[000:00:24;00] well, the dollar is less than 95 rubles, the euro is less than 100. this is on the foreign exchange market, the ruble is noticeably strengthening, our economic observer, anna lazareva, is in touch with us, i greet you, please tell me, what became the driver of this strengthening? dmitry, hello, have the government’s measures on currency control started working? currency control measures have shown their effectiveness, the dollar continues to move downwards, by the middle of the day it had fallen in price by one ruble, since the presidential decree, the american has lost almost 6 rubles. well

dollar 95 for the first time since september 13, euro below 100 for the first time since september 12. to what level can the russian currency strengthen, we asked experts. if you look at the technical picture, the chart shows the possibility of strengthening and the nearest level for the dollar is 94 rubles per us dollar, in the future, if this level is passed, then it is possible to strengthen to 92.5 rubles per us dollar, for the euro, of course, too, and if look at the technical picture, then the next levels are 100 rubles per euro, then 99.7 rubles per euro. mandatory sale of foreign currency earnings and other currency control measures have become an important factor in stabilizing the exchange rate, anton siluanov confirmed to our colleague pavel zarubin, minister of finance. for us, i always say that

predictability is important, and recently the government and the president have decided on certain measures to control the return of foreign exchange earnings, i think that this is an element, one of the elements of stabilizing the exchange rate, we’ll see how it goes it will work because well it will take time for analysis, in the end, we have tools to influence the rate to be predictably stable, what mental indicators are there for it to fly off somewhere into unknown distances, there are no, because in our economy, yes ? i don't see those. let me remind you that the presidential decree on the mandatory sale of part of foreign currency earnings applies to 43 groups of companies from the fuel and energy complex, ferrous and non-ferrous metals, chemical and forestry industries, as well as grain farming. from october 16 they must send invoices to russian banks receive at least 80% of foreign

currency from export contracts. and then sell at least 90% of the credited amount. additional support for the ruble is now provided by the beginning of the period of quarterly tax payments, the company is actively selling foreign currency and another factor is the tightening of monetary policy. experts believe that this friday the central bank may raise the key rate by at least 100 basis points, and traditionally the oil market has an influence. in fact , quite favorable price conditions for oil. it helps the trade balance, which in turn helps the current account surplus, that is, this favorable environment is generally in favor of the ruble, in our recently released strategy we expected to see a range of 90-95 by the end of the year, with the currency control measures already taken , the government most likely will not limit itself to

this... prime minister mikhail mishuskin hinted last week that, according to him, a systemic solution is being prepared together with the bank of russia that will increase the availability of settlements with foreign counterparties, according to the merchant, among them are tightening control over currency flows on an ongoing basis, and not on an experimental basis; in addition, according to the publication, the ministry of finance is preparing a draft document that will oblige companies to declare foreign assets and liabilities. go to qing then go to burger king again. oh, dare to dare, dare to start, dare to go where there is fear, dare to take a risk, dare to search, dare to light a fire in your eyes,

register a business for free at the point, follow your dream, just dare the point of entrepreneurs and enterprises keep prices low syrgeisky 6999 pyaterochka helps out share. spread from alfabank, pick up your purchase immediately for a quarter of the price, choose stores on podeli.ru, ordered a package of kefir, looked around, hop, apartment, place orders on a scooter , take part in the apartment drawing. real comfort doesn't require renovation, real business doesn't need an office , real friends aren't on social networks, real art

doesn't only happen in museums, real hobbies don't fade over the years, real life requires a real bank, psb is a bank for present. what password? if a simple question has become a problem, naapept can help. it helps restore attention memory. appetite to get your head working. at ural sib we know that prospects are where they feel, where they wait, where they love, there are prospects, with ural sip bank, they become a reality. ural sib - prospects there. where are you? last week we spoke with rivek ramaswamy

