the idea that holds the state together, like the ussr had, we are building a new world and a new man, let's go, this is memory, some like it, some don't, but it is there, this is memory, you and i have one way out, to win, we need a victory of any purpose. hello, this is international review, in the studio is fyodor lukyanov. today on the program international review. events of the week, chronicle, facts, comments. russia has updated its security doctrine, new conditions for the use of nuclear weapons, materials from our program. israel and lebanon on the brink of war. mutual destructive blows. how will playing with

fire end? who is knocking at my door, can he be reformed too, will the pact help with this , time of the future? together all in the head, no one is afraid, no need to whine, better to knock back a glass, let's sing glory to god, let's wait for the icbm, let's finish the party together ours. icbm is an intercontinental ballistic missile, if anyone has forgotten. tom lehrer, the brilliant american chansonnier of the fifties and sixties, mocked the militarism of the authorities, a bright representative of the anti-war pop culture, which was reminiscent of society about the threat of a nuclear war, the very threat, the disappearance of fear of which today some regard as a risk that it will actually happen. the russian president announced

a clarification of the russian nuclear doctrine. it had been expected for a long time, and experts and officials said that the current version no longer corresponds to the strategic situation. in particular, the threshold for nuclear use is too high and does not deter opponents from large-scale direct support for a country in a military confrontation with russia. and in general, the theory of deterrence, developed in the last century,. needs to be supplemented. the concept of containment was formulated by the us chargé d'affaires in the ussr, george kennon. keeping the ussr within the boundaries of the zones of influence assigned to it at the yalta conference in 1945. kennen's ideas formed the basis of the truman doctrine, and its driving force was secretary of state marshall's plan for the restoration of europe. however, after.

the victory of the revolution in china and the korean war , it became clear that it was impossible to contain communism solely by economic methods, so another option came up containment - intimidation. the initiator was john foster dulles, the future secretary of state in the esenhower administration. he declared his readiness to use the full power of nuclear potential for retaliation in the event of a limited attack on the united states. but in the second half of the fifties, the ussr and the united states already had intercontinental ballistic missiles. in 1957, harvard university professor and another future secretary of state henry kissinger expressed the idea that a war with unlimited use of nuclear weapons would lead to an equally losing outcome for everyone. in in the early 1960s, the idea became the basis for defense secretary robert mcnamara's strategy. he coined the term "assured destruction."

only when one country's leaders are confident that the enemy is about to do the same. jervis also noted that decision makers are not always able or willing to see the consequences of their actions, and not all decisions in times of crisis are made at the highest... level,

for example, during the cuban missile crisis, the order the commander of the anti-aircraft missile system ordered the shooting down of the u2 aircraft over cuba without any consultation with the ussr leadership. and kissinger argued that what seems balanced and safe during a crisis often turns out to be the riskiest, gradual escalation tempts the enemy to respond to every move, what is intended as a demonstration of moderation can be perceived as indecision, assurances can motivate waiting, prolonging the stay in the risk zone. to quickly end the conflict, the leader should demonstrate: inexorability, it must be ready for a rapid and brutal escalation to such an extent that the enemy can no longer afford to experiment. we will talk about changes in the doctrine with our

private guest dmitry stefanovich from mmo. dima, hello, what has changed in the nuclear doctrine, what is really new there? while the doctrine itself has not been published, a document called.

nuclear weapons in the context of nuclear-free zones, but now it is recorded in the nuclear doctrine, perhaps this is correct, and russia is not a unique country here, that is , other countries of the nuclear five have also retained similar formulations, similar reservations for themselves, with the exception perhaps of china, which does not use nuclear weapons first against anyone, at least according to its statements. the second change concerns our belarusian allies, the president emphasized that now our full-fledged nuclear umbrella on the scale of the union state is documented, that it works including in the case of non-nuclear aggression and a critical level. probably, again, this is an expected thing, we have a war of the union state updated with some nuclear formulations, we have, apparently, russian nuclear weapons deployed

