we will continue to support ukraine with humanitarian aid money, but this must also be said, we will support them with weapons, like other european countries, so that they can defend themselves. this is necessary for the scientific service of the bundestag. concerned about the legal problem of military assistance to ukraine withdrawal. interesting supply of weapons does not make germany a party to the conflict. but the training of ukrainian military appeals to him is likely. yes, can germany be considered a participant in the hostilities with this question, we started a conversation with a very militant the interlocutor is a livestock rhetorician, an american military analyst and a former un inspector. and from some point on, a vocal critic of us policy had doubts about the topics raised by our interlocutor. no, if you supply weapons to the belligerent, you cease to be neutral, there are no questions. the question is, what will he do? a strong point, for example, the ussr and china actively

helped vietnam during the war, what the americans did, we attacked china against russia , no, but we interfered with armed methods deliveries of weapons, russia clearly and clearly stated what it will do? it is now so there is nothing to talk about at all. all those who supply weapons are parties to the conflict. the korean war between the north and south of the fifties is partly considered as the confrontation of the united states of their allies with communist china and the soviet union in the northern coalition was supported by the chinese people's volunteers and the ussr, which, like the prc, did not officially participate in the war, but financed and armed chinese troops from the south of the war participated usa and 15 other countries under the un flag, hostilities in vietnam began in the mid-fifties, as the civil

war in the south of the country in the sixty-fifth, on the side of the south vietnamese regime, the united states and its allies in the siatu military bloc openly entered it, china and the soviet union provided large-scale financial technical and military assistance to the government of north vietnam in the country was a lot of soviet military advisers and specialists. the wangule civil war began in the fifth year and went on for 27 years about the mp la marxist group, which was supported by the ussr cuba was opposed by another group, unita, it was supported by the usa and south africa who opposed the spread of soviet influence on the african continent when cia director william kolbe was asked why the usa supports fna la he said the simplest answer is that the soviets support the mplla in afghanistan in the seventy-ninth to eighty-

ninth years, the contingent of soviet troops was opposed by numerous groups, which were generously financed by the pakistani cia intelligence and a number of countries of the islamic world, the taliban movement, which eventually seized power in the country, was also initially under the patronage of the us and pakistani intelligence services. today, the most striking examples of proxy wars have become and syria, the us france and others played a key role in the overthrow of muam arqadafi nato countries in syria, the laws of the government of bashar, assad support russia and iran on the side of the syrian opposition usa europe turkey and a number of arab states. is it possible already now to draw any conclusions about the outcome of the battles ? actions in ukraine what's new we learned about military affairs, we previously knew that modern warfare is extremely lethal, the parties use very effective

weapons that bring significant casualties and destruction, this is confirmed, but the main conclusion is not new basic military mathematics. nobody canceled. who has the superiority in firepower here and ultimately takes over the field. boy. the ukrainian side may be achieving impressive tactical successes, but strategically another move on the russian side, since it has a decisive advantage in artillery, missile systems and air weapons. but there is the experience of recent companies. the americans in iraq, afghanistan, the saudis in libya, do not bring total technological superiority, but what you mention is low-intensity conflicts, when one of the parties has an overwhelming advantage, including military-technical. a group of rebels does not fight with opponents of equal strength. partisans who are able to simply dissolve on the ground to mix with civilians, but in without exception, in every single case where

direct combat clashes took place, the us military came out victorious in direct conflict, the technological advantage is 100% guarantee of victory - low-intensity conflict. this is a political war. there. the main thing is to win smart and hearts, convincing arguments are needed if the population perceives you as occupiers, things are bad, but when it comes to the clash of the largest armies in europe, they are professionally well- armed and trained. this is completely different it's a matter of equipment level. after the collapse of the ussr, ukraine received the fourth largest army on the territory of the country, nuclear weapons were deployed from the soviet army, ukraine received more than 8,000 tanks 11,000 armored personnel carriers and almost 3,000 aircraft and helicopters, nuclear weapons were taken to russia as a result of diplomatic

agreements with the participation of the united states over the past quarter century were lost and everything else accumulated over the years, military wealth, most of the units of the formations were disbanded, and all high-quality military equipment was sold abroad. almost all the defense enterprises of the country were closed immediately after the change of regime in 2014. the new authorities set a course to create a modern armed forces on the model of nato. and heavy weapons still make up the soviet legacy in the rear. you can even meet machine guns, maxim and dshk own tank. the stronghold turned out to be an army not pocket, and the problem of air defense was solved not by quality, but by quantity due to the old soviet systems

