mayer is besson of izmur and you are in trouble kristina legachova your grandfather called and you are not confusing anything , she must be in dmitriev, i say she must be in dmitriev. that the girl went on a spree, grandma, come on, show me, i’m sure!

larisa mikhailovna will definitely like it, we'll see, we'll see, okay, thank you, you can't come here, calm down, criminal investigation, i would say , you can't come here, are you a complete idiot or something, everything is fine, comrade, he showed resistance to me, maybe i'm sorry, okay, shell shock fought, where did you fight, where should you fight? you don't 12 years old, to throw into a fight for any reason, oh, you had it, like in childhood, remember when she would pester you with craft blades, with a cigarette with a cat, wow, don’t

get used to it, where did these come from, the member’s wife came for new things, well of course, i forgot this at home, and i ’m accompanying our wife, and they are friends, your stupid ceremony, and you’re a devil, with what chain do you throw yourself at people? one person is in danger, what kind of person, no matter, a good person, here she is, that the devil sits his beard in the rib? svek, leave these jokes for your wife your minister, i’m just happy for you, everyone is happy for me, everyone is hinting, i’m the only one.

in three pines, you know, in newspapers there is such a position in the issue, veza head, free-lance journalist, reads the issue, finds errors, use mine if, we’ll discuss, but there’s nothing to discuss, light, they surrounded me from all sides, today they generally advised me, no one believe, i’ll give you the right advice, it’s your job, remove your emotions, turn on... make a list, if you want, start with me, and a cigarette, oh, you’ll get used to it, then i’ll take two, thank you, thank you. you

spoke beautifully about the kgb dungeons, boris arkadvich, ryzhov, the soviet-french friendship society, it’s always nice to chat with compatriots, isn’t it? what kind of compatriot am i? i probably don’t have a fatherland anymore. why? nobody deprived you of your citizenship; you can always return. let's do it without any propaganda, please. okay, okay. tovatov wrote an interesting novel , so we’ll find out how it will be published, do you really believe that it will be published, they say that there is no novel, well, you know that better than me, that in general, there is an auction here, what kind of stranger, what kind of auction? “you see the americans with

stoletov, this is douglas izru, they are discussing how much stoletov is ready to give up the documents that you boris arvezli from moscow.” the big game is on the air, president putin is now in beijing, where he is participating in an important event organized by the chinese government regarding economic opportunities: all over the world and opportunities that go even wider than chinese-russian cooperation, we will talk about this, president putin had already today there are important meetings with other leaders, tomorrow he will have a big meeting, i must say more precise

negotiations with the leader of china xizenping, well, at the same time, president biden is active, who is going to israel tomorrow. and these are the tasks american diplomacy sets for its president. he will again make clear the notion that israel has the right and even the obligation to protect its people from hamas and other terrorist groups and prevent further attacks. anyone who tries to take advantage of this crisis to attack israel, be it a state or a political group, president biden will make it very clear: it is not worth it, for this purpose he has transferred two aircraft carrier groups and other military forces to the region. just like that, it will make you understand and there is nothing to understand, because who you are, and if you don’t understand who you are, then two aircraft carrier groups will come to teach you, and what’s more, there will also be

marines, they have already promised, and they will be there until 2,000 us soldiers, here's what cnn says about this, approximately 2,000 military personnel must prepare for possible deployment to israel on orders from the pentagon. in addition, marines from the rapid reaction forces are sent to israeli territorial waters. so, what is israel going to do about this? prime minister netanyahu said this quite frankly. the prime minister explained that israel, having been attacked by vile and brutal murderers, entered the war with determination and unity, and will not stop until the military is destroyed. the potential of hamas, this is what he said, according to the israeli version, to president putin, in response in response to the call to look for some kind of negotiated solutions to find the possibility of at least a temporary ceasefire for humanitarian purposes

