and families need some kind of freedom. here's to breaking out of the previous framework. it will be felt very soon. we need to share another significant event in our family, big planet. on first and always on one tv dotka ru why do i have to, gentlemen? we know what. what is it and you are wasting your time. come on, get away from the stove, boy, however, my patience is running out. i demand that you move away from the stove, move away, sir,

you will regret it. proletarian social democrat, if i’m not mistaken, distribution is prohibited, bad mister former manager is not good.

yes, let's go. well, hello, please. hello kunak, i've been waiting for you for a long time. do you want an easy death? your death will not be easy. i'll tear you apart. well, come on, don’t

delay, they dare, cherkessk i can do everything away, no, it’s me who dares everything. it was i who sent you to the frame. we know why, because you don't need a table. let's. just say one word. let's. let's.

or not? i killed you, don't wait.

go away, he will

kill me, if little people judge me.

it's not for you to judge me.

i curse the earth with the porky temptations of those who seduced . and i curse the sun for you. life wanted to win. the worm did not want to be powerless.

hey mother, a special edition of the big game. i am sure that the most dramatic events of this week, the most dramatic in international relations, were

the military actions in karabakh and actions that, in general, many interpret as simply a victory for azerbaijan, but to some extent also a defeat for russia. uh, well, such an idea to some extent, uh, if you want, it was also voiced by the prime minister of armenia pashinyan himself, who tried to create the impression that it was moscow that was responsible for what did not work out for him to keep nagorno-karabakh, i completely disagree with this line of argument, let’s start with the obvious, there were already serious difficulties in relations between russia and armenia, and pakhanyan clearly had an interest in the fact that if you want to make your foreign policy more multi-vector, less focused on moscow , more contacts with the united states european unions, and at the same time he did not hesitate

to show that, they say, russia, due to its role in ukraine, is now too busy, and therefore it is not so strong, and therefore it is possible with it. well, you need to take less into account. so that from this point of view. uh, what happened in nagorno-karabakh it seems to me that this is a problem for the pakhinyan, but also, accordingly, a problem for armenia and not necessarily a problem for russia, of course, what happened to the people. this is a tragedy in nagorno-karabakh. and, of course, russia is going and promised to do everything possible so that the people in nagorno-karabakh suffer minimally and so that the obligations that president aliyev gives them so that these obligations are fulfilled, but on the other hand. let's

call a spade a spade. in general, uh, armenia has already distanced itself from russia; in general, russia has far from bad relations with azerbaijan. and in general, one of russia’s major partners is involved in this game, turkey as the main patron of azerbaijan and turkey in this case is clearly interested in maintaining partnership relations with russia. so the situation is very serious and, i repeat, very regrettable for those who live in nagorno-karabakh, but i also would not try to, uh, create the impression that this strikes either at russia’s geopolitical positions and, if you want, at russia’s ability to remain an authoritative power that is ready and able to fulfill its obligations. with this i don't see.

and what happened in nagorno-karabakh, that somehow it could seriously harm russia, that they could harm russia is, uh, a completely different topic, this is the belief in washington, the belief in the biden administration and in a significant part of congress, that for one reason or another. uh, russia is not ready to respond to the american escalation and more broadly to the escalation of the collective west and ukraine receives more and more new types of weapons, it seems that in general the collective west for ukraine is a homeless barrel. and there is no need to pretend that this has no consequences, there are consequences, because if this had not happened, then the war in ukraine would have ended a long time ago and zelensky or who would

have been at the head of the ukrainian? it would not have occurred to me to say that they would not agree to peace without russia completely capitulating. uh, russia is destroying everything more ukrainian military equipment. just provided by uh, the west and uh, ukraine i don’t even know of a second such example in world history immediately replenishes its reserves. with new weapons, and weapons that are usually more lethal and longer-range. with all this, washington is told that the united states is not a party to the conflict in ukraine. yes, they support ukraine as a victim of aggression, but they themselves are not participating in the war. well, you know, it’s even difficult for me to react seriously to this. well, here it is imagine how to convince. how to convince

a russian mother who has just lost her son and who was killed by an american shell fired from an american armored vehicle. how to convince her that the united states is not involved in the conflict or try to convince the generals from the general staff of this, who in all their planning of the operation in ukraine are forced to proceed from the fact that the united states is a direct and immediate participant in the conflict, the americans say, no, we we are not a participant, because in ukraine there are no our ground troops. well, first of all, there are american advisers there. there are american instructors. uh, there are american technicians who help maintain american military equipment. well, imagine the situation with a tank. and they tell you that in all