, units equipped with drones appeared from the innovation. at present, the ukrainian army is a hybrid of the old soviet heritage of small batches of its weapons and foreign aid, a serious problem is an acute shortage of personnel, despite the increase in numbers. army. couldn't turn down the invitation. what is modern warfare intense combat clashes around the clock and without pauses sometimes last for months technology can fail, especially the most difficult and decisive role. there plays direct equipment. it should be as reliable as possible with active and long-term use, so that the unit can be in the field for a long time to carry out combat operations and use the superiority in firepower of the russian army. this is the advantage. since the weapons are durable and

relatively simple. and can we expect a revision of approaches? well, for example, american strategists, by experience, what is happening in the united states, after all, rely on high technology. we will continue to rely on technology, because we are basically obsessed with them, in my opinion. this is one of our fundamental weaknesses in the military point of view. achilles' heel, let's say, we produce the f-35 aircraft, which, according to its characteristics, is almost impossible to shoot down, but in reality it is with what the russians are armed with, because we were too smart with the complexity of the design, but even without this it is simply extremely roads in operation. experts have identified about 300 cases of the critical dependence of the us military on imported components; microcircuits, printed circuit boards and transistors are the basis of all modern technology, like most of the world. america buys them in china, and, as a 2011 report by senators levin and mccain showed. for the sake

of cutting, procurement officials do not disdain counterfeit goods and today the situation has not improved much from china, simply because until 2014, butane triol for half-fire missiles was cheaper from a single factory. in china, its own closed in 2004 , and only 10 years later, production resumed in the united states. most of the american missiles fly on a missile. with the use of the dichloran plus component, it is produced in belgium, but this requires natural snacks, and they are mined in china, and there is still every little thing, such as solar or lithium-ion batteries, semiconductors, copper-nickel tubes and the like. this

awakening a real interest in artillery. we have artillery, but much less than russia we believe in precision strikes, when we have first-class intelligence, we know for sure where the opponents are. there is time to prepare to strike at precisely defined targets, but when the enemy returns fire, this will not work, but if something does not go according to the ideal plan, the weather is bad human factor is a powerful enemy response that can deal damage to firepower . and there is a risk of losing everything quickly the advantage and being simply without firepower is directly said by the united states. there is simply not enough artillery to fight the russians, especially in europe and this is one of the obvious lessons. in my opinion. artillery movement. now the main guarantee of success is much more important than the movement of tanks, because tank breakthroughs must necessarily be supported by artillery, which is able to suppress resistance, if tanks break away from risk

cover they can move quickly they become a vulnerable target, modern warfare - this is a slow war. there is no doubt, no quick breakthroughs. and i think that the war of the future is a deadly bloody grind of the enemy, in which artillery plays a much more important role than anything else. well, air defense. especially when it comes to drones, which are capable of inflicting very high damage. the need to provide the maximum level of anti-aircraft cover for advancing troops - this also slows down the company, but without this, with destructive power modern weapons. losses will be very great. but does the data now say a lot about them that this is a decisive factor, yes, the intelligence information that needs to be transmitted to ukraine greatly increases its combat effectiveness. she is very important. but it is impossible to judge by the current situation. these are deceptive

benefits if you imagine. direct conflict between nato and russia, none of the nato reconnaissance aircraft could be in the air in the russian combat area. they would simply shoot down such freedom of observation. like now, of course it wouldn't. western military assistance to ukraine began back in 2014, almost immediately after the change of power in kiev, at first they supplied only special equipment and equipment, but in 2018 arms supplies had already begun. these were javelin anti-tank systems and anti-aircraft stingers in 2019. ukraine received baraktar attack drones purchased by turkey with the start of a special operation in ukraine. the united states transferred it to almost one and a half thousand stengers .

ukraine about 5,000 anti-tank and anti- air missile systems, germany 1,000 javelins and 500 stingers. slovakia handed over to ukraine three soviet s-300 air defense systems, one of which may have been destroyed in number. ukraine's military sponsors lithuania latvia estonia, the baltic states transferred almost all of their stocks of american weapons to ukraine. poland promised a hundred soviet t-72 tanks, according to baiden, over the past year the united states has allocated $ 1 billion 200 million to ukraine for security needs from 28 april, the us president asked congress to approve another $ 33 billion in support of ukraine in the department. answers not yet, but on april 29, the house of representatives of the us congress, following the senate, approved the allen lise bill for ukraine,

which is designed to simplify the provision of military assistance to kiev, this program, according to which the states in the years the second world war provided the equipment of the allies. and you mentioned nato and we see an unprecedented level of consolidation. is it to be expected that the bloc will receive a new impetus for development and increased combat readiness. i am something of this i don’t notice, there are a lot of talks, yes, but there are 30 countries in the alliance. the more participants, the more difficult it is to agree, because the organization is built on consensus decisions, and the discord is actually very large, and we are talking about a block that has not been financed for more than three decades, military power. nata don't make me laugh, with the exception of the united states, none of the countries are able to fight like the ukrainians are now. europeans. the british cannot offer anything serious. army 80.000. this is for peacetime as well. little polish army is not capable for real action, the germans from the barracks. the french won’t even come out completely exhausted by africa well