, this is the situation, general buzhinsky, lieutenant general, professor of the higher school of economics, what are you expecting now in the middle east with... all these threats and the movements of american troops. you know, very, i have a very alarming, so to speak, state, because this conflict, if it flares up in full force, then it will , of course, be a very, very difficult conflict, very long, and in no way comparable doesn’t even go with our special military operation in ukraine, because... conflict , if or when, i don’t know, data has now appeared that israel seems to have begun to hesitate, but i think it will still launch a ground

operation in gas, at least in its northern part, if this happens, then there has already been a warning from the foreign minister that iran will not remain. whether hezbollah intervenes or not, but first of course hezbollah will intervene, others will intervene, islamic jahad, for example, will also probably get involved from the west bank, then there are other arab countries, i don’t know whether they will directly, or so to speak , introduce some kind of sanctions, economic, that is, the conflict will already develop into an israeli-arab conflict, and if iran gets involved, and if all this flares up , then naturally, iran gets involved, then this will already turn into an israeli-islamic conflict, which in general can shake the foundations

of the existing world order very, very strongly. you know, i have a general, it feels as if history is repeating itself. i remember the eighty-second year, i remember i was in lebanon at the time, writing for the christian science monitor and sometimes for the new york times , and i watched as... the united states decided to facilitate the evacuation of plo units from beirut, and it was president reagan's decision, i sincerely believe it was was noble and humanitarian, but of course, when you find out, this is better than me , the americans decide that they will allow someone to do something in a situation where there is the potential for someone to use armed force, the united states is letting everything they have

there is, or at least everything that they consider necessary , in order to give the enemy in advance the impression of overwhelming american superiority, so they sent the battleship of new jersey, the battleship of new jersey began to fire at those who, from the american point of view, were preventing the establishment of peace in beirut, of course, did not concern the israelis or the follangists of the christian militia, which was in alliance with israel, well , the syrians did not like this, because several shells reached their units and units of local militias, which the syrians supported, at that time the american marines landed, 200 people, and the terrorists blew them up, blew them up, yes. casino, you know, for me this is a reminder that

when you go into a powder keg with military force, you shouldn’t be surprised that an explosion may occur, so what do you think, it will still do something, you know, i also remember , i was in cairo in october 1973 and, uh, i remember the americans also brought up their fleet, ours. the airborne division was sitting on hungarian airfields and the world was generally at peace border, too, when only brezhnev’s call to the american president, when israeli troops were already a hundred kilometers into the cairo-suez highway. and they surrounded the third army, yes, there is a third second army , things were already really bad there on the egyptian front, only when brezhnev said that another kilometer and... our paratroopers would begin to land, they would begin to land, and there really was a division there, all transport

aviation, that is, the force was very decent, only then was it possible to stop the world, i believe that the world was from a direct collision soviet american armed forces , what netanyahu is doing now, actually he should stop, he should stop, he’s already, well, let’s say, in quotes. punished hamas, the task of destroying hamas, physically destroying hamas, i believe it is unattainable, why? well, because, firstly, well, the leadership is in the boat, why are they going to bomb a lot, uh, then, how to distinguish, uh, a hamas militant from an ordinary resident of gaza, how to destroy the entire system of underground tunnels that are buried there, uh, well, according to the information that exists, open sources, there are multi-level systems up to 60 m, going down, in concrete with supplies

of food, water, the whole thing is quite extensive, the whole thing can be crushed, well, you can, of course, take these american ones , two-ton bunker bombs, but then you need a lot of them, i’m not sure that the united states has such a number of these bunker bombs, that is, you can pinpoint some object for... you can’t, well, then you need to completely expel the entire population, completely raze both northern and southern gaza to the ground part, then to occupy this territory and really go deeper through the tunnels, but this will take months, if not years, i believe that from a military point of view this task is impossible, therefore, but on the other hand, of course, there are already so many words said that, at least, i think, they will still try to occupy

the southern part, the northern part, i beg your pardon, andrei denisov, senator, first deputy chairman of the federation council committee on international affairs, ambassador to china for many years, short, but important term as ambassador to the united nations, in addition, you know, the middle east. because you were ambassador to egypt, i have the feeling that it was somehow either spontaneous, or organized, coordinated. here two international positions have been very clearly developed, what is happening and how to react to it, one is the position of the united states, israel and their allies , the other is the position of russia, china, and those who support them, some systematically,

some support only on this specific issue , and there was a vote on regarding the russian resolution, as you know, in the un security council, where there was a very interesting distribution of votes, let's take a look. the russia-led draft resolution received five votes in favor: china, gabon, mozambique, russia and the united arab emirates, and four votes against france, japan, the uk and the us, with six abstentions: albania, brazil, ecuador, ghana, malta and switzerland. please note that with the united states. only their closest allies, nato members, japan, which has its own alliance, voted the united states, and those who voted with russia, well, there is already a more diverse group of countries, because besides russia and china, there are gabon, mozambique, african countries, very interestingly,

