it could in fact, be even more dangerous to if there's less clarity about the rules of the game and even more mutual distrust. what do you think about the crisis we're all facing? how deep is it? how real is it? what cannibal russia do about it? or susan duluth, russia is already doing a lot for years during donald trump's presidency. we were calling on the u. s. on russia's presidents to reaffirm once again together the joint statements adopted by president gorbachev and reagan, back in 1987, which said quote, a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. we tried really hard to convince president trump's administration that it was crucial for both our nations and the entire world to hear this message from the u. s. president. again, unfortunately, we couldn't convince our american partners that making such a statement was a necessity. we may quick progress with present biden's administration. however, in june 2021, the president of the united states and russia made this joint statement in geneva, january 2022 saw yet another initiative of ours on this track bring some positive

results. prior to the next scheduled review conference of the parties to the treaty on the non proliferation of nuclear weapons, all 5 permanent member states of the united nations security council adopted a joint statement that said the same. all 5 leaders put their signatures under the statement that says a nuclear war is an acceptable. we are committed to this position and we stick to it as our guiding principle. today, there is a fairly high i would hate for anyone to boats out of proportion artificially. however, there are many who seem to wish to though the risk, however, is there. it's real, it shouldn't be underestimated during the cuban missile crisis of $900.00. 62 there went so many written rules. so to say that the code of conduct was pretty clear. moscow had a clear understanding of washington's moves. washington had a clear understanding of moscow's moves to day. there are not so many rules left. there's the new strategic arms reduction treaty. it was a very positive and wise foreign policy decision made by president biden, to support russia's proposal and agree on a 5 year extension on eustace with no p conditions present from so ministration

wasn't willing to do that. the same time, other tools and mechanisms that allowed to control the arms, the nonproliferation agreements are in a shambles. we no longer have the anti ballistic missile treaty or the intermediate range nuclear forces or i n f treaty. the united states keeps rejecting our proposal to enforce a moratorium on the deployments of short intermediate range nuclear missiles, despite the fact that we have agreed on the need to reconcile verification mechanisms. with key objection is that they can't simply trust that our collection got deployed. escandone systems comply with the i n f treaty requirements. we proposed exchanging delegations, so our american partners could inspect the basic cleaning grad while we would get the chance to visit u. s. space in poland or mania. it's an honest deal, but they still keep saying no. the treaty on open skies is also dead. it no longer exists. the new start treat is the only remaining tool to control the arms that we have. we initiated the talks with us about what can be done after the 5 year

extension runs its course, which is 4 years from now. since the common understanding is that the u. s. is not planning to extend it any more. we have to fruitful rounds of talks in july and september 2021 feet. but we collected after that made it clear that we have some serious disagreements and the both sides understand what they are. we have to work in groups established that were tasked with defining the scope of the agreement and specific threats to be considered during the talks in the future. united states refuse to maintain all this work because russia was forced to defend the russian population in ukraine. they yes, those people were bombed by the official regime and no one in the west seem to care . the west only encouraged kids of phobic neo nazi policies when kids outlawed the use of the russian language in all space, including education, mass, media, and everyday life, and encourage neo nazi ideas and practices. but we were talking about rules, you see the united states,

the allies lights referred to the rules when they demand the everyone else quotes behave well. it's when they no longer urge everyone to observe international law, but rather to respect the world order and its rules. there's no definition of what those rules are whatsoever. you said there are not so many rules today for there are no rules at all. there is the international law, and we respect it as well as the un charter. the key principle here is the sovereign equality of all un member states. u. s. keeps violating its commitment to the un charter by promoting its own rules and demands that the entire world should follow its lead. no questions asked, as well as the lead of america is true allies, mainly in europe and a few asian nations. us does not honor the commitments, respect the sovereign equality of all states in fights. it blatantly violates this equality by trying to make everyone follow the rules it once imposed. what's us treasury secretary johnny yellen said one is a perfect definition of what these rules are about. she spoke on a different topic for what she said applies nonetheless. she was talking about the

need to reform the bretton woods institutions. she didn't have to choose her words carefully like diplomats do. and she said quite clearly that in no case should the reforms lead to creating a bipolar world. she said that the u. s. had to work closely with china and ensure that beijing understands as much. it was perfectly clear. the u. s. needs a unipolar world the way they already see it, and other reforms have to stay within the unit polar world philosophy. back in the day, the trump administration supported the idea of reforming to delete the o. as it became clear with time china was smart enough to out play the u. s. using the u. s. promote to platforms is globalization concepts and all the rules is no wonder that washington ended up blocking the w t. o dispute settlement body that had already received plenty of claims from china, employing procedural loopholes. the u. s. keeps blocking all new hires to the d. s . b, well, it has no corum, it cannot function. when it came to the w t o platform washington declare it is not

