russia has updated its nuclear doctrine, what new documents have brought, why the theory of deterrence needs to be supplemented. meanwhile, the un has prepared an ambitious document on planning the future, they promise to change the life of humanity, it is not very clear, however, how about this, as well as about a new round of aggravation between israel and ahizbala, watch the program international review, immediately after a short advertisement. open a deposit the best percentage with an increased rate of up to 20% per annum in sber right now. aviita mall - a new section of avita, where all sellers are real pros high rating. products from trusted sellers with delivery. avita mall. entrepreneurs need a new hero who will change the idea of ​​servicing small businesses. for the first time in the country. personal manager from vdb. for businesses of any scale,

open a business account at wtb.ru and get real support to solve your problems. vtb, we help with action. again recognized as the best by independent experts. credit sberbank card - free forever. apply right now. you never dreamed of it.

juicy cutlet, crispy potato pancakes freshly brewed coffee, your hot breakfast will be prepared quickly so that you can be everywhere and have time to try a muffin for 135 rubles. open a deposit in gasprombank with an increased rate of up to 25. together with the long-term savings program from gasfond pension savings the state will add up to 360,000 rubles. there is a discount season at the megamarket, millions of products at bargain prices, buy an aklin electric toothbrush for 4,199 rubles. megamarket. i am writing to you, why does it hurt, what else can i say? oh, if only vtb were there then, i would read a different novel. oh, this gift key to the world of freedom and. petersburg opened up

to me, payment is far away, cashback is huge, with a vtb credit card. tatyana, how blind i was. do you still love me? vtb is a classic. magnit - the price is what you need. puree frutanyanya 3990. enter business with sber. open a free sber-business card and receive.

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? who's knocking at the door to me, is it possible to reform the un, will it help ?

the disappearance of fear of which today some regard as a risk that it will happen. the russian president announced a clarification of the russian nuclear doctrine. it was 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 that is in a military confrontation with russia and in general the theory of deterrence developed in 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 allocated to it at the yalta conference in 1945. kennon's ideas formed the basis of the truman doctrine, and... the driving force was secretary of state marshall's plan to restore 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. therefore, another option comes 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 ossr 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 will lead to an equally losing outcome for everyone. in the early sixties, the idea formed the basis of the strategy. defense secretary robert mcnamara, he coined the term "assured destruction." in his opinion, the enemy is unlikely to enter into conflict, knowing that after the first nuclear strike, a crushing response will follow. the world-famous american scientist, economist thomas schelling explained that a nuclear war can begin due to mutual fear of a surprise attack. each side is afraid of being caught in by surprise. 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 launch a full-scale nuclear strike is made only when government officials

in one country are confident that the enemy is going to do the same. jervis also noted that decision makers are not always able or... tempts the enemy to respond to every move, what is intended as a demonstration moderation, can be perceived as indecisiveness, assurances can motivate waiting, prolonging the stay in the risk zone, for a quick end to the conflict, the leader should demonstrate

steadfastness, he must be ready for a quick 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 frequent guest dmitry stefanovich from mmo. dima, hello, what has changed in the nuclear doctrine, what is really new there? while the the doctrine has not been published, the document called the principles of state policy in the area of ​​nuclear deterrence, which was mentioned by the president, is apparently still being prepared, in fact, it was stated that they would discuss its 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 conference on nuclear deterrence at the security council, but first it is necessary to note what 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 probably highlight three main 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, itself. russia is not a unique country here, that is, similar formulations, similar reservations for themselves have been retained by others countries of the nuclear five, with the exception, perhaps, of china, which does not use nuclear weapons against anyone first, at least according to its statements. the second change concerns ours.

in our summer training 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 pretext for transition to retaliatory actions using nuclear weapons, and this was the case before, now there is no... difference about what kind of combat equipment these enemy products have, which fly at targets on the territory

of our country, here again it seems to me that 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 other means, moreover, even in the current one. the twentieth year of the fundamentals of state policy among various military threats, which nuclear deterrence is aimed at neutralizing, including drones and hypersonic vehicles , etc., etc., that is, here again we see such a fine-tuning, let's see, perhaps in the final document we see some more innovations. but i understand that nuclear deterrence is a very specific thing, in which silence.

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 better, can we say, if we look at the approaches to nuclear deterrence in general... financing, it 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 there is a huge anti-nuclear movement in the world, it is in principle quite active and it has moved from the format of some mass demonstrations to such a more boring bureaucratic work, this is the organization of the nuclear weapons agreement, it does a lot of things, it puts a lot of pressure on various financial organizations so that they finance nuclear processes, that is, it is not so loud, but it is real. china is increasing its nuclear arsenal, the americans are holding huge discussions on about what they should do with all this in this situation in the conditions of nuclear multipolarity, the reliability of our red lines after these changes has increased for

the enemy, i think that there is no point in talking about red lines in this context, that's absolutely it.