tanks the only participant in the hostilities is the one who shoots; the driver is not a direct participant in the hostilities . and the one who directs, uh , an artillery piece, which is part of the tank’s armament, is no one, besides, who directly shoots, but no one would accept such a lesser measure of strange logic. this is exactly the logic that the biden administration is using when they say they are not a party to the conflict. they are paying for the war for ukraine at a level of more than $100 billion. they give military equipment, they give ammunition. they teach the ukrainians how to use this technology and help them develop

operational plans. and most importantly, more and more the united states is using its electronic intelligence capabilities provide ukraine with information to launch strikes. provide this information as accurately as possible directly, unless this means being a direct and immediate participant in the conflict. i don't know then what it takes for you to really be a participant in the conflict in which you objectively play. not just directly, but a central role. uh, in washington they are talking about this , the republican minority leader in the senate, michu maconel, just said. uh, what's this war on ukraine is not dangerous for the united states, that it can be safely continued, because

so far they have not killed a single american soldier, but uh, i don’t know what senator maconou meant, but he would like uh russia to demonstrate that american soldiers may die in ukraine ; there are hundreds and hundreds of american citizens in ukraine from intelligence officers. e to diplomats, u to military advisers and to people who directly take part in hostilities . indeed it still is. russia showed respect to these people. i would say not that that increased attention, and increased inattention, in the sense. that they were not touched and no operations were undertaken against them. i actually don’t want americans to die in ukraine and i don’t want them to die as a result of hostilities with russia, but i also don’t want washington

to have a dangerous illusion. what can you do what the united states is doing in ukraine without risking very serious and real american losses, and so far, to some extent , the united states has been lucky in this regard lucky, because russia did not have that situation in ukraine when there would have been a need, when some more decisive actions would have been justified, but let's listen to what president putin said about this a year ago. today we hear that they want to defeat us on the battlefield. well what can i say, let him try. we have already heard a lot that the west wants to fight with us until the last ukrainian. this is a tragedy for the ukrainian people, it seems that everything

is heading towards this, but everyone should know that by and large we are serious, nothing has happened yet started. this is all i know, uh, and i heard in moscow, uh, the pure truth and i want to repeat it for now, because to take some other methods of struggle while russia did not need this and while the emphasis was on those military actions that are being carried out in ukraine so that russia can live as normal a life as possible, in order to pay all the necessary social obligations, in order to spend more on education, medicine, and so on. and from my point of view this is completely justified, but it seems to me that it is very important for washington to understand what if the united states went even further in pumping ukraine with new weapons by providing systems such as attacks

that could potentially strike. yes, not just in russian cities, but even in the center of russia, the united states would take a very big risk. and then i think maybe even senator macol would have to think about it. does the united states want to endlessly wage this kind of war? now the general assembly is taking place in the united states in new york, to which a great friend came of the american people, president zelensky and today president zelensky is already in washington where he is trying to charm the american senators and members of the house of representatives, which is not always an easy task with us. now on skype in the united states, ekaterina is a commercial correspondent in

america and a regular participant in our program. catherine's is great. thank you for taking the time. hello, dmitry thank you, let's start with zelensky in washington, as i understand, he had important meetings today, including with the speaker of the house representatives kevin mccarthy's house of representatives is controlled by republicans. and this is what mr. mccarthy said after this meeting. zelensky has answered many questions about the conflict, but i have not made any commitments to the new $24 billion aid package the administration is requesting. i don’t fully know how to interpret this on the one hand, this is what it looks like. so that zelensky could not, despite answering questions and convincing him, that this help should be provided from another

sides. kevin mccarthy had the opportunity to say, well, i talked to him, and it was an interesting conversation, but i’m still against him, he didn’t say either, how do you understand the position of the speaker of the house of representatives. ah, dmitry birds, uh, mr. mccarthy it’s quite obvious that he’s between two fires now. and now the republican party is split - this is part of the republicans. this is, in principle , supported by us public opinion . according to cnn pools, more than half of americans do not want continued assistance to congress, and to ukraine, and the other part, so-called republicans are hawks, old school, insisting that the aid continue, that the united states stand by its ally no matter what. well, he's trying to maneuver. e. i think that explains everything. it’s not even