to be carried out by the u. s. in europe. while china should be kept away from it. just stating their plans bluntly, in such an unprofessional way, has recently become our western partners, m. o. they are completely unscrupulous. they open the state that they intend to lead, that nato can do whatever it likes. they can say, nato is a defensive alliance. so there is no need to be afraid of it as this organization does not pose a threat to anybody security. and at the same time, nato secretary general installed some bergs as that nato is globally responsible for the world security. even in the, in the pacific region and another fight after the war. so parts was dissolved and the soviet union collapsed. nato moved its line of defense since they claim to be a defensive alliance from the berlin wall towards russia's border, 5 times that he was not to be afraid and assure knows that this was no threat to russia security. it was rather a blunt and impolite way of telling us that we are not the ones decide what was best for our own security. another plan to move the defense line of their defensive

alliance into the south china sea. this is what the orcus and quad security parks are about. and now they're trying to get japan, south korea, and half the asian members into orchestra. they are trying to dismantle the entire security architecture that has been built over decades and was based on consensus and participation of all major players including us, russia, india, japan, china, and australia. everything is being reshaped accommodates the uni polarity principle . the u. s. is trying to save at all costs. everyone is repeating mantras that wold war 3 must be prevented. and it's within this context that we should consider ukrainian president zelinski, and his team's repeated provocations that almost amount to demands that nato troops be deployed in ukraine to defend its government. and everyone keeps saying they will continue providing care with weapons which also serves to add fuel to the fire . they want to keep the ukrainians fighting against russia. these arms supplies to the last soldier, in order to put, writes this merger,

conceits for as long as possible in order to make russia suffer more, that's what they hope to achieve. and while they continue pumping weapons into ukraine and publicizing their efforts on this, tried all western leaders except for poland, rule out the possibility of sending nato troops to the conflicts college prime minister, mateus more of etzky, proposed some sort of a peacekeeping operation. ukraine. it seems that warsaw is interested in sending his troops to ukraine. as peacekeepers. you can only imagine what happens next when the polls enter the land that once used to be their own. i, western ukraine. we can only imagine how their historical nostalgia might go and play out. so what should we do? is it similar to the cuban missile crisis back then, there was a communication channel. both leaders trusted. this isn't the case to day and nobody's trying to establish one. or there were some timid attempts at the early stages, but they weren't successful. we've abandoned all hope of making nato listen to us. natal continued to expand despite their promises not to despise our warnings. they

pumped ukraine with weapons and encouraged anti russian policies introduced by president pol shanker and promoted by prison zalinski. we warned that ukraine joining nato was an acceptable to us as a good will gesture. we made our last attempt and proposed the u. s. in nato. to sign security treaties that would ensure security of all nations in the euro, atlantic region including ukraine. everybody knew ukraine was the proverbial apple of discord that tapped into much bigger global problems and triggered this process . we propose to agree on ensuring security for all nations collectively, without expanding any military and political blocks, the u. s. and nato listen to us politely and then said they won't be able to curb the expansion. it would go against their open door policy. they said, well, we've studied the north atlantic treaty article 10 says nothing about open doors is allowed to invite new members upon member states agreement. if they meet the requirements. and more importantly, if you members can strengthen the security of the alliance. no open doors leave invited monte grow north macedonia and obeyed yet. how could the state strengthen

the security the lions if its purpose is defense? shows that the expansion of nato has nothing to do with its formal goals. they expand the 30 on the us leadership to strengthen the u. s. lead unipolar world. we held us russia talks. i had a meeting with antony, blink and our team visited nato to present the draft agreements in the russian nato formats. all he showed was that nobody was interested in considering a lawful security interest. he kept telling them my friends, this is right on our border on multiple occasions, president putin said they were gates. despite all our appeals declarations and warnings, they just came to our border and said they weren't going to change anything. they said it had nothing to do with russia, and there was no threat to our security. always supposed to reacts. now they started to india. they want to drop into their formats, u. k prime minister johnson visited the country, and so did the us diplomats 1st deputy secretary of state sherman publicly declared

