hello, this is international review, in the studio is fyodor lukyanov, today on the international review program. events , facts, comments, russia has updated its security doctrine, new conditions for the use of nuclear weapons, materials from our program. israel and lebanon are on the brink of war, mutual destructive strikes. how will the game with fire end?

together, everyone is in the head, no one is afraid, no need to whine, it’s better to knock back a glass, let’s sing the glory of god, let’s wait for the icbm, let’s finish our party together, icbm is an intercontinental ballistic missile, if. someone forgot. tom lehrer, the brilliant american chansonnier of the fifties and sixties, mocked the militarism of the authorities. a bright representative of the anti-war populism, which reminded society of the threat of nuclear war. that very threat, the disappearance of fear of which today some regard as a risk that it will happen. the president of russia announced a clarification of the russian nuclear doctrine. expected. long ago, both experts and officials

said that the current version no longer corresponds to the strategic situation, in in particular, the threshold for nuclear use is too high and does not deter opponents from large-scale direct support for a country in military confrontation with russia, and in general, the theory of deterrence developed in the last century needs to be supplemented. the concept of deterrence

by economic methods is impossible, so another option of deterrence comes - intimidation. the initiator was john foster dulles, the future secretary of state in the esenhower administration. he declared his readiness to use all his might for retaliation in the event of a limited attack on the united states. nuclear potential. but in the second half of the fifties, the ossr and the usa already had intercontinental ballistic missiles. in 1957, harvard university professor and another future secretary of state, henry kissinger, suggested that a war with unlimited use of nuclear weapons would lead to an equally losing outcome for everyone. in the early sixties, the idea became the basis for the strategy of defense secretary robert mcnamara. he coined the term "assured destruction." in his opinion, the enemy would hardly will go into conflict knowing that after the first nuclear strike... there will be

a crushing response. the world-famous american scientist and economist thomas schelling explained that a nuclear war can start because of mutual fear of a surprise attack. each side is afraid of being caught off guard. columbia university professor and international security expert robert jervis believed that the key factor in a state's foreign policy strategy is the correct perception of the enemy. the decision to strike a full-scale nuclear strike is only carried out when the statesmen of one country are sure that the enemy is going 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 during crises are made at the highest level. for example, during the cuban missile crisis , the order to shoot down a u2 aircraft over cuba was given by the commander

of an anti-aircraft missile system without any consultation with the leadership of the ussr, and kissinger argued, what seems balanced and safe during... so that the enemy could no longer afford to experiment. we will talk about the changes in the doctrine with our frequent 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, the document called the fundamentals of state policy in the field of nuclear deterrence, which was mentioned by the president, is apparently still being prepared. in fact, it was stated that they would discuss it parameters, that is, accordingly , the previous version of the twentieth year is still in effect, at the same time, some conclusions can be made about the changes, based on what was said at the permanent meeting of the security council, but first we need to note what has remained the same: the president emphasized that nuclear weapons remain an extreme measure, and this seems very important, including in the context of our internal russian discussion, now about the changes, i would highlight, the changes, the first concerns the fact that now, let's say, nuclear immunity for non-nuclear powers is cancelled in the event that they do bad things, engage in aggression against our state in cooperation with the support of nuclear powers, in fact, this formulation is not new, it

was present at various international venues in the context of the nuclear weapons treaty in the context of nuclear-free zones, but now it is recorded in the nuclear doctrine, probably correctly, and russia is not a unique country here, that is, similar formulations, similar reservations for themselves - have been retained by other countries of the nuclear five, 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 is documented on the scale of the union state, that it works, including in the case of non-nuclear aggression. critical level, probably, again, this is an expected thing, we have an updated military doctrine of the union state with some nuclear formulations, we have posted, apparently, russian nuclear weapons in belarus, we have a belarusian partner, belarusian allies participated in our summer exercise to