the united arab emirates, which also have enough with the united states. .. good relations, but among those who abstained are albania, which clearly focuses on the united states, ghana, which in many ways considers itself an american partner, and even switzerland, formally neutral, but of course, in europe, adjacent to the european union nato-oriented. as you explain this distribution of votes, two different coalitions really emerge. no, which of the two coalitions, i still won’t join, i don’t agree, it’s not like a division into two, well, relatively speaking , parties, say, the west and the rest of the world, because in general, in general, in some basic points, the assessments of both

camps are close or coincide, both of them, or at least imagine the leading ones. not that they are ready, but condemn violence, condemn terrorism as absolutely an unacceptable action, not to mention the taking of hostages, which, in fact, became the trigger on october 7 for the entire situation that has developed today, on the one hand, on the other hand, voices are heard from everywhere about the need to comply, but at least... some norms of humanitarian law and a humanitarian approach in relation to the gas sector, do not take things to extremes, do not simply lead to the total destruction of the population, to what in one of the inserts and quotes was called eelhall, that is, a hole in hell , hole leading to hell, and bringing of collapse, in my opinion

these were the words, this is an american source, yes, that is, brining is the end. on the edge, on the edge of collapse, thus, in the main assessments there is , well, at least some kind of parallelism, another thing is that something is put in first place, something in second, there is to a certain extent a play on words , but the trouble, the trouble of what happened at the un has nothing to do with the current situation, this is the pure politicization of the negotiation process in the security council, this is probably the worst thing, because it doesn’t agreed uh essentially on an issue that one way or another required unity of opinions, because we were talking about a humanitarian situation, both here and there, uh, and yet, in my opinion, this is the only way i can think about it, uh

, only because the draft resolution was put forward by russia, the west spoke out against it, and nothing more, i was even more offended by the fact that they abstained, so many countries abstained, because they could well have joined the camp of those who voted for, well, look, here’s gabon and ghana, african countries, yes, gabon voted for, ghana abstained, you said ghana , yes, indeed, he has quite close relations with the united states of america, but here we are not talking about contradicting these relations, we are talking about expressing his, well, let’s say, humanistic position, okay, albania, it obediently follows forvateri, after all, malta, and the same switzerland , which certainly belongs to the western camp, but this is still a country that, well, not for centuries, of course, but for decades, has been talking about its neutrality like this the humane nature of its policy, this, of course, is very bad for the entire world community.

general bushinsky mentioned the situation in 1973, when you were in egypt, and of course, the situation was very serious, in general, if there had been an american participant at the table, he would probably have told you yes, of course, russia showed , willingness to use its armed forces, but in general, the soviet union was not able to go that far, because nixon put american nuclear, strategic nuclear forces in a situation of heightened combat readiness, and brought the american units that were in the mediterranean to combat readiness, well... the thing is, why i agree with you that it was a very dangerous situation, but that the current situation, i think so, is

more dangerous, because then both sides, they had different assessments, and there was a real conflict of interest , they supported different sides in this struggle, but they did not demonize each other, they did not have the desire to risk world war iii. i'm very careful i read what soviet leaders said during that period, including brezhnev and gromyk. and i watched what nixon and kissinger said. you see how they refrained from not only mutual insults, how they refrained from threats. none of them sounded like anthony blincon, if you dare to come to us, then we will blow you to hell, that’s essentially what the american secretary of state said , they quietly sent kisincher to moscow,

quietly, i meant immediately, but quietly , yeah, he met there with the soviet leadership and resolved this crisis, and now, like, you yourself said that just because this resolution was adopted by russia and china, you are right and this causes regret, bordering even, i’m not afraid of this word, with despair, the lost instruments of contractual solution of problems, this is a fact, the vocabulary has changed into some set of such political vocabulary into a set of biting ones. words that carry a very serious semantic load are simply being exchanged, such as genocite, holocaust, they just became some kind

of labels, you know, as they say, because look, by the way, today, when i was driving in the car, watching various materials on the networks, i came across a selection of statements by biden, the president of the united states, about our president, where, when, how on what occasion in what connection, he expressed various kinds of epithets, i even once in a conversation, when there were still such conversations with american colleagues, he explained that the word that biden used in relation to the leader of china has, look at the dictionary, in the chinese dictionary there are several translation options into chinese, one of them is killer. in what translation will this statement be placed on the table? biden's assistants to the chinese