that the u. s. must have held india understand what it needs its own security. they do not mince words and speak bluntly, even though india is a great civilization and not some tiny island nation. sending messages to china along the same lines, trying to explain what the punishment will be for supporting russia. and yet whenever the u. s. suddenly decides, there are threats to his national interests, many thousands of kilometers away. be in the former yugoslavia, iraq or any other place in the middle east. they immediately send the troops and bomb civilian targets without even consulting the international law. or the un charter. we saw that in belgrade, blown up bridges, wrecked passenger trains, and destroyed tv broadcasting center. it wasn't a tv broadcasting center. it was a tool of aggressive serbian propaganda. tony blair said in the same vein prison micron denies the sputnik and accreditation. so the least a police calling them not media propaganda outlets these habits and behavior

patterns have deep roots. mosul in a rock and rock in syria would bombed into ruins. dead bodies stayed in the streets for weeks. the u. s. claimed there were threats to its security in those places on the other side of the ocean. largest military base in the balkans was establishing cost over and it's not going anywhere. the pretext was the instability, the slumbered milosevic allegedly created in the region by allegedly oppressing kosovo, albanians. let me emphasize this. once again, they think they can do whatever they wants in the name of their own security. while they deny us the right to secure our own borders and territories where russians have been oppressed for years, bombed humiliated strips of their rights, the language, culture, and traditions. the problems are that the u. s. is absolutely sure it is always writes and exceptional democrats and republicans alike use the term exceptional nation. their sense of superiority brings back certain memories, especially today. when was the phobia and re racism. i prejudiced against

everything russian are promoted at the highest level. canadian prime minister trudeau said recently the vladimir putin and all the supporters must be punished, adding that all russians will have to pay for what's going on now. and he was governor, i don't think washington would even deny this. they would worded a little differently. they'd ask you, if you really believed that authoritarian regime should enjoy the same rights as the democratic ones, we would just throw the regret would i do believe so. but what for score can we're, we're and since you do and this is unacceptable to them, this defines the key difference between moscow's, in washington's views. they claim nato, as a defensive alliance in russia, has nothing to fear. but what they mean us and we are not stupid or naive to think otherwise, only as long as you behave. absolutely, sure, yes, if a country is doing something that nato, as a democratic alliance thinks is wrong, that country might have to face some consequences. i think nato really high destiny

. so what should we do about the ukraine crisis? considering the risks you've mentioned in obvious clash of approaches to foreign relations. and even the definition of the contemporary civilization, which there is a peaceful settlement of the ukrainian conflict, even on the table given its large scale and major disagreements and mutual lack of trust between russia and the u. s. lead nato willis thought the cook of c. u. s, just like all other countries, the brag about being flawless. democracies have signed and ratified the un charter that operates on the key principle of sovereign equality of states. it doesn't say democracy should enjoy more rights than autocracies, dictatorships, or monarchies. all member states have equal rights. then there's the security council shore, but is different. the reason why president roosevelt insisted on establishing security council with 5 permanent seats with vito powers is no secret. he didn't want the un to share the fate of the league of nations without this mechanism. the un would have probably been long gone, just like the league of nations before it. it doesn't help when great powers can't

in vote their privileges and negotiate the rights of ito, forces them to negotiate for mutually acceptable solutions. at least that's how it was for many years. today, the u. s. and some of the western nations are trying to devalue this, right? they want to transfer the security council's mandate to the general assembly. this would allow them to twist any member's arms, blackmail them, or threaten them by targeting their bank accounts or their children's schools to ensure the majority of the votes whenever they need it. this is a dangerous path. it makes the security council and is 5 members with vito rights, the only strong hold of international law, the trying to replace everything else. prison biden held the 2021, submitted democracies for a reason. they're planning to hold another one this year and establish an organization that would act as an anti un oil replacement. this is nothing new, of course. the west, you're primarily, and especially france and germany has been producing various platforms, calls to action, and the ships to address issues that are already on the agenda for

a while. now. take, for example, the partnership on the international humanitarian law is membership is by invitation only. when asked why they don't want to deal with the issue the usual way. i. e, via the u. n. refugee agency or the un human rights office. they reply, those bodies at you on progressive, they say it's because there are some autocracies in the u. n. so members that are not democratic enough while they need to develop really progressive ideas. germany and france have established the alliance of democracies on the lines of multilateralism. but when asked why give up the u. n. and the true multilateral organization, representing all the nations in the world, with an exception for someone recognized ones they say the same in the u. n. there are those who are against multilateralism by wanting to bring together all the progressive pro multilateral nations, just by the you with it's multilateral partnership policy. so they want to build a block of those who share their views. again, this is all about this sense of superiority,