, who is running for president, about how the united states should respond to hamas' attack on israel. of all the candidates, ramaswamy seems most interested in thinking through the long-term consequences of what is happening in the middle east for the united states. and this, in our opinion, is very good. we are americans, we have families here. we are not indifferent to what is happening to our country. how else? and yet in washington , your question was perceived as a reason for a scandal. the usual chorus of liars , many of them from the so-called right, unfortunately immediately condemned him as a dangerous fanatic and labeled him as a hamas supporter, which is simply ridiculous. and then suggested that he does not believe in israel's right to self-defense, which. even stupider, this disgraceful spectacle became very revealing, but all this did not answer the question it raised: what is the best path for the united states, as well as for the israel of the world? this is worth thinking about, the stakes are higher

than many americans realize, it is easy to imagine that a number of other countries could be drawn into the conflict between israel and hamas, such countries as russia, iran, turkey, china, saudi arabia. persian countries bay, perhaps many others. some of these countries may take our side in supporting israel, but most will not, and this will become a problem. the us military is weaker than at any time in the last 50 years since the end of the vietnam war, exhausted by two pointless conflicts in iraq and afghanistan, divided by identity politics, misled by incompetents in the pentagon. our troops are obviously disorganized. look at the numbers of people entering the service, no one wants to serve. but it's even worse, the government funding our army bankrupt, the man in charge has fallen into insanity, now is not the time for a world war, we will lose, but our commander in chief has no idea about it, look at the next recording

where he grins, boasting that america is so rich that there is no limit to our power, that we we can fight as many wars as we want, for god's sake, we are the united states of america, a powerful nation in history, not just in the world, in world history, in the history of the world, we can take care of this other and still preserve our common defense capability, we have the ability to do this, and we must do it, we are the most important nation, to paraphrase the former secretary of state, and if not us, then who? the most powerful nation in the history of the world, one can imagine the roman senate making a similar statement on the morning the visigoths sacked their city, pride precedes destruction, it always has been and always will be, how can we save our country from destruction? vivek rama has been thinking about this all week, and he's joining us now.

vivek, thank you so much for coming. so, what do you think is the potential for disaster here? first of all, i must say that no one, of course, disputes israel's interest in continuing. the last 20-25 years, since after the terrorist attacks of september 11 we found ourselves embroiled in wars in iraq and afghanistan, which cost us more than six trillion dollars and took the lives of thousands of americans, partly due to the situation that developed after september 11, as you remember, there was very little tolerance for discussion limited: shut up, sit down, do what they say, agree to the plan, but me what worries tucker is that i now see the left criticizing israel in connection with the upcoming ground operation in gaza, talking about

proportionality, about injustice and humanitarian assistance, even if you put all this aside, from the us point of view, from the israeli point of view, how is this could lead to a good outcome, i am concerned that as we speak, it seems inevitable that israel will launch a ground invasion of gaza, i am worried that a ground invasion of gaza without clearly defined objectives will be the start of another endless war that will not will benefit israel and will not benefit the united states. and one of the things i 've been thinking about in recent days is that there's a lot of pathos coming from the bloodthirsty neocons. that being said, many israelis are much more rational about this than some here in the united states. how might things develop? if we just think of one reasonable scenario, let's just take it step by step from now. israel carries out ground operations. in the gas, right? there is no clearly

defined goal, but the operation begins, this crosses the red line that hezbollah had previously set out by saying that they would then attack israel, and this could happen just as israel gets bogged down in a ground conflict in gaza, which could become a trap, networks, kilometers and kilometers tunnels, many traps that you can fall into, this could be the perfect moment, unfortunately for hezbollah to attack israel, israel will find itself in a war on two fronts: in the north of the country in the south in gaza. and then we are talking about the real risk that the us will inevitably you will have to participate in this somehow. now look at what iran-backed militias are doing in other places like iraq, this will also be a red line for them, this will escalate into a wider regional conflict. at the same time, civilian casualties in gaza are turning the rest of the world against israel. and by the way, even if successful, the resulting vacuum will eventually be filled by hamas 2:0 due to radicalization. so i don’t think that such a scenario