leader, well, this is such a question, i would say, let's say, academic, so returning to the harsh reality, please note, neither our leader, nor the chinese, have never ever used such language in relation to western partners. not to mention the leaders of western countries and the usa, first of all, did not use it. that's the difference, if you want two worlds. as for the loss, loss, mechanisms for reaching an agreement through negotiations, they must be urgently restored, without this at all nothing will happen. alexander dugin, philosopher, political scientist. i want to ask you about parallel. reality that i see when i look on the internet, and what they say there, many gentlemen, comrades, probably they should

be called citizens, of russia, maybe of the world, many of them are already from israel, i don’t know who, who are very outraged by russia’s position in in this conflict , what i noticed is that they unanimously condemn that russia is in the wrong country, that russia allegedly supports terrorists, and are absolutely not inclined to discuss in any way, but how israel behaved and what israeli actions contributed to the radicalization of a significant part of the palestinians. and why is this so interesting to me? because i remember how some, i’m not even afraid to say, quite a lot of these people, when there was a conflict between the russian state and the chechen rebels, and the chechen rebels already by the mid-nineties. openly

became terrorists, frankly, but there could be no doubt about some basayev, this category of russians, then still liberals, they said, needs to be understood the suffering of the chechens, how many bad things the russian emperors did to them when they annexed the caucasus, how stalin treated them unfairly, by the way, really unfairly, evicted them from chechnya to some distant, sometimes very, let’s say, inhospitable regions from a climate point of view, you need to understand them, you need to negotiate with them, the guys called them, chechens, guys, chechens, so i didn’t see any understanding of what happened with the palestinians, in general, it was like for this category of

people, it was passed for... .braces like you do you explain this, they just don’t like the russian government so much that since russia said white, they need to say black or are there some deeper reasons? i think that this is a very interesting phenomenon, the one you are talking about, and this group of people inside russia, inside the late soviet union and to this day, it always takes a russophobic position in all fundamental issues, for example, in the first chechen war. in the second chechen war, in the northern military district, in a situation where there was a conflict in 2008 with georgia, now in a global relationship with the west, and it doesn’t even matter whether they are patriots of israel or not patriots of israel , they do not love and do not recognize the palestinians, because today the palestinians and the entire arab world find themselves in opposition, unipolar

american hegemony, this is explains a lot, it is useless to look for some kind of logic, sympathy for them in regional conflicts, for those people you are talking about, because they have a special deep ideology, the ideology of a unipolar world, the dominance of the american-centric west, they they identify with it precisely this west, their homeland, the ultimate truth , the universal system... values ​​and everyone who stands in their way, this, this global western hegemony, these are the enemy for them, why? they choose such harsh terms to address russia , why do they speak so disparagingly with hatred about russian patriots, about the russian leader, not just because they somehow especially hate us, they hate us because we

exist and we are trying to defend. completely different model and international relations, ideology, they also, in fact, once in the west, say, they will hate china, another obstacle on the path of this unipolar world, that is, their ideology, liberal ideology indeed, it is associated with a very deep system of worldview, where the west is in the center, a single model of civilization is modern western civilization and its rules of installation. and russia for them, this is not their homeland, this is not their country, this is not their culture, this is not their people, no matter who they are, it can be russians, ethnic, ethnicity is secondary here, these are people who are bearers of western ideology, liberalism, we missed this, this is not a neutral thing, do what you want, this is an erroneous idea, this is a vulgar idea of ​​liberalism, liberalism is a very sharp and rather a totalitarian

, more and more rigid ideology, which insists on a whole series of provisions, for example, the exercise of nation states, any, if we are talking about a small nation state, you can have a little nationalism, it can be easily used, so it doesn’t represent a problem, but if we are talking about large civilizations, states , civilizations that put forward their system of values, their geopolitical program, their claim to sovereignty, then they are subject to decay, discredit and destruction, if perhaps that is why this is the real fifth column, this is the absolute fifth column in the most literal sense, these are people who are here, but consider their interests to be the interests of... hostile sides, and of course, if we talk about this difference in assessments of each other, here is a very , very important thing, the discourse or , let’s say, the rhetoric of countries says a lot, why americans call our president or xinpini so harshly, because they want