thank you very much, dmitry stefanovich was our guest. thank you! by an interesting coincidence, all permanent members of the un security council are nuclear powers. it was not always like that. initially, the bomb was only in the usa, and even then it had barely appeared. but symbolically,

that the world's greats considered it their duty to acquire. the combination of nuclear weapons and veto power became. un members 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 the signatory states, which undertake to fulfill 56 obligations. if this happens, then, as the preamble says, it will be possible to achieve a world in which security, justice,

equality, inclusiveness, as well as sustainable development and prosperity reign. in fact, they say critics. the pact has many goals but little specificity on how to achieve them, the commitments, or actions as they are called in the document, sound like calls to action: eliminate poverty, end hunger, ensure gender equality, correct historical injustices against africa, improve the representation of countries in the asia-pacific region, latin america, 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 lesson. with many un resolutions going unheeded, the pact commits to strengthening the security council's response and revitalizing the general assembly. the united nations called

the lengthy package a landmark, groundbreaking and the most ambitious international. agreement in many years. initially, un member states agreed to agree on it through 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 for non-interference in any issue of national sovereignty, but they did not receive support and distanced themselves from the consensus. as a result , 143 countries supported the future pact. another 15 countries abstained. the document is very vague, adopted, although a number of countries, including russia, distanced themselves. among moscow's complaints is one fundamental one: the authors of

the text assign a special role to international non-governmental organizations. to them activity in our country, and not only, have long been viewed with suspicion. but the question is conceptual, what is a structural unit of the international system. in russia's understanding. 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?

the organization has become much weaker, it does not correspond to today's realities, balance of power, still reflects the world as it was in 1945, but it is not surprising that it is increasingly marginalized, imagine what would have happened if a war like the conflict in ukraine, one in which one of the permanent members of the security council was involved, had broken out 40 years ago, the natural mediator who would have immediately entered the case, the old...

internal external, consider it advantageous for themselves to step in as mediators. in recent years, turkey and qatar have acted in this role, but their capabilities are limited, they are far from everyone trusts, and before the secretary general was the one who by definition had the ability to enjoy trust. the united nations changed throughout the 20th century. at first , its members were mainly western countries, which used this majority in their own 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. very quickly they became members of the un the majority sympathized with the ussr. in 1963 , the un security council expanded to 15 members decided that it was fair to grant developing countries non-permanent membership in the security council, albeit without the veto power that permanent members have. 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 its allies. they say that the current composition of the security council again incorrectly reflects the balance of power in the world. back in 2005 in 2015, kofeian proposed expanding the security council. everyone generally agrees with this, but there are disagreements about who will

work there under what rights. the group of four - germany, japan, india and brazil - believes that they are the ones who deserve to join the security council with the right of veto. not the least important issue in this case is the issue of financing, since 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 who chaired the meeting sierra leone julius wada bio, stated directly that africa demands two permanent seats on the security council. india is a nuclear power and the world's largest democracy by population. india also has the world's third-largest armed forces and is an active peacekeeper. finally, another candidate is brazil, the largest country in latin america by population and the second-largest economy in the americas

after the united states. the country's president, lola da silva, said at the last assembly that in our time the security council is unable to resolve global conflicts promised to personally take up the reform. after the start of the svo, a number of american and european politicians called for the creation of a mechanism for suspending russia's membership in the un security council. however, the head of the european council , charles michel, said that this could not be done without amending the charter of the world. organizations, most of all, talk about reforming the security council, but, frankly speaking, this is not feasible within the framework of the current procedures. 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 those previous formulations regarding

the need for reform. and also a mandate to begin to act. the most obvious is the decision of the security council to include african states at the expense of new permanent members, since they are historically the most underrepresented. i would add one more thing: some increase in the desire for change is associated with understanding. if nothing to do, then in 10, 15, maximum 20 years, it will turn into a purposeless body. and those countries that are skeptical about reform. or oppose it, will face another choice, not between reform and its absence, but between whether the un exists or does not exist at all. of course, not all permanent members of the security council are happy with the prospect of expanding its membership. but you need to take a sober look at this: what can you lose if instead of the current system there is complete anarchy without it and its security council, then no

there will be no veta at all, and i think. we are still approaching a situation where perceptions will begin to change, the appeal of reform will increase, because the alternative will simply be the collapse of the entire system. the issue of war and peace will, of course, remain the main one, but beyond that, what challenges seem the most serious, well, for example, by the un centenary in 2045? the most important thing is to guarantee the presence of political will. i think there is an urgent need to revise the charter, and it should be approved. all tasks are of enormous complexity, but there are two options: either we reaffirm our commitment to un norms, bringing them into line with the new conditions, or we will quickly move towards a world with not many poles, with different versions of the order. in the us, the west, will start to establish their own order, they call it rules-based, in direct competition with the order that china, russia and a group of countries of the global south will stand for, others will balance.

between these two, and this is worse than what happened in the cold war, not different interpretations of laws, but a confrontation of different codes of 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 no two security councils, no two codes of international law. the existence of two completely different competing orders will encourage a zero-sum game and inevitable destabilization, great power rivalry, especially in the context of multiple orders, will make it virtually impossible to cooperate, which is necessary to counter transnational threats such as climate change pandemic. thank you, this is trito parsi from washington. simon regis from tanzania.

headquarters. he is in new york, the year is 2024, as they say, there is no smoke without fire, at the top of the big black cloud is written crisis. emat hajjaj 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 who looks like joe biden speaks from the rostrum of the un general assembly. america is back, and so are we, continues the thought of the taliban representative. george raymond from germany. un protection. where are those blue helmets when you need them? the monument says. srebryanice, rwanda, sudan, gaza, etc. rodrigo from portugal, un headquarters in new york. perhaps the most recognizable symbol of the organization, the chairman.