the nasty approach has been dominant for the past 20 years, from the george w. bush administration to obama and trump. he really showed up in a rather unusual way. now the biden administration is taking the same approach. when it comes to economic social policy, there is nothing fundamentally different between republicans and democrats. this is very confusing for everyone, but the democratic party, for example, is characterized by a wider representation of various ethnic groups, but, in principle, it is very complex and the ever-changing picture of trump for example is quite different from traditional republicans. you know, both of our political parties unleashed wars, and the positioning of the united states as an extremely militaristic state is true regardless of which of the two parties was in power, but the president, for example, may depend on something. some presidents slam on the brakes and

say that we should stop, while others, on the contrary, step on the gas pedal and start wars. politics. yes, it does. it does matter, but unfortunately, as far as i've been looking at politics since the late sixties, most of the time we've been in one war or another and the approach has always been that we have a lot of enemies. we have a strong army. we must use it. and this part of our statehood. this is part of our policy known to military theorists. karl von klausovich in the 19th century. he said that war is a continuation of politics by other means. this is part of the us strategy when the us government and the us leadership cannot achieve its goals peacefully. they run to the warriors. personally

, i think military strength is the cause of this war. the us wanted to promote to nato this us-led military alliance that they wanted to include ukraine and georgia in from a russian national security standpoint. and this step is a red line, previously it was a red line and for the soviet union this issue goes back to 1990, when president gorbachev wanted to dissolve the military alliance of the soviet-led organization of countries warsaw pact. in trade for. on this, i wanted to receive guarantees from the usa and nato in germany, in particular, that nato would not move east. after the warsaw pact ceases to exist, the idea behind this proposal. was to end this confrontation of military alliances that

threatened each other, it was a good idea, but after the collapse of the soviet union, the united states broke this promise and began to expand nato to the east, russia opposed this expansion, but tolerated it the first countries admitted to nato after the collapse of the ussr were poland, hungary, the czech republic, which were far from russia, but nato continued to move further to the black sea to romania to bulgaria, the baltic countries, and so on, but the key moment came in 2008, when george bush jr. said that georgia and ukraine should be accepted into nato if you look at the map, you will see that both of these countries directly border russia and president putin stated very clearly that this is a red line and the president said ears. don't do this he warned him, many

european leaders knew it was a very bad idea but the us dominates nato and therefore their objections meant nothing because the us decides everything i think this is the main reason for the current war, but there is an internal the reason between ethnic ukrainians speaking ukrainian and between ukrainians speaking russian is tense relations between them and so on, but the reasons for this confrontation. this is a proxy struggle between the us and russia for a military presence in the black sea, especially in ukraine and in georgia that's why i call it the second crimean war, because the first crimean war was from 1853 to 1856 in this war of great britain france wanted to exclude russia's military presence in the black sea. and in the current military conflict, nato wants to establish its presence

in the entire black sea region. i think it's very dangerous. i think that ukraine would have acted wiser. if stated, we do not want to participate in this, we do not want to participate in the war between the two superpowers. we want neutrality is that about which, by the way, yanukovych said in 2010 at 11 12 13 , but he was overthrown as a result of the maidan uprising, the next ukrainian government said that ukraine would become a member of nato knock i then advised not to do this, i said you would find yourself right between two superpowers. you

will find yourself embroiled in a proxy war proxy war . i think that this is a very bad idea for ukraine. and interestingly, president zelensky sometimes said the same thing, that ukraine should accept the idea of ​​its neutrality even in march of this year. there were active negotiations between ukraine and russia in which turkey acted as mediators, these negotiations were about the neutral status of ukraine, but then i think that the united states prevented the continuation of these negotiations, such an impression i got and the ukrainians withdrew from the negotiations. even despite the fact that they managed to achieve good intermediate results. i advise ukrainians not to get between the two superpowers, neutrality is the best. to appear drawn into the war and many of my ukrainian friends stopped talking to me. they thought that i was talking about the russian view. and i

told them that i have ukrainian views. there is no need to get involved in a military conflict between russia and the united states, and you do not want your country to be destroyed in this war, but this did not convince them. i think the us would be absolutely right. it would be right to say that nato expansion is not a good idea, since it is seen by russia as a threat to its very essence of existence and its national security. we must respect such red lines and not provoke the start of such terrible wars. between our two superpowers. we must remove the threat of escalation. president putin at valdai said, as before, that this crisis is the result of the desire of the west, especially the united

states of america, seeking to dominate the system of international relations. although the system of international relations should be governed by the un charter, i think what he said is the basis for negotiations and the basis for discussions. i want americans to read this speech. our press did not particularly cover it. she took and only a couple of sentences, the meaning of which was presented in an exaggerated form. but if you read this speech in its entirety, you will find it interesting and profound, in my opinion. it is the basis for real negotiations between the us and russia in this speech says that there are different points of view. tours are to be discussed. i think it's very sad that when president biden was recently asked if he was going to the g20, where will president putin be, will you meet with him, biden replied that i have nothing to talk to him about? why should i