to insist on unipolar world, we said it so, and you must obey, why don’t we respond to this just as harshly, because we have the right to their own point of view. we recognize our interests, but they recognize ours, no, we do not defend simply our dominance against their dominance, we defend a multipolar world, where there will be a place for them, and they are trying to insist on a situation where there will be no place for us, and hence the same harsh reaction, in my opinion, towards the palestinians, the terrorist actions of hamas are not have no justification, no matter how we treat it, and it seems to me that our solidarity with the israeli people , who suffered from these... terrorist figures, condemnation of actions, is one thing, but when america suddenly unequivocally supports israel, then every

justice, all kinds of victims on the palestinian side, on the arab side, they seem to disappear, as if there are no certain tough, tough actions here either, and this genocide, the impending genocide of the palestinian people, the destruction of the gaza strip, of course, must be stopped and. .. just as it should, it is necessary to condemn the terrorist actions of hamas, but we don’t see this balance in the world, we don’t see this balanced realistic policy, you think so, we think so, and the vote in the un security council shows exactly this, there is no neutrality left, there are either supporters of a very polar world, and those who are not tolerant are respectful, and there are those who cling to the unipolar model, these are those in our country who speak on behalf of this... liberal unipolar model, they in fact, they are subordinate elements, and not the same as the terrorists of the ukrainian special services, and this is already a different terrorism, terrorism from the western model, i want to ask you in a minute, we

will go first to advertising about whether this is something new russian phenomenon today's history, or does this reflect some... now i want to say only one thing, you are absolutely right, that those who think like this and criticize russia for russia's more balanced position on this crisis are completely unnecessary people who automatically support israel, many of them recently criticized netanyahu. that he had normal relations with putin and russia, that israel did not impose sanctions against russia, it seems to me that, first of all, this is not a commitment to israel on the part of these people, namely

hostility, bordering on hatred, towards the country that until recently was their homeland, we go out to advertise, we will be back in just a few minutes. head of european diplomacy josep barel, why is he so loud about helping ukraine when the united states is crawling to the side. i call on all european countries that have modern, effective tanks to transfer them to ukraine. varel came to ukraine to pull down the pants of the disgraced zelsky, it’s too late to worry, they’ve brought up the topic of joining the european union, die at the front, but for the bright european future. barei. on the list of participants in the pilder club, that is, he was sent as an observer, he came to odessa to see how the infrastructure works there, the possession of the chernomolsk water area is most important to them, in order to lock our fleet in fact at their bases,

mr. barel himself had his own scandals, childhood plays the game kill the jews, the weapons that were delivered to ukraine could have ended up in gaza too, jazep barel, and really jazep, at tutla’s heir tutti, tomorrow on the first, gin сnop there's a big game on the air, when i lived in washington for many years, i observed political emigration from many different countries, and i will honestly say, i have not seen a single immigration that had such animosity towards the country from which they left

, and such a willingness to call for sanctions against their own country, neither chinese immigration, nor iranian immigration, i have not seen anything like this, and i am trying to understand where this is coming from, and i am starting to look at russian history, pre-revolutionary russian history, and some very interesting ones here parallels arise, that's what he said - the radical intelligentsia, the head of one of the russian special services. he said that it is now quite obvious that these people are motivated first of all by hatred of russia, and secondly, by the instinct of destruction. they have nothing else, nothing more positive, no, it was not the head of the fsb or the foreign intelligence service, it was the deputy minister of internal affairs in the tsarist

government and the chief of gendarmes, general pavel korlov. but this is what a man, undoubtedly well known to you, said, i have in in appearance, most likely not personally, he lived a long time ago, but in his works, a truly remarkable, i would say, great, russian philosopher berdyaev. he said that russian westerners, in their extreme expression, in fact, they represent the culture of the east, because in the west the real westerners, they always respect their countries, and they are both loyally critical of their countries and try to put forward some constructive ideas, the russian intelligentsia is distinguished by some kind of all-encompassing passion to scourge its own country. is this so, if so,

why? you know, this is indeed absolutely true, such a phenomenon happened at the end of the 19th century, at the beginning of the 20th century, but here, of course , a distinction should be made that those liberals of that era included many sincere russian patriots, some of them were westerners in that the sense that we will take the western in order to strengthen our country, which we love, which should be powerful. developed , capable of defending its independence, such patriotic westernism did not exist something exceptional, but along with it there was radical westernism, russophobic westernism, openly, which called for simply hating your own country, like pechorin, that russia, how pleasant it is to hate it and how to wish for it, wonderful complete destruction, that is, there were such westerners, not all of them, cannot be smeared. one color, but those westerners who