prepare for the use of non-strategic nuclear weapons, this is probably logical, this is probably normal, and these changes concern the fact that now... not only the launch, the massive launch of ballistic missiles on our territory, but also any massive use of air and space attack weapons will be considered as a reason to move to retaliatory actions using nuclear weapons, and this was the case before, now there is no difference in what kind of combat equipment these enemy products have, which fly uh at targets on the territory of our country, here again it seems to me, this is such a... clarification, which suggested itself, because in principle in the entire array of military planning documents, in scientific publications, such a division was not made, between ballistic missiles and other means, moreover, even in the current edition of the twentieth year,

the principles of state policy among various military threats, which are to neutralize, which nuclear deterrence is aimed, including drones were mentioned. threats, it seems to me, as it is correctly said, it is by default assumed that all these things, they remain in the heads, in the heads

of enemies, in the heads of friends, respectively, about some derived parameter, about some derived criteria, there is no talk here, and here again russia is not unique. that is, in other nuclear doctrines there are such concepts as extreme conditions, vital interests, which no one defines, moreover, there in the american, in in the british doctrine, and in the french, probably, even still... 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, closed transparency in almost all other areas related to nuclear weapons, probably only israel is cooler, can we say, if in general... look at the approaches to nuclear deterrence based on

our changes, based on other, statements of politicians 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, in the nineties and 2000s there were some changes, nuclear weapons have somewhat moved to the periphery, at least in certain countries, well, by the way americans are now reaping the fruits of this, because their nuclear modernization, which is absolutely crazy in terms of funding, is generally not progressing very well, there are a lot of problems there, and moreover, it is very difficult to drag qualified people there, plus the huge anti-nuclear movement in the world, it is in principle quite active and it has moved from the format of some kind of mass demonstrations to such a more boring bureaucratic work, this is the organization of the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons does a lot of things, there is a lot of pressure from various financial...

are having huge discussions about what to do with all this in this situation in the conditions of nuclear multipolarity, has the credibility of our red lines increased for the enemy after these changes? i think that there is no point in talking about red lines in this context, this is what the enemy should have definitely taken away from what was demonstrated, that in this area the russian state is demonstrating a readiness for change, for adaptation, for taking into account the but... challenges of threats, as in other spheres, 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 in the nuclear sphere we are forming an international consensus, i think that people who understand this industry, they appreciated, let's say, that the terminology... very carefully considered was used, that the wording corresponds to the reality that we observe, in general, probably, doubt that russia takes nuclear containment seriously and is ready, if necessary, to cross the line and use nuclear weapons, which is one of the deterrent factors, i think confidence in this has certainly strengthened. but it seemed to me that the relative limitations of journalism after these statements show that they were taken seriously and are being thought about. "i agree with this assessment, there were certainly people who decided to take advantage of the opportunity

to shout about the fact that the terrible russian the nuclear club will not scare anyone, but less than it could, yes, it is much less than it could be, and i think the people who are really dealing with these issues, they got it right, thank you very much, dmitry stefanovich was our guest, thank you, by an interesting coincidence, all the permanent members." the un secretary general presented the so -called pact of the future, a vision with which

the main political structure of the planet intends to move forward. on september 23, on the sidelines of the summit of the future of the un member states in 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 at the expense of signatory states, which undertake to fulfill 56 obligations. if this happens, then, as the preamble says, it is possible to achieve a world in which security, justice, equality, inclusiveness, as well as sustainable development and prosperity reign. in fact, critics say, the pact has many goals, but little specificity on how to achieve them. the obligations, or actions, as they are called in the document, sound as calls to end poverty, end hunger, ensure gender equality, correct historical injustices against africa, improve the representation

of countries in the asia-pacific, latin america, and the caribbean. ensure the protection of all civilians in armed conflict, and so on. the set of slogans is accompanied by a global digital treaty to regulate artificial intelligence and a declaration for future generations as a cautionary tale. as many un resolutions go unheeded, the pact is committed to strengthening the security council's response and revitalizing the general assembly. the united nations called the strange package a landmark, breakthrough, and the most ambitious international agreement in many years. initially, un member states agreed to agree on 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 amending the text of the pact, calling on the 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 is conceptual, what is a structural unit international system, in russia's understanding only a sovereign state, a stubborn ngo undermines this principle, and