is worth it, that i can interrupt you to ask a question: in what exactly is the plan, i mean, it's something that the states have pre-approved that they're paying for, so i think this question is quite valid, what's the plan? i think this is something that is not given enough attention, we do not have a clear idea on the part of israel about the goals set, we in the united states should wisely help our partner who suffered... from an extremely destructive and inhumane attack on their country, it was barbaric. our job is to tell them: these are the mistakes we made after 9/11 . now is the time to set yourself clear goal, but all we hear is pathos from people like lynsey graham, nikki haley or mike pence creating drama when we need rational strategy. it's amazing to listen to the teachings of people who have so humiliated our country and are responsible for the deaths of so many.

what’s interesting is that they refer to their foreign policy experience , i don’t have it, but for them this is a reason for pride, their foreign policy experience, unfortunately, showed itself in the results that they achieved for the country, i believe that many non-cons here much more bloodthirsty than some of the more realistic minds in israel. what is the best alternative to the plan in its current form, that is, the absence of a plan, the invasion of gaza without a clearly defined goal. i think a cascade of events would follow, a reaction from hezbollah, then probably the involvement of the united states, then pro-iranian militias in iraq and yemen , the participation of the united states would almost certainly lead, especially if we are talking about strikes in lebanon against hezbollah, it is obvious how this could very quickly escalate into much greater conflict. just think about the ability of israel itself fight hezbollah, the last time they fought hezbollah was in 2006, it didn’t go very well. yes, oh, okay, well, then you know better than i how unsuccessful

that one-front war was. now imagine they were caught up in the conflict to the south in gaza at the same time. and by the way, some of these groups in iraq, iran-backed militias, they have said they will strike in response to u.s. involvement, they will strike u.s. bases in the region if we participate. where is our largest embassy? the largest embassy in baghdad, which, by the way, is in chaos as we speak, i think the scenario in which the embassy in baghdad would have to be evacuated is crazy, so under these conditions i am concerned that this will lead to a war that will not benefit israel because poorly specified. there are other questions that can be asked, namely which path could be more productive, there must be some answer, hamas did it, the people who did it obviously should be punished, killed, so what do you think was would be

a wiser course for the us and israel at this time stage, well, i'm running for president, my job is to look at it through the lens of us interests, but if we're talking to israel, one of the things you need to know is that one of the reasonable options is that israel define its goal and the us has to say : here's what we can support, here's what we can't. but here is one version that, if i were the president of the united states, i would fully support, and it seems to me that this is one of the best scenarios for israel itself. think about a world in which israel has a clear target, say 100 people at the top and hamas, we want to put their heads on stakes, put them along the border of israel and gaza when we build a new system. border defense, here's deterrence, 100 leaders, a clearly defined goal , achieving real retribution and justice that must be carried out in this situation, kill those who did it, kill those who did it, exactly 100 people or not, but those people in hamas who can be reached, go in and do it, i think the us

needs to help them with intelligence, i think the us can help with what can be called diplomatic iron dome, let israel implement this to completely... itself without interference from the un or other countries, attract us allies to exchange intelligence, such support that does not require our military presence, israel is capable of this, massad is capable of this. think about the munich olympics 2:0 something similar, it is achievable. it is right, just and morally justified. and anyone on the left here, in europe or anywhere else, who rejects this, no. israel defends itself as they have the right to do. punishing those who did it. punishing specifically those who did this. this seems like a pretty obvious solution, it seems to be within the capabilities of the state of israel and we could help with this and it is an achievable victory and i would even consider the next step in the wake of achieving this, i don't think it would be crazy tucker on the israeli side to think about some unconventional approaches, i think from can i