, maybe turkey yes, turkey has an army, but something i doubt that the turks will want to fight russia, definitely not, the americans are militarily, yes and they are capable, but it’s unlikely they yes, i won’t send europe has more than 5 armored brigades and a separate issue. whoever pays for all this in congress, they say that the europeans should pay, but they do n’t think so in germany, for example, now they are talking about allocating 100 billion for rearmament. where this money will be taken, especially when gas prices are sky-high at all, isn't it time to think that the expansion of the nations to the east was not such a good idea and finland should weigh what it is doing by joining the alliance russia has already shown that it is not going to tolerate the expansion of nato at their borders, what is not clear? sweden-finland austria switzerland ireland cyprus and malta decided to remain neutral and not to join the alliance, each for

its own reason sweden and sweden have maintained a neutral status since the 19th century, as the best security guarantees, however, swedish troops and aviation supported the alliance in afghanistan and libya leonid ilyich brezhnev warmly welcomed the inhabitants of the finnish capital refused to confront the ussr special economic relations in exchange for a non-bloc status and political understanding in the west and nicknamed finlandization independent austria was revived in 1955 after withdrawal of the occupying forces. under an agreement between the allies, the condition for sovereignty was the consolidation of a neutral status in the constitution of ireland since 1949 was ready to conduct negotiations with the us on a bilateral defense treaty, but postponed joining nato until the eternal north irish question is resolved, cyprus and malta are neutrally friendly

states. cyprus cannot join the bloc, since part of the island is occupied by nato member turkey , while greece temporarily suspended cooperation with the alliance after the landing of turkish troops on the island uneasy relations with the alliance developed in france in 1966, charles de gaulle refused to transfer the french military under bloc control only in 2009, the country finally returned to the structure of the bloc, and spain was accepted into nato only in 1982, 7 years after the death of franco where did this idea about open doors come from? there is no such policy. in nato, article ten of the treaty says that if someone wants to join, then he must fulfill the membership criteria, and then the alliance decides whether the entry of a new country strengthens the security of the bloc of no automatism. why on earth should finland be accepted if its accession could potentially

lead to a big land war with russia nato came a couple realize that the current trajectory of development leads only to war with russia the alliance is not ready to enter this war and win it by conventional means. a new security system in europe is needed and they will have to negotiate with the russians. thanks cattle. ritter is a well-known dissident figure who is flamboyant but controversial in a way that his opinions from the establishment's position do not coincide. there now dominates the approach. only pobeda putin's strategic failure is the freshest thing sounded from the chancellor of germany sanctions against russia will be lifted only then. when will you agree to this? ukraine well, that is, never. on monday, victory day, this holiday includes a lot, including the conflict between our country and germany, monstrous in its consequences, the history of overcoming it in the second half of the 20th century.

overcoming what seemed final, but is it really our guest today vasily dudrev german historian , vasily is a stereotyped image of the germans, a warlike people prone to militaristic behavior. but how does this correspond to the intellectual tradition. after all, classical german philosophy. it is, first of all, peace in the history of germany, as in the history of any other country, there were various plots and a nation was interpreted somehow. give her such a cliche - this is somewhat dangerous, because it can lead to incorrect conclusions and incorrect understanding of the relationship between germany and other countries. of course, the tradition of german, er german classical philosophy , it does not have a militant character, but it is not necessary forget about the fact that the origins of uh in

kant's philosophy, one of the sources of kant's philosophy was the french revolution rather. not a peaceful event of the end of the 18th century in europe, therefore, in my opinion, talking about militancy is still such a cliché, uh, which will not benefit the understanding of germany's place in europe and the relationship between germany and other states , to say that german philosophy did not influence to the events of the 20th century. but what about niches? in this regard, but at the same time, to say that in german philosophy with the formation of some militaristic spirit hmm i wouldn't either. uh, most likely, this should be considered here, maybe not even philosophical questions, but those, uh, foreign policy circumstances in which

germany was at the beginning of the 20th century. in the second half of the 19th century, the unification of germany was carried out by an outstanding military diplomat, and later by the reich chancellor from bismarck under his influence in 1864 . prussia began your land in neighboring states and in 5 years expanded its possessions at the expense of the territory of denmark, austria and france, so in 1871 in the year the german empire was formed, also called the second reich, for the next 40 years germany became one of the most industrialized countries in the world. imperial ambitions, military construction and the offensive foreign policy of wilhelm ii contributed to the slide of europe to the first world war germany was defeated under the terms of the versailles peace. it was torn away from it, it was