meet him? it won't lead to anything good. and when we do not end this crisis, if there are no direct negotiations between our two leaders and the governments, by the way, too, because both our leaders and our governments must communicate. there are different points of view. they have not been studied, the other side of them is incorrectly covered in the american media, but they should be discussed in detail until 2014 was the general economic support for ukraine. there was no doubt that the united states also participated in the political life of the country, in various ways. tried to create there about american government. it is obvious. i think the maidan uprising of 2014 was something in the

middle of an international protest and us intervention i think this is also understandable after 2014 the us supplied several billion dollars worth of weapons to ukraine directly to the government of ukraine we are talking about three billion dollars, but the us and more used to actively invest in the ukrainian army and prepare it to become part of nato, and therefore ukraine is fighting quite effectively this year, because there is a lot of american help entered the ukrainian army from 2014 to 2021 since then. how did this military operation begin? according to various estimates, the united states allocated up to $60 billion to ukraine . this is a lot even for the simultaneous support of the army's military and to support the state budget. i think these are three phases of escalation on the part of the us because the us goal is to get

ukraine into its sphere of influence, especially as a nato member, the us has invested in this, but these investments are relatively small compared to the goal that they are designed to achieve in on october 22, the so-called democratic forum was held in athens, in which there was a wide exchange of views on how to live what is democracy russia ukraine modern conflicts. well, and so on, a saxon was invited there, and he spoke. what does he say like that is a mystery to me? why is this man who participated in shock therapy in the nineties in russia, i broke our soviet economy, suddenly he does and says things for which there in the west they don’t stroke the head

strange, but listen when i look at my i see my own country on the united states of america, a semi-democratic, predominantly white society with a certain hierarchy, the goal of which is to preserve privileges for the elites. this is how it was founded in 1787 . it was a slave system that resorted to genocide against the native americans, but the amazing thing is that it still looks like this today, despite the fact that we are much more diverse now than we were then. let me ask you a victim, because that's what i want to say. one more thing about democracy, because we live under a democratic form of government, we consider democracy to be something good, but the most cruel country in the world. and by a wide margin in the 19th century was probably the most democratic or the second most democratic country in the world great britain you can be a democrat in your

country and a cruel, imperialist in other countries the most brutal country in the world since the 1950s is the united states jack they participated in so many warriors. jeffrey please stop jeff jeffreys, host. am i saying enough? ok i will not. i'm not here to defend this or that system. i'm only here to encourage dialogue and stop monologues. the big problem is that in europe the social democratic idea dominates, which is that everyone should have

guaranteed access to basic health care, decent education, affordable housing, and in the usa there is no such concept. the usa is much more anglo-saxon free market economy, and there is no such concept that everyone should be entitled to some basic standard of living in the us more than poor people. despite the fact that the us is a very rich country, the average income of the us is very high, but there is also a very large gap between rich and poor. and the political system is more geared towards the rich, they pay for the election campaigns of their candidates, they pay the congressmen and the congress keeps its turn low taxes for the rich people and the government says. well, we don't have much money to provide guaranteed social services. this has been a problem of us policy for many decades. she

represents the interests of rich people more than society as a whole in 2019. i wrote a book called the new foreign policy beyond and in american exceptionalism. i said that we need a completely different foreign policy, because the current one does not work either in the pure interests or in the interests. america is not interested peace. we spend trillions of dollars on harmful aimless destructive wars in afghanistan syria iraq libya and these warriors do not solve any problems with everything and it would be much cheaper not to spend trillions of dollars, but to solve these problems practically for free politically, not militarily. i think the us is making a big mistake the us is a very, very wealthy country with a very unequal distribution of wealth. the annual volume of production in the united states is about 23

trillion dollars, so 60 billion for ukraine is generally a small part of the budget that us sends to ukraine this is for the us it's just minuscule america can continue to do this, but in this whole situation, ukraine will lose the most and not the us, this is a real problem. we say that we are saving ukraine. but we did not save it, because ukraine is destroying it as a result of this proxy war. we need a different approach to the ukraine problem, we need negotiations, not war. i think that most of what the united states of america spends is not loans, it's american budget spending. i don't think this is the main issue. here. the main thing, that ukraine is losing tens of thousands of lives. their cities are being destroyed and the living conditions become