coupled with the unwillingness to discuss important issues on platforms where they can face the slightest opposition. they simply don't want to, it takes time while they want to implement the neo liberal reforms, a s a p. i also think it's because they feel they ca went straight discussion if their opponents get a chance to present their arguments. just look at the invitation list to the summit for democracy. u. s. has never even recognized some of these countries of democracies. washington got a lot of criticism about these notions of democracy. it's allowed to invite some countries. it's a clearly not democratic yet. the strategic location fits the u. s. agenda. well, for the u. s. wants to do is gather those countries under an umbrella of democracy, flats of them, and then use them to its own advantage. we use labels such as democracy, autocracy, or authoritarian regime. recently, political pundits in the us dropped the label. democracy when referring to india and begun calling it an electoral autocracy. instead. when i mentioned this to my

indian fence, they smiled they know about it. there are many methods to try and put pressure on the country. and speaking about the talks on ukraine, we know for a fact that both the u. s. and the u. k. that seems to be eager to fill it. solitary post breaks its existence with excessive activity, advised president zalinski to gradually toughen his stunts. instead of expediting the talks, what became clear after the meeting in the stumble, as president putin already mentioned, it was the 1st time ukrainian site ever provided a list of their written proposal signed by the leaders of their delegation. we were ready to incorporate them into the draft agreement, but there are a lot of areas for improvement to make them acceptable to both sides. but we welcome them. as a positive developments we received in is tumble, were the only written proposals ever provided by ukraine. so we made a draft agreement based on that and returned it to our ukranian colleagues. after that, they returned it with new requirements that were completely different from the stumble list. this was a giant step back lennon style. maybe even 2 steps back and that was done on the

advice of our american and british colleagues, poland and the baltic states might have also played their part in it just rather go through to him to ukraine has toughened at stance on you look up, they've gone back on some requirements, russia was ready to accept and work on with it. we had drafted a document based on their proposals, only to hear the ukrainian side come back to us with comments like this is wrong. let's remove this. let's come back to it later. despite that, we continue the talks via video calls and we keep explaining our position a week ago, following yet another online meeting. we submitted an updated draft incorporating all then you requirements. as we always do, we'll be waiting for reply for a week already. when present, zalinski was asked to comments on our proposals during a news conference, he replied, he never received or saw any. we asked the ukrainian dedication if there had been reporting to the president. they said he shall, is very busy. this shows all too well what the presence in crane really thinks of that. folks hold a while. he declared that who prefer piece, don't you, sir?

we talked about what washington wanted me. let's talk now about what it does. tony, i can't find the right words to describe the scope of american military assistance for zalinski and his government. it's unprecedented and quite unexpected. for me, at least, wish ukraine received $800000000.00 worth of assistance just 2 weeks ago. and then another 800 millions worth a week ago that now that the us state secretary and secretary of defense have visited kiana about they agreed on yet another 700000000 lawyer digital coke is not all for ukraine, but also for some of the eastern european states kia gets about half of this money was very liberal. what would you call it? liberals fair enough. she then there is the question, what will be the consequences when i am particularly interested in russia's official position on this one? if your personal viewpoint is also very important, no doubt, but can you please tell me what russia intends to do about all this? here are perhaps moscow believes that all the efforts made by washington are

unlikely to bring about any meaningful changes in the current balance of power will be in your willows. california law law bureau, i've read several statements made anonymously by some of the u. s. army officials in regards to what happens to these weapons, once they cross the ukrainian border and where they end up. they all said that they didn't have any information where these weapons might go. apart from tanks and armored personnel characters, thousands of men pads have been supplied to ukraine, which are the weapons used by terrorists. it was for a reason that russia and the u. s. used to have an agreement to keep each other informed of any man pat deliveries abroad. it helps may show that neither party ever supplies lethal weapons to anyone with an evil intent. javelins also mun portable miss isles, even if they were delivered for tanks. they can also be used by terrorists. where will all these weapons turn up? we're talking about thousands and thousands of weapons. her previous experience shows that these weapons will leave ukraine as they would from many other poli,

control country. especially one where the neo nazi battalions, as of an i don the units do not obey the supreme commander in chief and a proud of this and occupy a special autonomous and untouchable place in the armed forces. these weapons will scatter, including back to the countries where they came to ukraine. these countries also groups of people, especially given the waves of migration, who would like to get their hands on such an opportunity. the u. s. military doesn't know where it's all going to end up. maybe they know about some things, but others, they don't. what were the russian federation do when the of sold by rocks are drones, ukraine, a long time ago, they were used for many years to conduct reconnaissance in the dumbass to assist in bombing this region with the artillery of the armed forces ukraine. engross, violation of the minced agreements. the agreements were publicly buried by zalinski . he refused to comply with them as well as the decision of the normally summit in paris in december 2019. although there was nothing there about the guns couldn't yet sc or russia. he had to adopt

