games

were held, it is also from the literature with a number of top leaders of western countries, these top leaders fled from the bunkers. because, in order not to be held responsible for ordering a nuclear attack on territory of their own countries well. i take you, how about with england from france , they have their own fairly serious nuclear arsenals. i think it's better that by name beat just in case. although we can endure them too, this is being done, but there is no need to hit them. we are not doing interviews right now. well, you don’t need to hit them, yes, just in case, because you need to, yes, you need to hit and make fun of who feels good. what other countries have american nuclear weapons on their territory in europe, well, there are six of them,

but, but american nuclear weapons cannot be used, and without an order from the united states of america, any use of nuclear weapons by the interchangeable states of america on the territory of the soviet union or the loss of russia on the territory of belarus will mean a retaliatory strike. if i understand, you will proceed from what you will hope, because to know, it is definitely impossible. you will hope that not only the united states will not launch a nuclear strike on russia, but in response to the russian adren road in europe, you will proceed from the fact that the united states will refuse to deny the europeans these opportunities to use nuclear weapons against russia , which is located on the european territory of these strangest countries, these countries have nothing to do with them.

well, in fact, they don’t have this nuclear weapon, so to speak, three will add training, and on the territory they will explode on russian nuclear charges, they don’t have, i understand they don’t have a key, but this is the first thing you should be them ban or on their territory explode the first second. and if you already go there before god forbid the use of nuclear weapons repeats. monstrous moral damage we bear ourselves, if we bring him the moral self. uh, so many stairs it escalates, but one of them steps on this ladder , one of them will be a warning that if we strike, and if they return to us, then we will double the stakes and then several countries will simply die, it's scary. and perhaps this is terribly good, sergey is terribly. it's you saying not me, yes, it's scary, here, uh, under what conditions will you be ready to overcome this

fear that it will take in order for this kind of, uh, blows from your point of view became expedient, but two or three years, but i think, if we do not convince, and our american and to a lesser extent western opponents that we need to stop, and all this is an endless war. it will be necessary to go very quickly up the stairs with the escalation, when and under what circumstances. i don't want to even discuss it now. i these circumstances. naturally, do not know, many of the colleagues. they say that there will be retaliatory attacks, but a massive strike with conventional weapons is at the center of decision-making in russia, this is false, this is an american, uh, argument. uh. many of us repeat his argument, absolutely false, because. again, the answer to the terms of use of nuclear weapons will be another answer.