simply unbearable. this is not a ukrainian war. this is a war where ukraine found itself between russia and the united states, and this is a real problem. i don't think the problem is that ukraine will be in debt. the problem is that ukraine will be in ruins if we do not find a way to end this confrontation. i think that this conflict could have been avoided, as i said, if president biden president putin spoke directly negotiated it. but it would be finished in march. and i think that hostilities can be ended even now through negotiations, but for this it is necessary that both sides agree on some kind of compromise. i think the key to solving this problem. here would be a us statement that nato expansion was a mistake and such recognition will lead both sides to some solution to resolve this conflict, the goal

of sanctions is to destroy the russian economy, the tools that the us uses are used for a long time and the approach towards russia is the same as it was once towards the soviet union, this idea of ​​economic containment along with the military arms race, economic and technological sanctions. it was all involved. in order to destroy the economy of the soviet union, and the united states is now using the same goal of sanctions to cause as much damage as possible to the russian economy. as far as possible, but it is worth noting that the united states uses the same tools. now more and more chinas are promoting the idea of ​​maintaining a unipolar world. and i think it's a bad idea, it's part of american public policy, of course,

americans. they would say that the sanctions. this is a response to military action, but it would still be better to negotiate in order to end the war or prevent it . and it is still possible, the same economic instruments are being used today against venezuela iran and many other countries and as i have said more and more against china in that their vision does not cost much and they do a lot of damage to whom they are against. are introduced and no need for decisions to be passed, while eyeballs in the usa against venezuela in 2017. this led to the collapse of the venezuelan economy

. because it was a government order of the administration, which was not even discussed not only in society, but even in congress, so sanctions are used as a tool by the executive branch. i don't think there is a unipolar world. i think the us would like it to have us very strong allies in the european union in the uk japan korea and a few other countries most of the rest of the world. he says, thank you, but we would like a multipolar world order, we would like everything to be in accordance with the un charter, they are divided into pro-american and anti-american countries. i think that most of the world is not interested in the unipolarity of the

whale. they are interested in the existence of a unipolar world. other large countries are also not interested and do not want to take sides. they would like to just not have these wars of these proxy warriors and they don't agree and i don't agree with the idea that the us should be the only world superpower. it was never a good idea, but today it is also irreversibly outdated, yes, in the usa they talked about it, i want to say that when we say the united states, we mean, not the american people, we mean the high-ranking leaders of the american government, those who determine the american strategy. yes, they said that they want russia to be a weaker country. i think that now the so-called west which means

usa europe sees russia as an enemy. all connections broken. we are in a position. proxy war ukraine must understand this first and find a way to get out of this situation to jump out of this struggle between the two superpowers. i hope that in the near future we will understand that this was all the wrong approach, and that there is a much better way to solve this problem. i think that the way out of this problem lies in a multipolar world that would function according to the table. i have worked in russia in ukraine in many other countries of the former soviet union in central and eastern europe for over 30 years. i know this region. i don't want there to be a war. i don't think the us should see russia as an enemy. and when i didn’t think so from the very beginning. i thought that we should end the cold war and move on to a period of normal relations, and it was this attitude of mine that always underlay my actions. i

believe in the possibility of peace and cooperation. i have worked in over 140 countries around the world. all these countries have different approaches, different ideas, different values, but they all need peace and opportunity. develop. it's the basic basic idea, and i'm ready to put my signature under it, and one of the things that i've been trying to do throughout my career. for over 40 years. it is to listen carefully to both sides. i know that in the us we will hear only one side of this story. this is the american government. it's not even the american side. and the american official point of view, but after i listened to both sides. i believe that both sides have their own truth, and both sides can come to a common decision. this is the main idea until the end of the nineteenth century, we and the us russia and america were not exactly

friends, but cooperated well with each other. they understood each other, but then something happened , something happened, and from the end of the 19th century, the states, especially the elites of this country, began to do everything to break the beginnings of the russian empire, then harm all sorts of soviet union and now again another attack on modern russia is it hatred or the elite in the usa has changed and those people who were in the 19th century, their descendants disappeared and to the power of the usa other people came who do not remember anything good. it was the american way.

the sanctions imposed on russia are a death blow to europe, we are shooting ourselves in both knees at the same time, we are talking about a threefold increase in the price of providing for a household. we are on the verge of collapse, all good enterprises are forced to give up so continue to work. it is simply unbearable to stop the sanctions against russia and then we will have cheap gas, then we will again be able to pay our bills. we are facing trials on a historic scale, not we are afraid to freeze, just cover yourself with a blanket and

do not leave the room.

i own a woman to you.

at 4 p.m. in moscow, we will start reporting a strong fire in the center of the capital, a warehouse building on komsomolskaya square in the area of ​​​​three stations square, fires have been assigned the third level of complexity, according to the ministry of emergency situations, calculations have already arrived at the scene, the fire allegedly started between the first and second floors of the building in the city of moscow