violent takeover of khramovshchik political organization from a ukrainian drone shelling of orthodox churches several monks have simply died in the last month. that is, it is constantly creating, the so-called orthodox church of ukraine, a purely political project, a huge strategy that is being done in the interest of the american empire will not destroy orthodoxy. they will not destroy russia, they dealt blows precisely to orthodox unity , they told how they performed the funeral service and whistled past the fragment, you just need marriage priest to reward a huge number of clergy of the ukrainian orthodox church of the moscow patriarchate remain faithful does not go into schism.

we'll take care of this. it will be the honest

detective. we install, we open, we watch russian channels, and we watch all the movie series and cartoons, educational programs and documentaries for free without registration in the application or on the website.

moscow-minsk agreed to place russian-nuclear weapons on the territory of belarus, a bright step, because the mid-90s, domestic ammunition was located only in the home field of the americans, who continued to store charges in europe, russian diplomacy criticized the situation, calling for the missiles to be taken home. however, it changed dramatically, but alexander lukashenko still in the ninety-fourth year, only the head of the state tried to achieve the cancellation of the withdrawal decision. here we waited for the president to be a long time about how the nuclear balance of power changed, we will talk with

our good friend konstantin bogdan from the imo kostya hello. let's immediately scatter one some kind of misunderstanding that is now flying, especially in minsk , russia is actively developing it, because nuclear weapons do not transfer to anyone, everything remains under our control , russia did not transfer. it transfers nuclear weapons - this is a matter of finding nuclear weapons on the territory of belarus, and again. it is a yet unfulfilled fact that in the future it will be possible to do this after the appropriate storage facilities are in place, because nuclear weapons cannot be obtained under the bush. it requires a rather difficult live technical support. including for everyday like july 1 promise that it was officially announced that such a repository would be created. that is, after that, technically, nuclear weapons can be placed on the territory of belarus and no violation of any provisions of the day. as some people also argue, it doesn’t happen, well, with interpretations, the violation of the day is all very funny, because in fact, if we approach

this issue with everything in an everyday way, then naturally there is no violation, because this is an absolutely symmetrical practice of the cold war, when both sides uh, declared. well, not what they said, but they planned, uh, to transfer part of the nuclear weapons to their allies for joint use. in peacetime, this weapon, including if it was on the territory of the allies, it was in storage facilities at military bases belonging to the main, so to speak, hegemon, that is, either the states or the soviet union, and under its control and only in the military time was supposed to be transmitted here, so to speak, the question arises of a legal, so to speak, so to speak, purism, or what? yes in this legal purity of interpretation. here is the wording of the contract. they proliferation of nuclear weapons does not say under what conditions it is forbidden to transfer for exploitation. but from a practical point of view, everyone is well aware that at a time when the superpowers, who call them seeds, have a nuclear war in their hands

, few people will care about compliance with one of the articles of the day, therefore, and in peacetime, naturally, the personnel of the relevant armed forces did not receive. uh, access to those nuclear weapons had nothing to do with him. all. it was in warehouses and storage facilities that belonged to the armed forces. strictly speaking, the powers of the patron. but staff training about this or what is also being said now. well, staff training is another slippery interpretation. that is, on the one hand, as it were, yes. uh, it seems like people are being trained to use these weapons on occasion from the other side. again , a direct violation can be seen here. well, you can, probably, but again, in a thin and by and large way, the soviet union was silent on this topic until the ninety-first year, while they brought out all russia is no longer brought out, as a rule. successor to all nuclear weapons within national territory. after that, we got a good lever of pressure on the americans, who did not remove nuclear weapons from europe. well, like a certain amount, they left it, because there were seven thousand charges at the peak,

there were some 150 left there. ah, well, it was more convenient to deal with pressure, because we have all nuclear weapons within the national territory. so you can, if necessary , put this button on the table, or so to speak on this very chair to the opponent, you will talk with him about such other things now , uh, the position has leveled off, we are approximately on an equal footing. and which, by the way, is emphasized by the president's statement that we are doing the same thing, they do not consider what should be done. it's a violation of the day. well, we don't consider it a violation of the day either, er. well, here is the cold war, which you mention it was the dawn of all this whole business, you can say, and firstly, the first question i have and what was the meaning of 7.000 e charges in europe it had some kind of military significance. after the second world war , the air force became the sole owner of nuclear weapons in the united states , at the same time they turned into a separate branch