a law on the special status of don bass. that was all he had to do. he had to do it . it didn't depend on anyone else. there. he signed up for it. then for 3 years, he lamented that russia was not fulfilling the men's agreements. this was a comedy, an imitation of negotiations on the implementation of agreed measures. now it's an imitation of negotiations on concluding agreements with the russian federation. so as the imitation of democracy, the cancellation of democracy, culture and the dictatorship of radicals, these weapons will be a legitimate targets for the russian armed forces operating within the framework of the special operation warehouses, including those in the west of ukraine have been designated as such. targets more than once. what else do you expect? nato is essentially entering a war with russia by proxy and arming this proxy. there's a war on us for the weapons deliveries. this is another example of the americans been disrespectful towards international law and trying to introduce rules of their own, guided by the have your own way. principal us used to have around 2 dozen,

so we designed am i 17 helicopters, there was a time when russia and the u. s. had a comprehensive joint projects involving cooperation on the afghan settlements. one of the nato, russia council initiatives. it was called the helicopter package for afghanistan, we supplied helicopters and the americans paid for them. we provided maintenance for the helicopters and they were passed to the afghan national security forces. now, washington publicly announces it is sending these helicopters to mister zalinski. we drew their attention to the fight that the vehicles were purchased and a military contract with russia's ross about on exports. this contract says that the helicopters in question can only be used for the needs of the afghan security forces and can be passed on to a 3rd party without russia's consent. the commitment not to pass the vehicles on to a 3rd party were stipulated in the end user certificates they were signed before. 2013. when the helicopter package was been implemented, hillary clinton was the u. s. secretary of state at the time. and then john kerry

took the position, therefore, sending these helicopters to ukraine now would be a direct violation of commitments in a critically important area of international relations. everything depends on the people who are controlling ukraine, managing the zalinski administration from a board. not as i mentioned, is stumble. it was at that meeting that the russian side receive ukrainian proposals on paper for the 1st time. we were prepared to take them as a basis and propose slight improvements of the wording. but we agreed with the contents of these proposals, in essence, the neutral status security guarantees the extent and procedure for granting the guarantees to give you a rough idea with a later departed from this concept. i don't want to give away any big secrets, but here's an example. the stumble document stipulated that there would be no foreign military bases in ukraine, and no military jails involving foreign troops would be conducted on his territory without the consent of all guaranteed countries of this agreement, which includes russia. it was written in black and white. the final version we

received falling our positive reaction to the initial proposals when like this, no military drills without the consent of the majority of the guarantee countries. can you see the difference? it's obvious. they did the same with a number of other proposals, 2 that were 1st voiced in is stumble. i'd like to stress once again. that's our general reaction to these proposals was positive. ah oh, seemed wrong when all proofs just don't hold any world. yes, to shape out. disdain becomes the attitude and engagement equals the trail. when so many find themselves worlds of warren,

we choose to look for common ground. oh is your media a reflection of reality? ah, in a world transformed what will make you feel safer? isolation for community. are you going the right way? or are you being led somewhere? which direction? what is true? what is faith? in the world corrupted, you need to descend a join us in the depths or remain in the shallows. ah

ah, since the break away until nights people's republic was been raging and don't boss ukrainian artillery it's been showing civilian, townsend, mining village, is that new york more lovely deal with a new one with a deal about one of your company a little above the whole of the city of global school, it was 11, there are 2 kinds of conflicts being fought in ukraine, a western design in controlled propaganda war targeting russia and a russian military campaign that is changing the security dynamics of the european continent. and western propaganda is hell bent on escalation

with just look up from when levels only a muscle around noon g. judy doesn't being in the green show on a nice to me as possible. mama cook gas bush, $60.00 to $72.00 and look at that to his ashley. of, of this, one of the rest of the biggest pieces goes down to one to move please. of course, jason with you, but he has not put the key for the chain of times to not work for phones or something like that. and then we got that with that with

they should know that our response will follow at a lightning speed. we have all the tools which no one else can now postal. what latimer put in declare as will be the response to any outside interference against russia. so offensive in ukraine. also coming up on the program, no gas for a poland on bulgaria until they pay for their imports in roubles. as russia turns off, it's up to you commission chief slums. the decision as on justified on that with the u. s. continues to send thousands, all bits weapons to ukraine. some defense contractors are warning up shortage is a hedge o'clock off. huge profits. mm.