so much what zelensky said, but he is looking at not losing the speaker. this , by the way, seems to me to be an absolutely correct interpretation, because kevin mccarthy not only has relations with the biden administration, but also has difficulties with his own fellow republicans in the house, and he always has to think about how to maneuver in such a way as not to lose his current position, but uh, apart from the stone map, as i understand it, there was a letter from a group of republicans. and let's listen to the senators and members of the house of representatives who, in general, said that they are against further assistance to ukraine. in a letter seen by the wall street journal, a group of congressional republicans rejected president biden's request for additional 24 billion dollars for military economic and

humanitarian assistance to ukraine was signed by 23 members of the house of representatives , six senators, led by ohio senator jay divans and texas representative chubam. roem's letter is addressed to shalandia young to the director of the white house office of management and budget. although the white house or bipartisan majorities in both congress support further assistance to ukraine , a small group of dissenters is enough to block or at least slowing down the steps needed to decide on a new aid package was a clear indication of the political difficulties that await zelensky and his allies in congress. here in the article, it seems to me quite reasonably, a distinction is made between the possibilities of these republicans. let's call them conditionally. uh, nationalists generally freeze uh assistance to ukraine, which the article does not consider likely and

it is possible that they will somehow significantly slow down and complicate the decision-making process, what do you think will happen and is this a storm in a glass of water? or there really is a possibility that aid to ukraine will be significantly reduced. i think that, indeed, the age of the jorns is absolutely right, what the republicans can do now, including senators rend paul, he said that any temporary resolution. even a temporary resolution to continue funding the government will be blocked procedurally and this will take about a few days. that is, there is such a system in the senate. there will need to be some explanation to give additional votes to carry out, but uh, it absolutely will not force the senators, at least. yes, but block the aid package at the level of the upper

house. but what will happen in the lower house is a big question, because as far as i understand, chuck schumer is the leader of the democrats. and everyone is now planning to submit their own budget resolution from the senate, and it is quite likely that kevin mccarthy will allow this re. that not only democrats, but also republicans can join him in voting, which, in general, is a unique story for politics usa, when democrats and republicans come to an agreement, yes, in order to prevent the government from stopping, in order to push through the initiative on ukraine, and here kevin mccarthy will really have to choose, because he really has a very shaky position, they can now begin the procedure for removing the speaker for that he took such steps. and here such a very subtle intrigue will depend a lot on him, whether he is ready to make such

sacrifices for the sake of ukraine, the ukrainian package, or whether he will still, uh, insist on consolidate your republican conference and still reduce aid to ukraine. i think that this option is likely, that they will not give as much as they promised, that is, this is it, there may be a compromise, that is, this situation. it’s still complicated and unpredictable, but for the first time in many years there is a real possibility that the american congress will cut off aid to ukraine or is this a wrong interpretation? i think you are absolutely right. ahh, look here again. what story. it was not in vain that i mentioned the situation with pools, yes with cnn polls with according to wall street journal polls, about 62% of republicans are against aid to ukraine , continued aid to ukraine 55% of americans are against continued aid to ukraine we are now

entering the twenty-fourth election year and do not listen to the opinions of the voters of congress. in principle, they can’t, that is, they have to do something , that’s what it will be, but i think that all the same, they will be forced to reduce funding for ukraine because, well, they should fund 16 billion to the guys who survived spontaneous disasters and 24 ukraine this. well, that's not fair. at least. yes, at least a balance, that is, i think that some kind of reduction , some kind of compromise, will have to be achieved. otherwise they will disappoint the americans. voters let's talk about the biden administration's approach to ukraine. until recently, we could find in the american press the following opinion roller that it is extremely important for ukraine to demonstrate quick successes on the battlefield, because otherwise, uh,

the biden administration will not want to support ukraine at least in those the scale that has been until now in the midst of the election campaign will come next spring. it will be necessary to think that in a few months there will be presidential elections and giving additional money to ukraine , as zelensky cannot demonstrate results, and many american commentators said that it is very unlikely there, but now admi. the baytna radio says, yes, on the battlefield of yeletsky there were minimal results, they say that there were some, but they admit that there was minimal, no strategic breakthrough. but which of these that seems to be the conclusion of the biden administration. and here they are doing this, at least in words

, who needs to be patient, they need to provide ukraine with more weapons, and american abrams tanks, american f-16 combat aircraft, and even perhaps they say, uh, moreover, probably american missiles, atakamsk, uh, long-range, which could potentially strike at ancient russian territory. that is , in other words, it turns out that the biden administration is ready to go for a very big deal, the main military operations in ukraine in the spring on the eve of the elections and everyone understands, including, as i, uh, hear in the biden administration, that russia will be found? how to answer that next spring no one thinks that ukraine can have a walk.

