do you think it is worth leaving such actions unanswered at all, because the division into good bad nations, as we know from history , usually generally ends badly. lavrov yesterday, in my opinion, spoke exhaustively on this subject. uh, the foreign ministry, uh, commented on this decision and we will continue to comment on it in the vein that the european union and its member countries, in fact, renounce, thereby about the values ​​​​of those postulates that, as it turns out, they now completely hypocritically and duplicitously promoted on for many decades, mirroring in this matter is probably not the best move, we leave all options open, how to respond to this? or maybe not symmetrical, asymmetric, as

they say now, the reaction of practical measures, of course, will be taken, but here the situation is more important when the european union and its member countries have exposed themselves, and as, well, enemies of freedom of movement, one of those values which they have declared over the years. it's sad, but the european looking glass taco appears in all its black gloomy guise, and i think sane people around the world understand that our neighbors in the european union have played some kind of geopolitical game. this is, in principle, obvious. i think not only for us, but for everyone who has their own unbiased view of what is happening and who does not wait for a wave, a

european or washington conductor's baton, before being able to give their own assessment. well, despite the regular allocation of military assistance to ukraine, joe biden, it turns out. still , he is in no hurry to supply missiles to kiev anymore range. is the concept of the red line still present in the minds of american politicians. what do you think? unfortunately, we have to point out. it is with concern that the degree of, uh, involvement of the american side in this situation and the degree of immersion in washington, including in material support, support for the armaments of the mikheev regime continues to grow. this is a dangerous trend, we have repeatedly warned the us about the consequences

that can occur when, uh, the us, uh, pumps and gets involved in other forms of direct support for kiev, in fact, puts himself in a position. e close to what can be called in the full sense of the conflict the thinnest line that separates. the united states from turning into the side of the conflict, and it should not serve as some kind of illusion for the rabid anti-russian-minded forces that, having crossed into it, everything will remain as it is. no russia is able to fully protect its interests and ensure them in the most reliable way, as well as the goals facing the word will be achieved in full. scale. we warn the us against

provocative steps. including from the supply of increasingly long-range and destructive systems. this is a road to nowhere, the consequences of what is happening will be heavy responsibility. for this, it will fall entirely on the ruling circles of washington well, yes, but more and more often in the information field, including in the american media, information began to appear that most of the western military assistance to ukraine does not reach its final destination, and on your sight. why is this happening at all? is it possible to say here that there is a certain corruption scheme using the black market for weapons. eh, what could be the consequences of such a business? from the very beginning of the current period of pumping the kiev authorities with western weapons, we warned the countries that supplied their

ruling circles against the consequences. and this is a weapon. indeed, it is already beginning to spread far beyond the borders of ukraine. and we are alarmed that it may be at the disposal of extremist terrorist groups. and what is happening directly e in the zone of the special military operation. and we saw, among other things, at the exhibition that the ministry of defense held on the margins of the formulas of the army forum, 20-22, where samples of the latest western weapons were shown in an assortment, which became trophies of our troops, our servicemen. e. i don't think that there are grounds, er, to talk about the existence of any

corruption or other schemes. what you said, it doesn't matter a second time, more importantly, much more important is that the pumping continues and the flow of these weapons comes to ukraine from many western countries and, of course, the united states is leading this process. that is, we see here, uh, an example of how western states and eu countries, drawing a parallel with their denial of their own values, on freedom of movement, but neglect their own obligations regarding the inadmissibility of arms supplies to conflict zones. and these commitments were accepted by the mentioned countries under the auspices and within the framework of such organizations as the osce, the european union, and so on and so forth. we repeatedly, as a department, as the foreign ministry, drew the attention of our opponents and opponents,