we will talk about the problems of the un with trita parsi, executive vice president of the institute of responsible. personally, i do not see this as such a disaster, in my opinion, the main problem of the un is not this at all. 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 1945, but it is not surprising that it is increasingly. ends up on the sidelines, imagine, what would have happened if a war like the one in ukraine, one that involved one of the permanent members of the security council, had broken out 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, a permanent institution willing, able and mandated to make diplomatic efforts in any conflict. now, when an armed conflict breaks out somewhere, the last person anyone thinks of as a possible mediator is the secretary general secretary of the un. instead, we have to rely on a random collection of countries that act based on their own immediate circumstances, internal and external. i think it would be advantageous for me to step in as mediators. in recent years

, turkey and qatar have played this role, but their capabilities are limited and not everyone trusts them. but before , 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 that used this majority in their own interests. for example, during the korean war, the united states acted with its allies under the un flag. the picture 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, they decided that it was fair to grant developing countries non-permanent membership in

the security council, albeit without the right of veto, which the permanent participants. if earlier the ussr imposed most of these vetoes, for which andrei gromeko even received the nickname mr. no from journalists, now this role has gone to the usa and their allies, they say that. the current composition of the security council again incorrectly reflects the balance of power in the world. back in 2005, kofenon proposed expanding the security council. in general, everyone agrees with this, but there are disagreements about who will work there on what rights. the group of four - germany, japan, india and brazil, believes that it is they are worthy of entering the security council with the right of veto. not the least important issue in this case is the issue of financing. after all, japan and germany are among the main donors. in august of this year, the new secretary general antonio guterres complained that there are no representatives of africa in the security council, and

the president of sierra leone, julius wada bio, who chaired the meeting, directly stated that africa demands two permanent seats in the security council. india is a nuclear power and the largest democracy in the world by population. india also has the world's largest armed forces and actively participate in peacekeeping operations. finally, another candidate, brazil, is the largest country in latin america by population, and also has the second largest economy on the american continent after the united states. the country's president, lola da silva, said at the last assembly that in our time, the seb is not capable of resolving global conflicts and promised to personally take up the reform. after the start of the seb, a number of american and european politicians called for the creation of a mechanism to suspend russia's membership in the un security council. however, the head of the european council

charles michel stated that it is impossible to do this without amending the charter of the world organization. most of all, they talk about reforming the un security council. but, to be honest, this is not feasible within the framework of the current ones. you are right, it is extremely difficult, the last attempt, which was in 2005, ended in nothing, due to the clinching of two different proposals, the pact for the future contains the most decisive of all previous formulations regarding the need for reform, as well as a mandate, calling for action. the most obvious, the security council's solution is to include african states at the expense of new permanent members, since they are the ones who have historically been the most.

they call it rules-based, in the us, the west, will establish their own order, in direct competition with the order that china, russia and a group of countries in the global south will advocate, others will balance between these two, and this is worse than what happened in the cold war. not different interpretation of laws, but confrontation of different codes legislation. in the cold war, there were two blocs with their own rules, but on top of that there was a common order, embodied by the security council and international law, there were not two security councils, two codes

of international law. great power rivalry, especially in the context of multiple orders, will make it virtually impossible to cooperate, which is needed to counter transnational threats such as climate change pandemic. thank you, we have trito parsi from washington. simon regis from tanzania: un headquarters in new york, 2024, where there 's smoke there's fire, as they say. crisis is written on top of the big black cloud. emat hajjach from jordan. the missile war as a new escalation in the middle east, the world community and the un in the pose of rodin's thinker. patrick chapat from switzerland,

a man. looking like joe biden, speaking from the rostrum of the un general assembly. america is back, and so are we, continues the taliban spokesman. george raymond from germany, un defense. where are those blue helmets when they're needed? there's an inscription on the monument. srebryanica, rwanda, sudan, gaza, and so on. rodrigo from portugal, un headquarters in new york, perhaps the most recognizable.

so says the lighthouse. are you used to watching videos online? has it stopped working? install, open, watch. russian channels all tv series, movies and cartoons, educational programs and documentaries. watch, watch in the app or on the website.