of the military. prior to this, aviation was part of the army and navy, nuclear strikes were supposed to be carried out by bombers, but the bombs themselves were expensive and in limited quantities, so it was believed that one was enough for city-type targets. although this is not always the case , the korean war showed that not all aircraft would reach goals, and to return in general units in europe, the soviet union had an advantage in conventional weapons, as technologies for the production and delivery of nuclear weapons in the west developed, they started talking about their asymmetric use in the event of a large-scale conflict in europe, as a result, in the fifty-fourth year , the strategic concept of nato appears. shield and sword , nuclear weapons are deployed in member countries, and at the end on the offensive soviet troops are germany the netherlands belgium greece italy and turkey in the end, the deployment

of medium-range missiles around the world provoked the caribbean crisis, but did not lead to the final withdrawal of him from europe, opposite the military personnel of the nato countries, began to be involved in training in delivering nuclear strikes. this was called nuclear responsibility sharing or nucle sharing in the seventies , the number of warheads reached about 7,000 pieces in response to the appearance of the soviet complex. pioneer washington undertook to deploy missiles to europe. pershing two is magic, but in the eighties, when detente began and an agreement was signed on the elimination of medium-range missiles, the number of warheads began to decrease in 2000, and they were already there were about 500 stopped. less and less. now the united states does not officially confirm, but deny the presence of nuclear weapons in europe, it is officially known that the missiles are on british nuclear submarines. however, in

2019, nato accidentally shared a document that later disappeared from public access. the canadian senator in his report openly named the number of nuclear charges , according to these data, there are about 150 of them in europe and they are still stored in belgium , germany, the netherlands, italy and turkey. well, if we talk about the feasibility of the strategy, one can argue here, but how would the americans hold such a strategic plan in such a way, otherwise how they represented it. a conflict with the soviet union could develop, that is, a major offensive of the warsaw pact by conventional armed forces, in which the warsaw pact has surpassed nato since the fifties and deploys tactical nuclear weapons in terms of personnel and technology. at first, they proceeded from the fact that, in principle, a military war is nuclear, therefore , reinforcements make it possible to defend without huge deployments. uh, the masses of people,

then the idea arose that in fact, probably, an atomic war on the battlefield. somehow not very well managed. and in principle, to conduct it in this way is not very correct, ours also came to this conclusion by the end of the sixties, for example, but these 7,000 warheads were already beginning to play a greater role in the containment option, that is, uh, the thought was such a russian and they would think and attack western europe and if we don’t have anything there, it’s possible to contain them, otherwise they’ll think about 7.200 warheads there, but don’t attack stay. what if we use 7,000 of them - this is, well, some kind of absurdity, so to speak , just a few, in fact, at that time the parties had several tens of thousands. and so to speak, e application plans were drawn very generously. there are hundreds in the first waves, therefore, well, listen, as they say, an entrance is not needed, as in that joke, that's why it looked. so at that time, even this sharing, that is, i was justified in a joint nuclear mission to a certain extent, because there were many allies. and there were a lot of these weapons and his

possible and even, probably, from the point of view of that war strategy. it was necessary to apply jointly, therefore, there was, uh, sharing with strange projects within the nato country, there were corresponding projects within your contract expense, but with such a huge number of charges. uh, how, in general, was the management carried out, say , by the americans, how they built relations with allies or allies, in fact, no matter how it was, well, as i said. it was none of their business. they did not interfere in the management of the us nuclear arsenal, uh, deployed, including in the territory, then there is a storage facility located on the territory of countries, as they are now located at these six air bases in five countries, for example. and uh , they just had nothing to do with it. they had trained personnel, which, if necessary, if necessary, these ammunition would be ready to be transferred to the carrier further in accordance with the protocols. as they were already taught , they will use them on combat missions, everything was controlled by the americans and with the means of nuclear technical support for the storage

completely american on the territory of the territorial american military bases , only american personnel, we had a similar situation in the warsaw pact in the storage facilities that were on the territory of the gdr poland czechoslovaks. in 1961 , the united states deployed 15 jupiter medium-range missiles in turkey, their flight time to moscow was only 10 minutes in response to this in may 1962 nikita khrushchev fidel accord. castro decided to deploy soviet medium -range missiles with nuclear warheads in cuba from july to october, civilian ships of the ussr navy transported 40 launchers to the island, but on october 14, an american reconnaissance aircraft discovered and photographed their