that here, too, their actions negate their own commitments; their actions are in radical contradiction to everything they have signed up to in this area. this is another blatant example of the substitution of international law for world orders based on rules, when these rules are directed, when these rules are written by the west and rewritten to suit their own interests. sergei alekseevich here earlier you said that the priority of russian diplomacy is the prevention of a direct, e., conflict between nuclear powers. until the glory god succeeds. although provocations in energodar at nuclear power plants continue from the side of the apu, in your opinion. here are western politicians who continue to pump up weapons, and ukraine is a country with such obvious nationalist ideas, in some circles. uh, these countries share these fears

of the russian side regarding a possible conflict between nuclear powers. let me remind you that at the beginning of 2022, the leaders of the five nuclear powers, the so -called big five, at the initiative of russia , it was on our initiative that they adopted a joint a statement confirming the well-known formula about the inadmissibility of nuclear war, but this text also included an element of the provision that any conflict between nuclear powers is dangerous and efforts must be made to prevent it in the future, we have seen numerous cases of speculation. uh, distorting malicious interpretations from the west and of what the

russian side is doing in terms of ensuring its own security translation of ours. physical nuclear forces on an enhanced duty regime , what the president said and uh, what we all saw live as his order, but became a starting point for some reason for the endless distortion of our policy in this area. let me remind you that the russian military doctrine, as well as such a document as the foundations of the state policy in the field of nuclear deterrence, exhaustively set out all the scenarios in which the theoretical use of nuclear weapons by us is reduced to aggression against russia or its allies, and with the use of weapons of mass destruction or aggression using conventional

armaments, when threatened, put the existence of the state itself. i am reminded of this. and again, we do not deviate from these positions , while western countries are taking more and more provocative steps, in this area, let 's pay attention, at least to further blurring of the line regarding the control and management of nuclear weapons. we saw what happened when two b-52 strategic heavy bombers. the other day they were sent from the uk to romania and in the course of their movement, and control over them, as we understand it, was transferred to nato structures. this is a continuation of the fact that for many years we have been deeply concerned about the practice of the so-called nato joint nuclear missions, when the crews of the air

crews of the air platforms are trained in the field of the use of nuclear weapons, and the crews that are trained are non-nuclear countries within the meaning of the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons at a recent conference in new york as part of the day of the russian delegation and other countries i emphasize not only the russian federation, but also other countries have expressed concern about this practice, have expressed fears that it can be transferred by the united states outside of europe, where all this has been happening for decades, to other regions in asia, these are all legitimate questions. so who, the question is, blurs this line and violates this most important balance of responsibility in the handling of nuclear weapons and approaches to their use. we see here. uh, escalating tension further it is on the part of our adversaries that we call on the

us and its nato allies to take a different approach . the one with responsibility in this area, how does it do? the russian federation is an american country . our calls are somehow heard at all, because sometimes it adds up. it seems that the states are trying to accuse russia of all sins , and even some western figures are publicly expressing the idea of ​​recognizing russia as a sponsor of terrorism. why do you think such demonization occurs and for what purpose do american politicians hint at russia's connection with terrorist organizations. what can be here? well, such, perhaps, negative consequences in the future for us. in fact, any international multilateral platform where the us is represented by their satellites. uh, vassals are used by this group in order to saturate

the work, including of completely technical international organizations, with geopolitics, which today, in the understanding of the united states, comes down to discarding russia and creating maximum difficulties for us in terms of ensuring the internal development of the solution tasks that we face both in the economic sphere and in the sphere of contacts with other partners. who is ready to develop relations with russia in a normal, mutually respectful and mutually beneficial manner, for which we always call and for which we are ready the united states is doing everything to create the most powerful political psychological pressure on our country and discussions about the ideas that you just mentioned are channel. for us, this is obvious, it does not frighten us off balance, it

does not bring us out of balance, but the sanctions, which are already out of the united states and i will remind you before february the number of sanctions cycles that the united states went through in the fight against modern independent russia in the fight against the formation of a multipolar world. the number of these sanctions has exceeded a hundred. we have long adapted to work in these conditions; what has happened in recent months stimulates the further deepening of this work. further reduction of dependence on the dollar, as a means of international settlements, finding alternatives in our development, finding those ways that will ensure movement forward despite the intrigues of the united states and those who follow in their wake. alekseevich, this question is not a secret yet,