appeared in the nineties, and who seized power in our country, and still partly, partly hold it, these are completely different people, they have no idea of ​​​​taking western technology, western models of management, development to strengthen russia, there is no trace of it, here we have taken only one part of this westernism, the old, destructive , radical, russophobic, hating russia, most of all, and are ready to ally with any force that opposes russia, but it seems to me that we see something similar to these radical russian westerners in russia now in the american leadership, these are people obsessed with hatred, liberalism, the old liberalism that berdzyaev spoke about there, this means, well, let’s take it once... to develop,

as the people want, the current liberals, in the west in the american leadership, many come from the russian emigration, russophobic russian emigration, and so they are really distinguished by this ideological level of hatred, many of them, like non-konians, you know this very well, came from the strodskys, ideological or zoological, you know, one thing, in general, if a person believes in ideas, then it... these ideas become the driver of their existence, including the physical, so the physical hatred that they breathe towards russia is real, i think , it has ideological hori, what to explain. this is impossible by zoological means, but this is the idea of ​​hatred, it is really destroyers, animal hatred, animals are better, human hatred, animals are not so cruel, only people are truly cruel, well, we finally agreed, yes, okay, let's move on to more pleasant

subjects , senator, tomorrow putin will take part in a meeting of one train, one track in beijing. this will be a very representative group, in addition, putin will have serious negotiations with sizempin in a broad format in narrow composition and of course, we will talk about all this in more detail tomorrow after this has already happened, but for now your, so to speak, predictions, maybe only impressions, what do you think? well, of course, the impressions are considerable, although... the work has just begun, our difference with china is 5 hours, it was already noon in moscow when vladimir vladimirovich arrived, or rather, on the contrary, in moscow it was still very early in the morning when vladimir vladimirovich flew in china, he literally started working right away, we have already seen several of his meetings with

foreign leaders, and the program of participation of our president in various kinds of international summits always includes bilateral meetings. as we say, on the sidelines, these meetings are sometimes more important than even being present at this or that forum, although not in this case, because there is one train, one track in this uh, right now, we’re not doing this in the margins, but of course, on in the fields this means, so to speak, with the same guests, by the way, i note that there was a meeting with the vietnamese leader, there was a meeting with the only european who came, i mean in i see a representative of the european union who came to the forum, viktor orban, the prime minister, more meetings, by the way, a rare case when we heard the work of a translator, because usually, when they give this kind of reporting, the translation part is simply cut off to save time, this is probably correct, look, in the lower right corner there is such a slogan, four hieroglyphs, it can be read, if

you translate it loosely, it’s something like this, china , give the gas, this is usually the cry of the fans. at the stadium when they call their team to move forward, and so, in fact, the forum states that china is increasing speed, and in fact, both china and on behalf of china are calling for this to be done more actively, quite a lot of countries are present at the forum, they all have their own interests, but these interests are chinese, a concept that vladimir vladimirovich, to say, very aptly called the international concept. partnership, he was asked what the belt and road is, he said, this is the concept of international partnership, it seems to me that this is the most comprehensive definition for what is happening in china, this is the international part , i would like to point out that this has become part of diplomatic practice, at least for us and for our chinese colleagues, when a leader goes to

a multilateral event, and at the same time conducts a bilateral visit, state or official, this happened with us when chairman siditimin came to the eastern economic forum or the st. petersburg forum, and vladimir vladimirovich came to, by the way, say, for the third time, the first two took place in the seventeenth and nineteenth years, the first two summits are belt and road, according to the idea of ​​​​the chinese organizers, they are held once every 2 years, then there was covid, now the third, that’s what we can completely predict that the next one will take place in 2025. i think the model will be replicated. well, probably the most important thing, and i’ll finish here, is, of course, the circumstances of the place and the circumstances of the time. the fact that these events are taking place in beijing, the capital of the people's republic of china, with the participation of the president