in belarus, we have a belarusian partner, belarusian allies participated in our summer exercise to prepare for the use of non-strategic nuclear weapons. probably, this is logical, probably, this is normal. and with these changes, it concerns the fact that now not only the launch of a massive launch of ballistic missiles on our territory, but also any massive use of means an air and space attack will be considered as a reason to move to retaliatory actions with the use of nuclear weapons, and this was the case before now there is no difference about what kind of combat equipment these enemy products have that fly to targets on the territory of our country, here again, it seems to me, this is such a clarification that was suggested, because in principle in the entire array of military planning documents, in scientific publications such a division was not made between

ballistic missiles and others means, moreover, even in the current version of the twentieth year, the basis of state policy among various military threats, which... which nuclear deterrence is aimed at, including drones and hypersonic vehicles and so on and so forth, that is, here again we see such a fine-tuning, we'll see, perhaps in the final document we will see some more innovations, so i understand that nuclear deterrence is a very specific thing, in which omissions are sometimes no less, and maybe even more important than statements, but still a... here is the massive use of means or, as it is said, a critical threat to sovereignty, there are some, albeit unspoken, but internal criteria for this massiveness and criticality of the threat, it seems to me, as

it is correctly said, it is by default assumed that all these things, they remain in the heads of enemies, in the heads of friends, respectively, about some derived... extreme conditions, vital interests. which no one defines, moreover, there in the american, in the british doctrine, and in the french, perhaps, everything is even more vague, in principle, russia here, let's say, demonstrated an example of some fairly high transparency in the sphere of declarative nuclear policy, we still have a lot of details written there, there is an exception in the form of china, which tells everyone directly that it will not be the first to use nuclear weapons, but on the other hand , china is doing well with ambiguity, secrecy, in approximately all other areas related to nuclear weapons, probably only israel is cooler. can we say, if here

in general, to see that approaches to nuclear deterrence based on our changes, based on other statements of policy that are declared, approaches are somehow changing in the world in general, compared to what it was, well, i don’t know, 40-50 years ago. well, i wouldn’t make such a reference to 40-50 years ago, rather, probably, it was in the nineties and noughties. nuclear weapons do a lot of things, various financial organizations put a lot of pressure

on them not to finance nuclear processes, that is, it’s not so loud, but it really changes the attitude, on the other hand we have a full-scale confrontation between great powers, we have nuclear, official official states are conducting quite intensive military operations, and nuclear weapons in general are practically a factor here, but probably not a key one, it does not determine. the russian state is demonstrating a readiness for change, for adaptation, for taking into account

new challenges and threats, as in other areas, it is clear that critics may say that it would be good to do all this faster, more efficiently and more actively, but still we have a very large country, we have a huge bureaucratic apparatus, it is clear that all decisions take a long time to be agreed upon, and nevertheless we demonstrate that we are forming an international consensus on the nuclear sphere, i think that people who...

by an interesting coincidence, all permanent members of the un security council are nuclear powers. it was not always so. initially, only the us had a bomb, and even then it had barely appeared. but it is symbolic that the world's greats considered it their duty to acquire one. the combination of nuclear weapons and the right of veto began to seem natural. and now, what determines the status? in new york at the un general assembly. as always in september, high-ranking representatives of many countries gathered. this time it started out unconventionally.

the un secretary general presented the so-called future pact, a vision with which the main political structure of the planet intends to move forward. on september 23, on the sidelines of the future summit of un member states in new york, the general assembly adopted an ambitious pact. it is believed that it will solve the key problems of humanity, this will be done in account of the signatory states, which undertake to implement 56 obligations. if this happens, then, as stated in pryabo.

the united nations called the extensive package epochal, breakthrough, and the most ambitious international agreement in many years. initially, un member states agreed to coordinate it during intergovernmental negotiations, but in fact there were none. work on the document

was coordinated by germany and namibia. russia, iran, north korea, belarus, syria and nicaragua. proposed postponing the vote or amend the text of the pact, calling for non-interference in any issue of national sovereignty, but did not receive support and distanced themselves from the consensus. as a result , the pact of the future was supported by 143 countries, another 15 countries abstained. the document is very vague, adopted, although a number of countries, including russia, distanced themselves, among moscow's claims there is one fundamental one: the authors of the text assign a special role to international non-governmental organizations, their activity in our country, and not only, has long been viewed with suspicion, but the question conceptual: what is a structural unit of the international system? in russia's understanding,

only a sovereign state. a stubborn ngo undermines this principle. and pro... executive vice president of the quincy institute for responsible government in washington. this institute has an international project to study the possibility of reforming the un. russia has been cool to the idea of ​​the authors of the pact to give more influence to international igos. do you see a problem in such an increase in their importance? i probably did not study the text of the pact carefully enough, because i didn't notice.