quickly ask a question, has anyone suggested this, it seems such an obvious solution, as far as i know, no, why? i think, there is a culture now in the united states. fear, i'm talking about the culture here in the us. yes, we are all sure that you, like me, share the emotional reaction to the terrible events that occurred in israel. but i think that the emotional reaction forces everyone to talk only about the periphery of the problem. everyone wants to talk about whether there will be a condemnation of student groups making stupid statements here, or about $100 million in humanitarian aid there. i see it as a republican. rush to analyze mosquitoes on the tail of the elephant, not to mention the elephant in the room, it's just obvious, if we think someone has committed murder, we find that person punish them, right, so that seems like the most obvious solution, i think in the us there are some people so bloodthirsty, who actually

have nothing to do with this conflict, who may want to use this conflict as a pretext to achieve their goal, namely to renew... a large-scale regional war in the middle east, which we haven't had since iraq and afghanistan. these are cynical forces that exist in some circles in the us, but i can't say why others aren't asking questions about what exactly our plan of action is, what is in us interests, what exactly we will or won't support regarding israel, and how may have a positive impact on israel making the right decision, but i think here's the main principle: pursue those responsible to put... in an achievable goal, and whether metaphorically or literally impale them heads on stakes to make sure that we have clear deterrents so that this does not happen again, then i think israel has options to radically change the situation, which means you are not defending hamas, of course, the things that people write on the internet

terrify me , but hamas is a terrorist group, it deserves full responsibility for its vile actions, because it was barbaric, this is the middle ages, i believe that a direct response to the actions of hamas for the purpose of justice is 100% morally justified, and as president of the united states, if i were in office, i would provide israel with all possible diplomatic air cover to ensure that they do what is necessary, because i also care about the interests of the united states, i do not want the american military to be trapped in a war on the middle east, towards which we are moving like sleepwalkers, which will be bad not only for the usa, but probably also for israel. i think there are broader regional issues that... we need to address, one of the hidden issues here is iran's nuclear capability, if i or any of the if we had clear answers on exactly how to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, we would not have talked about it. now, but i think that maximizing pressure on iran, economically speaking, until they completely give up nuclear

weapons is a reasonable point of discussion, i think we can avoid some of the stupid things we've done before on this way, remember the discussion around the transfer of nuclear technology to saudi arabia, why would you want this at all, after all, saudi arabia, having one of the richest reserves of energy resources in the world, it clearly does not need nuclear power plants, which means these technologies are used to create nuclear weapons, why do the saudis even need nuclear weapons? it's even worse here, we've already done transfers of civilian nuclear technology, we've done something like 27 deals with 43 countries, saudi arabia didn't want to accept the normal terms of that transfer because they require oversight to make sure you don't use them in military purposes. it's not just about biden, it's biden's idiocy is high, but there are republicans who agree with him that as a condition... for saudi arabia to be brought into an expanded diplomatic deal with israel, we were going to offer security guarantees to saudi arabia. moreover,

our intention to offer this nuclear transfer on terms different from the historical terms of the transfer of civilian nuclear technology was to contain iran. but in fact, if you look at it from the other side, we had, i’m not saying that there was a convenient balance of power, but there was something similar to a balance strength we're talking about the events of this summer, it's an uncomfortable topic, but we can't just throw it away. because just when we stuck our nose into this, in my opinion, terrible idea of ​​the saudi arabia deal, and i think many in israel would agree that the transfer of nuclear technology to saudi arabia under such special conditions and security guarantees, this does not necessarily have to be the case , which is required to encourage saudi arabia to reconcile with israel. in a sense, it would be we who would simply stick our nose in and tip the scales in the current balance of power if the saudi arabia deal went through, and then... months later we see this horrific attack, so i think there are such complex factors involved that we may no longer consider