is this the correct interpretation of events and is the biden administration really ready to go all-in for the sake of ukraine? yes it is absolutely obvious that this is a kind of all-in, and moreover, what i am now reading in the american press , journalists say that we say biden means ukraine we we're talking ukraine we mean. and this is a very dangerous tactic , because now many republicans , including centrists, are starting to put pressure on biden to say that this is a failed foreign policy, and active ones will play this card during the debate. and i think that here, uh, for mr. baidan, of course, it would be better to somehow resolve this issue to save face, but for some reason, he decided, uh, to go to the last, and plus

everything now needs look at what 's going on with the impeachment inquiry and a study came out recently. he says that more and more americans are beginning to believe that he is more corrupt than trump and that already about 47% support this investigation. and if we remember there, the money of burism appears, yes, and here the cash register has comments, and such, and a well-known congresswoman who says that she has the feeling that zelensky’s biden is in his pocket. that is, i think that this card will at least be played out in the presidential elections. but to ask questions they do. and this is why biden is for something for zelensky. and i don’t think that this is the right tactic, but for some reason, what is this reason?

only uh, joe baytan knows this. he continues to promise that they will help, no matter what. despite the fact that public opinion demands something different from him. that is, in general, it turns out that they are in the white house. at least for now, at the level of rhetoric, they decided, what is the risk of defeat in ukraine on the eve of the elections? that this is a more serious risk than pump up ukraine with more and more weapons, go to a new round of escalation, raise the stakes and, incomprehensibly, raise the stakes. wherever it would lead, that is, they decided, biden really decided to connect his political future with ukraine, so it turns out. it turns out that yes, and from there it is absolutely obvious, if we consider these publications, about which we spoke and surveys, this is the wrong tactic.

this is the wrong tactic. and if we remember those military companies that have recently carried out us campaigns that have been dragging on for decade. this will be such a giant tail for joe biden in the history of the united states what? well, you won’t show much, but why do they do this? well, they are so stubborn, let’s say now. so. well, maybe there is some other reason to really weaken russia as competitors. there is also this, and such a passage is such a short story, that if russia wins in ukraine, then china will win in this way. well, that is, there are many arguments there, but this is precisely for joe biden. it seems to me that it is political suicide that he is now does you know, uh, i imagine. by the way, it can be compared to trying to cross a swamp into this swamp. there is absolutely no need to climb. but when you’ve already gotten into it and gone

far enough. uh, status quo is not an option. you either have to go back. moreover, this will also be very difficult and risky, or pushing forward this, if you like, stubbornness out of despair, well , this is the situation the biden administration has put itself in regarding ukraine on the eve of the elections. let's see where this leads ekaterina thank you very much. we hope to see you soon again on our program we are leaving for advertising , we will be back in just a few minutes. madam let me buy you coffee, something is going to happen on november 30, we are talking about an assassination attempt on roosevelt stalin and churchill during their tehran meeting in forty-three. now i know for sure that all three will meet on november 30

from approximately 8:00 to 12:00 at night at the british embassy in tehran. this is impossible. how can you know this? they don't know about it themselves. at least two of them are watching. i'm very afraid for her life. leave immediately. will nothing ever happen again? is it really all over for the centenary of alexander alov, tehran 43 on sunday on the first well, what remains is the memory, what do you mean memory , ordinary human memory commission for iquaria all payments without commission with a free account for business the best bank for business

ours are sold out purchased at a new sale . complete sale coincides , hurry up yarvi wet food for 399 applicator. kuznetsova for 459 the legend can return at the most unexpected moment.

everything is interesting, who invented it, the one whose family is about to become larger, which means 10% cashback will definitely come in handy, good returns with interest, and the one who invests in his son’s future, so the card is free, and we came up with debit transfers without commission vtb card for people like you and me, you will have time to get your card for the life of the bank and everything will work out. hello , i'm an angedak. i'm struggling with a sore throat. i appear at the most necessary moments. and i immediately get down to business, helping to relieve a sore throat. be the first to tell me if i like it. come to the aid of a sore throat. angidak, spray angedak. first aid for sore throat. finally found, the rarest ancient china collection is complete.