russian federation and the fact that this is happening right now, when the whole world is literally on its hind legs, we see this, is extremely important, and there is great hope, we will wait for tomorrow, that these events will have some kind of healing effect on the international situation they will still provide it. thank you, well, i’m glad that we said something that gives grounds for optimism, and not on some peripheral, but on such an important issue as partnership between russia and china, which in many ways is the foundation for the creation of an international stability, on a new multilateral basis, but on the other hand, today i had a telephone conversation with one of the most in

but no, certainly not with the minister of foreign affairs from china in any other place, but nevertheless, they drew my attention to the report, which was prepared by a certain commission of the american congress regarding the state of needs. american strategic forces, and he had the impression that this was indeed something fundamentally new and potentially very dangerous. let me give you a couple of quotes from this document. the goal of the american strategy should be effective deterrence, as well as the ability to simultaneously defeat russia and china in the event of possible aggression in europe and asia using conventional weapons; if the united states, allies and partners do not have a sufficient arsenal of conventional weapons to achieve this goal, then the american the strategy should be changed, it is necessary to strengthen nuclear

capabilities as a deterrent, as well as counteract opportunistic or joint aggressive actions on opposite fronts. and we have come to the conclusion that america's defense strategy and strategic posture must change to adequately protect key interests and enhance strategic stability in relations... with china and russia, a decision must be made now so that the country is prepared for repelling threats from these two nuclear adversaries, already in the period 2027-2035. moreover, these challenges are so serious that the united states and its allies and partners must be are you ready to deter and defeat both opponents at the same time? to both opponents - at the same time. actually, this was called earlier, during the cold war , an attempt to achieve... absolute strategic superiority, and maybe someone dreamed about it, but in general it was believed that it was impossible to say that, what

was happening, general? you know, dmitry, a very interesting report, i studied it, it is certainly not, not so small, 11 pages, but nevertheless it deserves attention, this is the second report, by the way, of this commission, i don’t know, to what extent is it constantly active in congress on issues of american strategy, the first report was in 2009, but naturally, then the situation was completely different, this is the first year of the obama presidency, this is the so-called reset, these are negotiations on the start-3 treaty, and accordingly the conclusions and content of the report were, well, let's say, diametrically opposed, this report, it is 12 people , all former deputies, ministers, i three of them, i... know very well, worked with them, some of them seem to be normal people

were normal, well, in any case, marshall billinsle, when he was deputy, rose göta münler, when she was here in moscow, then deputy secretary of state, then these were not some dangerous non -conservative extremists, even frank miller with his so to speak , from the national security council, this was a very tough approach to russia, and it was quite sane. talk, so, this report actually contains 31 conclusions and 81 recommendations, but i don’t have enough time for all these conclusions and recommendations comment, we’ll go to advertising now, and then you formulate all the recommendations that you consider necessary, okay, we’ll go to advertising, we’ll be back in just a few minutes. sergei bezrukov in the serial film by valery todorovsky, who are you? what happened to your wife is tomorrow, after

the program time. i decide to confer the title of hero of ukraine with the honors of the order of the power on stepan. stepan bandra's father was a ukrainian greek catholic priest, and he was of course integrated into the church structure, which was permeated with rejection of russia, he was quite flawed, sickly, short, his hands somehow dragged behind him, and such people, as a rule, of course, they experience an inferiority complex, the guys from bandera’s security said indignantly, he beat his wife, otherwise kicked her in the stomach when she was pregnant, when a child grows up in an atmosphere of violence, this becomes a kind of permission to use violence, in his childhood and... in his youth he had the nickname koshkodav. avver actually took ukrainian nationalists under his wing, and this

came directly from bandera. i am for august 29 and 30. 1943 massacred and shot over 1,500 civilians. the german troops were amazed by the same brutality they saw from the banderrovets. bandera's diagnosis, premiere, on sunday on the first. there's a big game on the air, we're discussing new strategic ones. general bukhinsky, did you talk about the recommendations prepared for the congressional commission? yes, first of all, from the conclusions that draws attention, well, the first conclusion is the difference between the cold war of the seventies and eighties from the current one, the state of affairs in area of ​​strategic stability, then the united states was confronted by one equal adversary, well, first of all, i mean in

a military sense, now it is confronted by... two practically equal adversaries, they really underestimate china a little from my point of view, they operate there with numbers that gives, the community of american scientists and nuclear scientists, that china has somewhere around 400 war-eaters, i am always with a large number of nuclear war-eaters, i have always been somewhat skeptical about the figure of 300, which china... has published for 20 years in all their white books, i think, according to the estimates of a whole group of experts, i think they already have about 800, by the year 1930 there will be 1,500, that is, they will reach the levels that are now limited by the start treaty, with, and taking into account the technological, financial, economic capabilities of china, they can