achieving the goals set out in the process, all the savings from the war that we we can avoid, you know what israel and the us could spend it on, to protect their own borders, this was a border crisis of historical proportions, this was a failure of national defense, i completely agree, could happen in israel, could happen here, and it happens and happens regularly, but just backing off a little. the idea that we would in any way contribute to a nuclear program in any country, especially saudi arabia, is so destabilizing and insane, it shows that people have lost their awe of nuclear weapons. i watch how people on tv on the internet seem to blithely talk about the possibility of using nuclear weapons in this conflict. yesterday i heard about this five times. do we agree that anyone who throws words like that. about the possible using nuclear weapons is mandatory, you have to be mentally ill to say that,

who are these people? either that or so deeply, ill-informed about what the consequences would be for the united states, i can't speak for the mental state of some of these tucker people who look at saudi arabia getting nuclear weapons or the consequences of using them like that, people say: oh, the conflict could become nuclear, some others will launch missiles, it can become nuclear, think about the consequences. people will die, i mean, the consequences of this it is impossible to predict, but one can assume, yes, that's what disappoints me about our position, the views that i voice from a political point of view, many people advised me, this is not a topic that should be raised, i think someone should do step forward to ask the questions that others are afraid of, what are the consequences of the biggest event that is about to happen if israel starts a ground war in gaza, what will presumably be: the next step in the conflict and there will be no clearly defined goal, what are

the consequences for israel , we ask about this as friends, what are the consequences for the states, we ask, as americans, i think there is a better way, there may be many ways to do it, but we won't get there until there is a real free debate on the merits, i think , there's something, especially in the republican party, about the culture around this issue that has really stifled this debate. the experience that i had, the first time i met you, i don't know if you remember this, when i wrote my first book, then i was the ceo of my drug company, george floyd died in the country, there was a frenzy and there were questions that couldn't be raised about race relations in 2020, i remember what it was like, it was a speech suppressed environment where certain issues weren't allowed to be discussed, and many leftists called me a racist trying to stop open debate because of what i believed in regardless of skin color, the situation seems similar but a little different,

now isolationist has become the new racist, there are many such labels to make people to be silent, i mean, pro-hamas is ridiculous, anti-israel is ridiculous, but to use it to silence substantive discussion , whether it comes from the left or the right, is, i think, the highest form of anti-amicanism, yes, i have to say, if you are being attacked for asking what is good for the united states and asking it how this whole america first thing was just a lie. i think that this was not a lie when it comes to the people of our country. however, the management would like to believe that it was a lie, would like to believe that it was a transitional phase associated with one person, while this is a broader vision that goes beyond any single person, but that's just common

sense, if you live here, well, that's your job , yes, it is a moral duty. it's a little strange that people are choosing sides, the capitol was invaded by these crazy hamas supporters, and other people are taking a pro -israel position, but i haven't heard anyone say, well, i have views on all this, and israel to me like it more than hamas, but ultimately i'm for america, it's kind of a natural position for americans. i think this is a more credible position for americans and not just in relation. at home, this is the moral duty of an american leader, it is also more convincing, because if you are one of america's friends abroad and you say: i unconditionally support you regardless of my national interests, even if i were in israel and heard this from an american, it doesn't sound true, obviously it's not true, we said that about ukraine, don't believe it

us, when we say that, it's nonsense, our adversaries, i think we can spend more time if we're just honest about the fact that american leaders must act in the national interest of the united states, and the fact that this has become controversial, i think , shows how far our foreign policy establishment has gone in its delusions, but this can be corrected, vivek, thank you very much, i apologize in advance for all the troubles this will cause you,

thank you. we return to the events of the day in the gas sector due to shelling and a lack of fuel for electric generators, 12 hospitals and... the center stopped working, the ministry of health of the palestinian enclave reported, fuel has already run out or is running out in all hospitals, humanitarian aid that has arrived in recent days is too little. the israeli army continues to strike the gaza strip with details, our special correspondent in the region stanislav bernwalt. the situation is consistently difficult, now in the gas sector it is approaching, it is truly critical,