today , 213 companies are residents of special economic zones in the moscow region and the total volume of declared investments is 210 billion rubles. and for residents of such clusters, special preferences, a special tax regime apply, in particular , a zero property tax rate applies for 10 years after registration, land transport tax is zeroed in the first 5 years of operation, and the tax rate on ... profit is 2%, and regions can also offer their own preferences at their own discretion. we must do reciprocal steps in different directions, be it infrastructure, housing or labor force solutions, which we discussed today. we are interested in further expanding our sites. we have already expanded dubna three times, which is always very pleasant, because there are new companies.

we are also developing the formation of an ecosystem of special economic zones. we believe that businesses need to make access to them as easy as possible. first of all, in economic zones of this nature we have no taxes. our owners own the business 100%. and today at the forum here was also discussed the creation in the future of an international association of free economic zones of the brics countries. this is a promising. direction of work, because the country of brics today accounts for 35% of the world's gdp in terms of purchasing power parity, doors. yes, thank you, my colleague dmitry marokko is working at the international forum in dubna. north africa connected britain with its entire. asian empire. the soviet canal is

an extremely important artery. musalini believed that the italians should expand the scope of their presence, moreover, there was a project of italy's domination of the northern part of the african continent. the italian troops were not in a very good moral position. from the point of view of the german command's plan, well, how to replace the italians here on the battlefield, make them junior partners. 150 romeda tanks, they drink them in cosmogory, the english nation is in shock. if the english had not managed to hold the defense here, the germans would have occupied cairo. it turned out that the allies could also beat germany.

the rate could be 45% from october 31. the final decision will be made by the end of the month. alena logovinov will tell you more about everything. alena, hello, was the decision unanimous? vera, good afternoon, france and italy are in favor, hungary and germany are against. i will tell you about the economic motives right now. eu countries have approved the introduction of duties on chinese electric cars. we are talking about increasing tariffs on... electric cars to 45% from october 31 for the next 5 years, this is stated in a statement by the european commission. at the same time, brussels and beijing will continue to look for alternative options, which - quote, must be fully wto-compliant. the final decision must be

published in the eu official journal no later than october 30 this year. it is important to note that chinese cars are gradually taking away more and more market share from european concerns. the auto industry employs a huge number of workers all over europe , they understand that they are at risk, especially considering that they do not produce electric cars in their own country, ironically they are made in china for export back to europe, so the question is: what to do about it? there are very cheap electric cars from china, unless their import is somehow stopped, it is impossible to create an effective domestic market. according to european officials, the chinese auto industry is receiving a hidden subsidy. from local authorities, the introduction of such increased duties will create fair competition. however , not everyone in a united europe agrees with this decision. france, italy, poland and greece are actively in favor. spain, the czech republic and sweden are neutral.

hungary, slovakia, cyprus, malta and germany are categorically against. let's look at the economic motives countries. france is practically not present in the chinese car market, for it the losses are minimal. it is in favor of the final adoption of the measure. the country's president has stated this more than once. we must maintain a level playing field. our players cannot compete in the same market with players with such a level of subsidies. we must fix this. that is why i support the introduction of a commission on chinese electric cars. germany is one of the largest car manufacturers in the world. due to rising energy prices, the country is forced to close production on its territory. china can act as an alternative platform, it is logical that berlin is against it. the german finance minister called on the head of the european commission not to start a trade war. hungarian prime minister viktor orban said that the european union would enter into an economic cold war if the decision was approved.

the spanish economy minister, addressing the president of the european commission, called on the eu to compromise with china. he noted that it is necessary to find the right balance both technically and politically. europe should avoid serious conflicts. some of the leading economies the european union, such as germany and hungary, are rightly wary of overly decisive, unfriendly measures against china, understanding that such measures could have a negative impact on the eu states themselves, slow down or even stop industrial cooperation with china and the exchange of goods that are necessary to support and develop the european economy. beijing's possible retaliatory measures could have an extremely painful impact on the interests of european auto brands, especially those who have joint production in china. first of all, this is

we are talking about the german concerns volkswagen and bmw. for statistics, last year almost 440 thousand electric cars were delivered from china for a total of 10. the cost of cars will be at least 50% more expensive. in china, they assume that the eu protective measures can be applied to other categories of goods, but we should not forget that china itself recently began an investigation

against european goods, they can also potentially lead to restrictions in trade. the list includes cognac, pork and luxury cars. thank you. told in an interview with lex friedman. what are people thinking in the us a month before the presidential election? see below. what do you think about the military-industrial complex, the ministry of defense and the military in general? so, i am against the nanny state in principle and i am also against this approach in foreign policy. this will be the starting point of my views on the ministry of defense and defense in general. first, i believe that the law with the help of. it is very easy for the media to ridicule my position, but i believe that if we give protection to us allies

in the interests of america, then we can give it, but only if the allies pay for it. and this is important for two reasons: a less important, but still important reason, the less important reason is still earnings, right, because at the moment we do not have much income, our national debt is already 34 trillion and continues to grow, i... the allies themselves will also bear this burden, and the more important reason is that our so that they are not tempted to get into conflicts in which they do not pay the full price for these conflicts, take nato for example. most of the countries of the alliance, literally almost... all countries today do not pay and do not provide 2% of their gdp for the defense of their

countries, which is actually a condition of being in nato, so most nato countries do not fulfill their basic obligation, which is necessary for being in the organization. specifically, germany is very much profiting off the united states of america, and no, i am not going to throw a tantrum here. in this case, we should not support our allies and provide them with protection, no, that is not what i am talking about at all, i just want to say that you should pay for it, pay your share, a, because we don't have much money to spare ourselves, b, it will show us that you have a vested interest in protecting yourself, which, by the way, will make countries much more prudent about the risks of a possible war, when someone else is paying for everything and providing guarantees of protection, then hey, maybe it's worth taking a risk and seeing what this war will give us, instead of this way...