collect a collection of the magnetic sea. travel through the board game and receive a call for a rare magnet magnet stores on yandex.market and delivery in just twenty-five minutes. start earning more with the tinkoff investor card let your money work for you. apply for an investor card with free service and receive a share gift of up to rub 20,000. tinkoff is one ergoferon combines four actions at once, antiviral anti-inflammatory antihistamine and activates the immune system four actions in one against flu and colds ergoferon pay less pasta cooked 69.90 fives by restaurateur.

and it became because there was always a free alpha bank for the smart and free. marina children , i’ll show you something like this now. you simply won't believe it. well, we saw it. this is cashboy from mega market, he is not allowed to buy. we open megamaster and buy what we need at a profit and with a huge cashback. listen to advice cash battle, and you will be able to afford more profitable purchases, we will order a surprise, your children are waiting for you at the mega market, any business begins with desire. i wanted a chair like this, and to do it as you need, gather a team. do it yourself. but sometimes development

stops, but with support it doesn’t stop. we are expanding further national project small and medium-sized businesses our business is supporting your people are screaming, someone’s son died, a girl, a little one will lose her parents , mom, dad, cynicism without borders or the most a loud fake of ukrainian propaganda , the russians allegedly continue to parasitize on the theme of the theater. the restoration hides the consequences of the bombing, apparently, not about the more lies that the polish border guards were afraid of. seven people threw stones at the border guards from the belarusian side of the border; the attackers were slingshots and flashlights, modern border guards. what are the enemies and what is real courage in russian anti-fairy premiere, tomorrow on the first and always on one tv dot ru and now we

will talk about more pleasant, encouraging topics about what is happening in russian chinese relations, and shifts in russian relations with the korean people's democratic republic and themselves. now professor alexander lukin is a professor at the higher school of economics. and in general , he is justifiably known as one of the most authoritative serious russian experts on china and in general for the far eastern regions. alexander is very glad to see you. thank you for taking the time. good evening. thank you for such an undeserved, but performance. in general, yours deserves more, but i already i said what i could say, but i want to understand your assessment of what is happening in russian-chinese relations. yesterday it was

announced that president putin will travel to china in october to attend an important event, and president putin met with the chinese foreign minister and. in general, it seems to me that such quite specific in tone and very warm statements were made, at the same time the statement of the russian foreign ministry about negotiations between you and foreign minister sergei lavrovav, and it was said that, quote, the closeness of the position was demonstrated, but usually when diplomats speak, the closeness of the position is still evidence. there was no complete complete coincidence. what do you think about this ? well, speaking generally about russian -chinese relations, there is no explosive change taking place in them. yes, they

have been developing progressively for many years, several decades, i would say since the end of soviet times, from the time gorbachev made a famous visit to china. so i completely restored the relationship. e s china and the then soviet union, and in general the leaders in both countries changed, there were different directions in politics, but the course towards improving relations , deepening trade, economic cooperation and so on never changed. and in particular now these are visits. in general, they have been planned for a long time. er, well, the official reason for coming to england is a meeting with a patrol officer. yes , because this is their eighteenth meeting. this is the format. here, on our side, is the secretary of the security council on the chinese

side. uh, well, since there is no council there security means he holds such a position, he has several positions. yes, he is also the minister of foreign affairs. uh, but another member is shooting a hole and he has another position - this is the head of the secretariat of the commission of the cpc central committee on foreign policy. well , so that there is no level of exit from the minister, the higher the minister of foreign affairs is the second person in the foreign policy hierarchy in china after the senior minister himself. and uh, he is responsible for international security in a broad sense, and so he heads this format with the chinese sides. well, before that there were other relevant leaders there, so the conversation about cooperation in the field of security has been going on for a long time. and progressively, of course, there are new problems all the time. now we have new problems. yes, non-a are also discussed, but

in this working order. naturally , every time, uh, leaders of this level as well as our representative, which means that the secretary of the security council is received by the leader, usually this is such politeness, but on the other hand. uh, so uh indicates how high, ah the relationship with your partner is valued. now, with regard to this formulation that you mentioned, well, indeed, we have many similarities with china on a whole range of problems. uh, and in general, there are no particular disputes, but at the same time, some nuances exist, uh, in the chinese positions. president putin spoke about this in different ways. eh,

one time, meeting denkin. yes , he said that china has some concerns regarding russia, in particular the situation in ukraine, and here he is met with sedentine to alleviate these concerns. but that’s why yes, there are certain points on which china, uh, does not share all russian positions. now, if we analyze the chinese, well, like some. they say the regulation plan, but in fact, this is not a plan , but is called uh, which means, like some kind of declaration, the position of the chinese is indicated there, uh, quite acceptable things for russia such as uh, well , it says there, that’s the chinese position.