crisis. on the brink of nuclear war, a compromise was found on the night of october 27-28 during a meeting of the minister of justice robert nayt by the soviet ambassador dobrynin from november 5 to 9, soviet missiles were removed from cuba and washington some time later removed the missiles from turkey in the seventies , high-precision systems for guiding missiles to the target appeared, and then there was talk. that with one precise nuclear strike it is possible to destroy the enemy's leadership before he decides to retaliate secretary of defense james schlesinger unveiled the concept of a decapitating strike as the basis of us nuclear policy. and the following year , the tava declaration was signed between

great britain and france, which at that moment was no longer part of nato, but now abandoned the policy of independent defense and planned to closely cooperate with the alliance in the nuclear field in response to new threats in the fifty-seventh year, the soviet union installed pioneer nuclear tactical missiles on the territory of the gdr and czechoslovakia in response to this, the nato council decided that if moscow does not abandon its decision to use american missiles, pershing two and tomahawk will appear in europe by 83 over the next two years, the united states managed to deploy almost a thousand missiles of their the flight time was a maximum of 10 minutes . the events of 83 years went down in history as a crisis and eurorockets. well, in 1984, yuri died from shotgun shells, and then konstantin chernenko became the new leader gorbachev, who in 87 signed david an agreement on

the elimination of a whole class of medium- range missiles. the soviet union destroyed not only pioneer installations . abandoned the tomahawk complex and ground missiles the ussr abandoned nuclear weapons in eastern europe here allies that are american in the west, that the soviet warsaw pact. uh, they were not at all embarrassed by the fact that they did not control, but in which case it was they who were the field of the nuclear war. well, uh, these are two questions: what they are, what they don’t control didn’t bother them, because they still lacked this headache, because nuclear technical support. this is a very complicated procedure. i just need to lie. and secondly, as if, if we talk about the fact that they become a nuclear battlefield, well , it was embarrassing, and there was a well-known case when team of regular games of the seventies. uh, the german military-political leadership. just slamming doors. let's say here

you are playing the nuclear annihilation of west germany. why did your american nuclear weapons shake the reasons? well, yes, russians, tuesday is here, something must be done about it. in principle, they were embarrassed by this even if you look at some documents of the same warsaw pact, for example, hungarian or polish, which were speeches after the ninety-first year. there is a rather heavy reflection on the topic of what will be done with the side that will become. uh, the first uh, the first target and retaliatory nuclear strikes. so to speak, yes, right up to the export of the population already completely to the east, and so on, the remnants of the population. well, this was the epoch. well, everything happened then, for obvious reasons, in europe now. eh, you can probably already state that this is the idea that we keep our national territory, it is no longer relevant. and where else can some charges appear? here are the americans in asia who are officially declared the main, so to speak tvd for the future, where they can place something. well,

here is a subtle question. will they post it? because, so to speak, a discussion on this topic. there is practically no other question that if there is a question of pressure from the main allies , which are threshold, primarily from south korea, then they can go for an exchange, we provide you with clumsiness in response to the fact that you refuse of their nuclear program , such a technical option is possible, especially if the americans have too many, so to speak, some things gorshkov on kitchen that need to work simultaneously in europe and asia and south asia and so on. uh, american tactical nuclear weapons were in south korea during the cold war, and how would it be possible to return them there if the question of china's detention is already at this level, but so far it's a little far from that, but from my point of view, the main main uh, the logic by which he can appear there. this exception is the development of nuclear programs threshold state. that is, this is south korea, which, oddly enough, is theoretical

japan because both that and another literally for half a year. it can assemble not only what the operating device, but japan, with their plutonium reserves, can mass-produce. well, china is traditionally known much less than china does not like to dedicate their strategic issues to anyone, but still, if you fantasize , you can imagine that china will also think about placing something somewhere, i can’t imagine. such a scenario, firstly, china does not have a lot of nuclear weapons. well, apparently there will be more time, but not so many, secondly, and this is more important, china has no military co. as such , it has specific relations with some states, they have our strategic partnership with russia, which is not a military alliance. pakistan, which is also not a military alliance per se, but it has no allies in the version of american extended deterrence. that is, or both also does not fit. no, it doesn’t fit, there, again, a special relationship, but also what is chinese nuclear weapons could be made in north