in the conditions of military actions of the israeli blockade of the enclave, the situation is rapidly deteriorating. the sector has become the largest open-air prison from which people cannot escape. according to the head of the international committee of the red cross , ms. spoljaric, the israeli military operation has completely changed the very concept of the conflict. aside from, i quote, dehumanization and deprivation of civilians. human dignity, i want everyone to remember our unchanging position, there are no excuses the terrorist attack on october 7.

ten days ago, the general assembly approved a resolution in support of the advisory opinion of the international court of justice, which clearly states that

the israeli occupation of palestinian lands is illegal and that it must end. the overwhelming majority of council members supported this initiative, which is aimed at achieving a just and lasting settlement of the palestinian-israeli conflict and implementing it. the gaza crisis has become a crisis in its ferocity and destructive consequences. the catalyst for a sharp escalation of the israeli confrontation in lebanon, and footage of

continued shelling along the blue line and deep into lebanese and israeli territory has already flown around the world. the middle east is once again on the brink of a major war, which, it seems, some people really, really want. on september 23 alone , at least 558 people were killed in large-scale israeli bombing in lebanon, including 50 children and 94 women. more than 1,600 were injured. according to the unicef office in lebanon, in one day in this country more people were killed than in the last 11 months. among those killed were two.

countries and will not ensure security in the lebanese-israeli border area. this is evidenced by the experience of the israeli campaign of 2006, when even the entire arsenal of the most advanced military equipment and weapons did not help israel achieve its goals. it is necessary to immediately stop the spiral of violence before the situation gets completely out of control, which, as i have already said, some people really want.

1701, which spells out both the obligations israel to cease all offensive military operations, withdraw its armed forces from southern lebanon and end its occupation of lebanese lands, and hezbollah's commitment to withdraw all formations north of the letanya river. for our part, we are making active diplomatic efforts to de-escalate the situation, prevent.

release all illegally detained persons and ensure full and unimpeded humanitarian access. strict measures must be applied to violators of the security council resolution, without which our decisions will continue to remain on paper. i would like to address the representatives of the united states separately. the choice is yours, either continue to block the work of the security council, or take the side of peace. the side of the international community to demand an end to the war. without your full support for israel, the conflict can be ended quickly and effectively. this would help create the conditions for a return to peace negotiations, on the creation of an independent, sovereign palestinian state, coexisting in peace and security with israel. the negotiations, of course, should

take place under the auspices of the international community. such a key importance is attached, personally i do not see such a disaster in this, in my opinion, the main problem of the un is not at all in this. and what is it? the organization has become much weaker, it does not correspond to today's realities, the balance of power. it still reflects the world as it was in forty-five, but it is not surprising that it is increasingly in the dark. imagine what would happen

if there was a war similar to the conflict in ukraine. one that involved one of the permanent members of the security council broke out about 40 years ago. the natural mediator who would have immediately stepped in to try to help end the conflict would have been the un secretary general. it was a permanent institution, ready, able and mandated to bring diplomacy to bear on any conflict. now, when an armed conflict breaks out somewhere, the last person anyone thinks of as a possible mediator is the secretary general. instead, you have to rely on a random collection of countries, who act based on their own immediate circumstances, internal and external, consider it advantageous for themselves to act as mediators. in recent years , turkey and qatar have acted in this role, but their capabilities are limited, they are not trusted by everyone, and in the past, the secretary general was the one who, by definition, had

the capabilities and enjoyed trust. the united nations changed throughout the 20th century. at first, its members were mainly western countries, which used this majority in their interests. for example, during the korean war, the united states acted with its allies under the un flag. by the end of the fifties, the picture had changed. new independent states, former colonies, appeared on the political map of the world. they very quickly became members of the un ; the majority sympathized with the ussr. in 1963 , the un security council expanded to 15 members. it was decided that it was fair to grant developing countries non-permanent membership in the security council, albeit without the right of veto that permanent members have. if previously a large some of these vetoes were imposed by the ussr, for which.