in general, from the very beginning it was such that all parties must take into account legal security concerns of the other party. yes, that is, as it were, well, that is, this position is very close to the russian one. well, at the same time, for example, it says that it is necessary to respect the territorial integrity of all countries, yes it is necessary, but it says that uh hmm it is necessary to maintain peace negotiations to stop armed actions there uh hmm indiscriminate conditions. this means that already now and well, as if russia hmm, in principle, these principles are welcomed. the proposal rejected them, ukraine immediately, uh, here, but, nevertheless, on specific issues their. of course it can be discussed.

i would say, you know very well that the united states is putting a lot of pressure on china not to provide any support, and to russia regarding ukraine and god forbid, not to supply russia with whatever technology , equipment, anything that could be used against ukraine to what extent do these calls and pressures work? well , we know china, the official chinese position, china states that it does not support any of the parties, uh, specifically in the conflict, yes, he supports russia's position in the sense that russia, like china, together strives to resist the us attempts to establish its hegemony there over a large territory, increase its sphere, influence, and so on. but that means, uh, at the same time, it means

that china says that it officially declares from the very beginning that it does not supply any weapons to russia. but on the contrary , until now russia has always supplied weapons to china . but what is really happening? i can't tell you, but i think so. so, hmm, the main thing in promoting china to russia is the development of the usual trade and economic cooperation, because, uh, russia may not need chinese weapons, russian weapons, they are still quite advanced. and as i already said, it was she who supplied china with advanced models, always uh, in some uh areas, maybe china caught up. uh, the russian level, but not at all. russia needs

pure economic support, yes, and technology, investments, and simply goods, uh, that it cannot purchase in other countries. and yes, and here the chinese support lies in the fact that it not only do not stop cooperation not only does not limit it, but also expands it. well, you yourself have seen that on the streets of moscow, more than half of the cars are now chinese. yes. this is due to the fact that other cars have become more expensive and more difficult to supply. i should even think it also happens there from trucks there from tractors. eh, so is it possible to somehow use them for military purposes? well , you can probably, but it’s difficult to put pressure on china, which means that china will pursue the policy that it considers necessary here too. it seems to me that we need to proceed from

a strategic understanding. china's situation. eh, it is not beneficial for china if russia weakens. he would, of course, want peace to be established as quickly as possible, because from his point of view. well, this whole situation somewhat undermines world trade and makes some kind of external economic relations more difficult. eh, including for china itself. yes, all this pressure that the americans put on them is not very pleasant, but on the other hand. they understand that if russia somehow, well again will restore relations with the west. well, this, of course, is hardly possible, but in china such reasoning goes further, if somehow hmm something changes in russia so that it restores relations with the west to, say,

the level of the nineties. this is extremely unprofitable for china. he will remain in the current situation. this is not such a favorable situation for him in the nineties. from the west, and when a trade sanctions war is declared against him, he will remain hmm, the west alone , this is not beneficial for him. russia is the most important for him, uh, a strategic partner in this sense, so he will support it in every possible way, but i don’t think, no matter how moderately, by military means, because, well, it’s a principled position. china in general is military neutrality. china has never used its armed forces. well, i would say the vietnam war, 79-80, so i took it in the early eighties. the so-called course towards an independent independent foreign

policy has not concluded a single alliance treaty with china, here is one ally. by the way, we are talking about the dprk, here is the dprk from him the only ally, but this is an agreement of the year sixty-one. it has been historically preserved. since then, since the eighties and early eighties, china has not concluded a single union treaty; it is unlikely that it will change this position well. in washington, when it looks at china, it seems to me that there are two positions. the first is that china is first and foremost a rival. that, unlike russia, china in the long term will pose a fundamental threat to america , and not only military, but also at the level economy, if you want simply because of the enormous population and china, the chinese presence in a variety of forms on a

variety of continents. and this is who does not cause concern and chinese capabilities to measure technology. trying to limit on the other hand believe that the chinese have in recent years. in general , the pace of economic development has lost. that china understands that they depend on the united states more than the united states depends on china and that in general, uh, china, at least for some period of time, can be is ready to accept a model of relations when the united states remains the world leader, when china understands the limitations of possible cooperation, and the united states, but on the other hand, this is a tolerable situation for china. at least because as you mentioned.