korea. they already have nuclear weapons, that is, if again hypothetically thinking about replacing one with another, but how is that politically? i don't know, that is. well, there is absolutely no need for things and the chinese are very careful about this kind of things, because their image in the international arena is still vital. they understand what they will look like if they go up a notch in this discussion and move away from specific, which means placements. is perception changing in this turbulent environment ? nuclear weapons somewhere in our country or in america in china. i mean, to what extent do we start to think that this is, in general, just another weapon, well, about just another weapon. i would say that this is still a long way off, because all the things that have been said there over the past year on this topic, for example, they came down to nuclear risks. that is, to the fact that the risks of using nuclear weapons have grown, this can be seen in western

rhetoric. this is actually seen in russian rhetoric. although in some cases. she deployed, so to speak, a little brought inside out. this is, in principle, also a perception of high risk. there we are talking about the fact that if something happens, it will fly in, but it’s still impossible to perceive, uh, nuclear weapons as another weapon, because if you look at the calculations on those studies that were born during the cold war, and those studies, which were made for the indo-pakistani theater, for example, at one time, where the number of nuclear weapons is comparable to the european one now. that is a paradoxical conclusion. uh nuclear weapons like the means of the battlefield begins to really mean something only with massive use. well, actually, the seventies. we remember that all these here are 80-100 strikes in the zone of one advancing army. further. sort it out for yourself well, our biggest military theorists, they are the late gaev a, he said that in the early 70s, the state agent considered this hmm and came to the conclusion. what this

war is simply uncontrollable. there, for almost three days, after the first wave of the war of nuclear strikes , there were waves of nuclear strikes. it will just be necessary to find out who where is who what is doing what kind of offensive the americans are, they came to approximately the same conclusion and , by and large, considered all these means as a means of deterrence, if we move to the level of insignificant use, that is , there are a few dozen, then there is no military value, all the more. and in particular, this was considered at one time for the scheme for the use of pakistani tactical nuclear weapons against indian mechanized troops , that is , it does not give a clear stopping effect, cardinal, only the deterrence effect, when we apply on the field. combat tactical nuclear weapons. this penultimate may be the last step before the warning that strategic exchanges will go on, including in cities. this is precisely the element of delay. and in the current version, it only looks like this, because, well, what are 100 american nuclear bombs of these e, it means

that six storage facilities on the territory of nato countries are actually a storage facility, there are up to 18 more of them . they are just empty. but it has no military significance, as such, that is, it can be an application, well, it is very effective enough, but exactly as an element of deterrence in the theater the same applies to ours. thank you, konstantin bogdanov was with us china brazil signed an agreement on the transition to trading in national currencies. the united states tripled the supply of oil to the european union on the sale of russian oil to india increased 22 times scattered facts. this week the built-in mosaic is being put together, the world is rapidly reorganizing itself towards a new system partition and politically discarding striving for universal approaches and economically shredding. even those markets that

remained more or less unified during the cold war are what we are seeing. this is a very rapid restoration of the division of the world into east and west , the largest russian energy companies are almost completely reorienting themselves to customers in asia. the time when europe begins to receive raw materials from any other sources. nothing like this, we have not seen before both the large-scale and the furcation of the market that determines the trend. if you turn back to a hundred years ago, the parallel, not the most radiant, was also structuring associations that quickly went from ideological economic to military-political and were ready for a fight, which thereby became inevitable history never repeats itself literally, but it never passes without a trace . it was an international review. goodbye.

the task of great britain was to isolate the soviet union as much as possible because of european affairs. this was, of course, a huge mistake by the british conservatives, because the development european order, perhaps only with the participation there in russia no matter what the name of the soviet russia of the russian empire, they start there. yes, it is interesting. in general, yes , quite an interesting movement. edward showed great interest in front of england was a big problem. and that's when the british council arises at the end of the war the so-called files where

the british information society was located were discovered.

watch to explore the world of educational programs and documentaries for free without registration. app or website

and traffic on the m4 don highway was fully restored due to heavy snowfall. traffic jam in some hours reached up to 100 km, travel was blocked on adjacent routes.