forbidden to have an army of more than 100,000 and variable types of weapons, but after a total of 14 years, the nazis led by hitler came to power in germany again, the militarization of the economy began in the thirty-eighth, the annexation of austria takes place, the annexation of the judicial region of czechoslovakia and in the thirty-ninth, the attack on poland begins world war ii in the forty-fifth after the defeat of germany in world war ii, the yalta - sub-wall security system, the new revival of germany, already under the auspices of the united states, begins in the forty-ninth year. it is inextricably linked with the name of the first federal chancellor of germany, konrad adenauer in 1955, germany becomes a member of nato, and i play the main role in the military confrontation of the ussr in the future european theater of

operations in august, the seventieth in the era of the introduction of the brother of the ussr and the frg signed an agreement. which, in particular, provided for the inviolability of the borders of the kaliningrad region, which became part of the soviet union, the berlin wall collapsed in november 1989, and in 1994 all russian troops left the territory of germany the era of the new russian german renaissance lasted 20 years until the crimea became part of russia. it is believed that russia was well understood by the iron chancellor, otto von bismarck, from the time he was the prussian ambassador in st. an ally in europe who could help. uh prussia to implement this idea of ​​national unification of

germany and this ally. could only russia and bismarck count on this ally and in their e in their correspondence with narrow diplomats in all e. in the capitals of the great european powers in the second half of the 19th century, he repeatedly wrote that prussia should not even cast a shadow on good relations with russia, which i will note on an unconditional basis, because for more than 10 years between russia and pussy there were no official e agreements on an interstate basis, only e, strong relationships between the monastics and good ties between alexander and these here, e, relations helped in many ways in russian the state to implement the idea of ​​a national

unification of the germans, uh, who uh. hmm , she said a lot, which also works as an iron transfer. he talked a lot, he gave such. the admonition to the german people, this was especially evident already in the third volume of his memoirs admonishing the german people that well, you should never do this aggressive exit to the east, because here germany will face the fact that russia well, even if she as miss said and will fall apart into some small parts, then they then, as mercury unites into a single whole, our relations with germany sometimes seem fatal mutual attraction, which ends in a terrible rupture of more than one germany into slag. uh, so uh, events, because it was not united in the european family of states of peoples and there were other states that were no less interested

in having two ally of the once ally of economic allies of political allies. faced in a tough fight, this was also in the 19th century, because germany was one of the most powerful economic partners in the russian empire. this was also in the first half of the twentieth century, because the rapalsky treaty, uh, the centenary of which is this year. we are celebrating. it was an agreement between soviet russia and germany that was necessary for two states, but not for everyone, of course. this agreement was also liked in this regard. eh, if we consider modern stories, it is very difficult, of course, to predict, uh, the path that relations between the two states will take. back in the early seventies, during

chancellor willy brother of germany became the main trading partner of the ussr in the western world in 2020 , the external trade turnover of russia and germany amounted to almost 42 billion dollars, a decrease compared to 2019 due to the pandemic, almost 80% of russian exports are raw materials. russia also exports metals to germany, including precious german investments in russia reaching $20 billion counter russian capital investments in the german economy $9 billion, despite the threat of sanctions, germany remains the main consumer of russian gas in europe in november 2011 the nord stream one gas pipeline was put into operation last year the construction of the gas pipeline was completed. nord stream-2. true, it was not put into operation. i always believed

that there is a huge potential between modern russia and modern germany, which is not fully disclosed, uh, primarily in the field of economic trade and economic relations, because, uh , the german economy in many ways needs such a strong, uh, partner , about which for many years before it was the russian federation there is another stereotype about the german character, when the germans do something, they can no longer stop. that is, they do not belong. the culture of reflection, after all, the germans, of course, are really peculiar to them. for some reason, it takes place after catastrophic events, the main thing is that one of the main acting roles in which germany plays was the same after the first world war, the eighteenth year is the collapse of the german

idea, in fact, and then german intellectuals, german historians began to study that tradition, er, the german idea, which was in the xix century. why after world war i? uh, such a surge of study, again, such, uh, bismarck's policies are coming out a huge amount, uh, documents are published a whole series of documentary works dedicated to miss mark, dedicated to uh, the second empire, dedicated to uh, various plots. in this history, a lot of historians are working. this is a study of the problem of the unification of germany, which was laid in the middle of the 19th century, there were some dangerous barriers that did not pay attention to the policies of that period of the 19th century, which then gave rise to

at the beginning of the 20th century, and uh, it seems that, uh, the german people and the german political lithium would have to study these things that are german intellectuals. uh, they managed to create during the period of the weimar republic, but no, the same thing can be said after the second world war, because uh, the tragedy that befell the german people uh, the germans, in fact, found themselves, uh, facing the same situation as uh they had in 1918, divided e divided people into two states of the federal republic of germany dr and how it was to live with it, again, uh, big splash, literature, uh, dedicated