that on the side of ukraine and foreign mercenaries are working in a special operation, if i may say so, and recently there are. it seems that their number is reduced according to your connected. this is hmm with the fact that the fate of the prisoners turned out to be, well, practically indifferent to their own countries. we know that in the uk almost publicly forgot its citizens, and in ukraine do you ever receive an appeal from the united states with a request to return american, for example, mercenaries home? no, the pamidov line did not receive such appeals from the americans. uh, there were certain situations when we exchanged various kinds of information with them about where

certain us citizens could be. west, who in their uh impulse to help kiev, in quotation marks , should not think about the consequences. right in my opinion weigh everything that is going on. i reiterate our unshakable determination to ensure the full achievement of all our stated goals. and we warn those who, uh, are ready to take up arms on ukrainian territory. against this, the consequences can be tragic and they will be tragic for these people, but we also warn those politicians, or rather quasi-politicians of politicians in western countries in the western

community, who are under and who are open, what is called inciting these moods and stimulating their business helps mercenaries. this is unacceptable. this only delays the completion of all its. one more topic. here joe biden regularly blames russia for the record growth in the number of refugees in the world, as well as rising fuel prices in general, in the food crisis. e is used in the rhetoric of the american president, even such a thing as putin's price increase. how long do you think, for how long, uh, the american population will believe that such failures are obtained in the domestic policy of the american administration, they are somehow connected with the actions of our country the demonization of russia began in the united states long before the special military operation in recent years and

the tenth years of the 21st century. and the last two or three years we see uh, the bias of the political elites in the usa in uh. anti-russian narratives, and translated into russian in stories in with her, which have nothing to do with reality, but serve as a screen to cover up their own failures of their own internal political squabbles, some problems that, as we see in american society, are multiplying a lot. we remember all these discussions about interference of the russian federation in the american elections, these arguments. uh, they just fizzled out when it became clear that there was nothing concrete behind this and could not stand now either, accusing russia of some

problems of an economic nature, problems of the us consumer market, uh, but at least wildly . and in this regard, i want to draw the attention of the audience to the fact that the wall is hypocritical, complaining about the rise in prices in the world for basic foodstuffs. goods for grain for feed and so on administration and finger did not stir in order to ensure guaranteed access to the corresponding russian products on world markets, the so-called package deal on grain was concluded, and the united nations played a certain role in achieving it. then, really, but practically, measures began to bring ukrainian grain to world markets. but what kind of world markets are 2/3, as i understand it, from

the grain delivered recently from ukrainian ports, it did not end up starving in africa , asia or other regions. it's gone to europe they are silent about it. this is the way it should be. here's the crux of the double-entry double-entry bookkeeping approach . scream to pour mud, and our policy is a and at the same time, uh, wrap up their own affairs, as it is necessary, uh, neglecting the real needs of huge regions. we insist that, uh, the united nations and its relevant structures take additional measures to provide real, not declarative guarantees for the withdrawal of russian agricultural products as part of the grain deal i mentioned to world markets. to do this, it is necessary to take

effective measures to ensure reliable insurance to reduce the fract to ensure admission of the relevant ships to the ports of specialized countries, and so on and so on, the list of issues to be resolved is known. the us administration has it, they are hindered by the fact that they are blinded by anger and hatred for russia, they are hindered by the fact that they are used to helping. just called his own, but then why not blame the fact that someone else is guilty of some kind of food crisis or in oil price hikes. well, yes, i also want to ask you about the provocative double standards of the american administration, but in a slightly different region. it is obvious that the states have begun to actively work to destabilize the situation in the asia-pacific region. why do you think the visit was arranged, uh, nancypelosie?