catch up, that is, four reach 4,000 quickly enough, well, not in five, of course. years, but if you pose such a problem, they will decide, the second conclusion is that they believe that a direct, nuclear collision between the united states from the first day and the russian federation is unlikely, but the escalation of a conventional armed conflict between the united states and russia into a nuclear one, it is almost inevitable, second, the next conclusion, which generally pleased me, because i always talked about it, but for the first time i saw more or less officially on american paper that a limited nuclear war is practically, well, if not a myth, then close to it, that the escalation of a limited nuclear conflict into a global one is almost inevitable, even

gives figures that on the first day, about 90 million people will die in this clash, now according to the recommendation, yes, and of course, there is a whole, whole page dedicated to complaints about how good it was after the collapse of the soviet union, what a great world order it was based on on the rules , how happy they were all, now the happiness is over, as for the recommendations, there are several recommendations that make, well, really practical sense, firstly, they suggest starting exercises on reloading their carriers, what are we talking about? now under the start-3 treaty, which the parties, despite the suspension of its validity, by us and the united states, will be limited to 1,550 warheads and eight hundred delivery vehicles, carriers , of which 70, 700 deployed, 100 and 100

in storage, so... now we have on carriers there are significantly fewer warheads than possible, for example, the trydon 2 missile, on a class boat can have from 10 to 14 warheads on the platform depending on the power, either 100 or 150 km, now they have six, minnitmen - 2 can carry three , now from one warhead, that is, if you reload all... carriers to their nominal power, then they can quite, so to speak, double their nuclear potential in a short time, that is, not 1,550, but about 3,000, we also have such capabilities, but they are smaller , when you said that these recommendations make practical sense, you meant that they can, if put into practice, be

practical. this should not be welcomed, because i repeat once again that both the russian federation and the united states have confirmed that the agreement. we are suspending - the implementation of this agreement in terms of inspection, exchange of information, there are many things that we have suspended, but we have pledged to comply with the levels, that is, 1.550 and 800, we have pledged to comply, so if they start, well, because the additional loading is a political decision, that’s it, we are completely withdrawing from the agreement and are starting to reload, that ’s what these exercises are for, the second recommendation is to study the possibilities of reconversion or reverse conversion of launchers. what is it about? when we reached the level, yes, there is a provision in the contract that

that each side can convert its launchers, that is, convert them from nuclear to non-nuclear. we, in fact, did not argue with them when they reached the agreed levels, because they withdrew from... actually 104 launchers, i’ll tell you, i always distinguish the characteristics of the americans, that they physically hate destroying something, that’s just to physically destroy it, they will look for any opportunity to mothball it, dismantle it, or, as a last resort , so to speak, destroy it by launching it, so to physically destroy something, they just, well, they are disgusted by it and, well, absolutely, that’s it... this was the first agreement when the americans began to actually physically destroy launch stops, because at the time of signing they had 14 1046, that is, 246 they had extra, but

they destroyed, destroyed, then they filled up and began to refit, they took four silo installations on agaya class submarines, on fourteen boats, and converted, well, the first option was, they just...... took a flexible membrane, which it explodes like a rocket when it comes out of the shaft, they replaced it with an iron cover with eight bolts, they said, it’s not nuclear, well, our inspectors were indignant, then they won’t load it with parts, so to speak, they then additionally began, so to speak, to make some improvements, but however, then they took it from their bombers, they took the 2021 bomber, they removed the equipment for decoding the use of nuclear weapons, which on board they said, everything is not nuclear, but our inspectors say it’s possible from the ground, they

say it’s possible, but we won’t do it , y we are not provided for in the instructions, or they took us, declared three minutes there to be training, what training is is not clear, so all this, all this, so to speak, is quite alarming, then came recommendations on the actual capacity building, firstly, now everything has stopped, debates about whether the ground-based component of the triad is necessary or unnecessary, that is, the menetman missiles, they will be replaced by sentinels missiles, that is, also ground -based, ground-based, yes, they had a discussion, they believed that this was unnecessary, their main, main striking force is submarines and strategic bombers, now all these discussions have stopped, plus they believe that the columbia class boats that will be delivered to...