the united states should be the defense of our country, the united states of america. and the irony is that we do this. the worst thing is we don't use, well, other than coastal defense, we do not use the u.s. military to prevent people from crossing our southern border or our other borders. on the contrary, i think the united states of america, our homeland, is more vulnerable now than ever, vulnerable to supersonic missiles from china and russia, russia's capabilities certainly exceed the capabilities of the united states. supersonic missiles travel faster than the speed of sound and can hit the united states, they can carry a nuclear warhead. we are more vulnerable to super electromagnetic pulse attacks, which can, without any exaggeration, they can come from other countries as well as from solar flares. cause significant losses among the population of the united states of america, the entire power grid will go down, it will not be

an exaggeration to say that planes will start falling from the sky, since our chips are very dependent on, they are very vulnerable to electromagnetic pulses, we are vulnerable to cyber attacks, and i understand that people are starting to yawn, it's all boring, superpulses, cyber attacks, no, all this is very relevant, you may find yourself unable to get your insulin because your refrigerator is no longer... working, your food is all spoiled, cars, your ability to fly is down, and i think that in relation to these very serious risks, our defense spending is completely inadequate, i'm not one of those people who is for or against increasing defense spending, we're just not spending on the right things, our top priority of spending should be the defense of our country, the defense of our physical homeland, and i think that we should actually increase our spending on the defense of our homeland.

the united states of america, that's my opinion. and i think that the whole system has become corrupt, as dwight esenhower famously said, about the military-industrial complex of the united states. but i think that. it's more complicated than just financial corruption. it's also a cultural decay , a vanity that allows some people in this expert class to think that their opinion is the right one, because if you don't follow their advice, they can threaten you with the consequences, and that's what's so great about the united states is the idea that we have a civilian controlling the military, a person, whom we elect as the president of the united states is the true and effective commander-in-chief, i have my doubts about his execution of those powers , i think it is quite clear that joe biden

is not the acting commander-in-chief of the united states of america, although we officially call him that, but at least theoretically. we have citizens in control of the us military, and i think at least one thing that such a leader should do is ask the question of purpose, what is the most important task of the us military? number one should be to protect homeland and the people who live here, and we don't do that? that's my answer to your question. are you concerned that if this election is a no-win election and donald trump loses by a small margin, that it's a parody of chaos, how do we minimize the chances of that? i don't think that's an issue that should be considered only in the context of whether donald trump wins or loses by a small margin. i think that this man has faced two assassination attempts in the last two months, in the last two months.

and we're not talking about possible assassinations, we 're talking about shots being fired. these are history-changing events. a generation of americans has never seen this happen, and now it's become normal in the united states, and am i concerned that the country is walking on very thin ice. yeah, i think it's a little weird to be so concerned, at least in the media, about donald trump, when it's trump who's being attacked by gunmen, by people who have been reported to be saying exactly what we're hearing about trump. from the democratic machine. i think it's irresponsible, to say the least, for the democratic party to paint donald trump. joe biden has been saying for years that trump is a threat to democracy and the existence of america. if you continue to say that about somebody in the context of what's already happening in our country, i think it's not good for the country. so, whether i'm worried

about the future of the country, whether we're on the brink, absolutely. and i think it's better. i think a decisive victory that unites the country and turns this page the last four years with all of its problems and say, "this is where we're going, this is who we are, these are our principles. this is going to be a rebirth of our identity and this is going to restore pride to the united states, whether you're a republican or a democrat. and i think that's what can happen in this election, and that's exactly what i want. i love that you focus on

policy and talk about policy for hours. let's turn to foreign policy. what kind of peace treaty do you think is possible, achievable optimal in ukraine, and if you sit down, if you were president, if you sit down with zelensky and putin, what do you think you could talk to them about. you did something very funny during your debates in the primaries, where you accused the other candidates of not knowing the name of a single region. where they wanted to send money and troops, which would lead to the death of hundreds of thousands of people, they don't even know the name of the regions of ukraine. that was a great moment. so how would you negotiate with world leaders on about this situation? yeah, look, let's look at the interests of each side, and

let's be frank about it. each side believes that the other side is the aggressor and so forth. let's just talk about interests: russia is worried about nato shifting the balance of power away from russia and toward western europe, that nato has expanded much more than they expected. and actually , russia was promised that nato would not expand. this is a rather uncomfortable fact for some in america, but in the early nineties, james baker promised mikhail gorbachev, he said that nato would never go beyond east germany. well, nato has expanded much more since the fall of the ussr than it did under the ussr. i think if we can make a reasonable deal that gives russia the guarantees it needs about what they see as nato expansion in violation of previous agreements, but also get written guarantees from russia that they will not behave irresponsibly, that there will be guarantees and tough consequences for violating them, that will be the beginning of a deal,

but i also want something for the united states, i want the russian-chinese cooperation to be weakened, and i believe that we can make a deal that gives something to russia, but the condition of the deal is that russia withdraws from the military alliance with china, the russian army together with

the periphery, and also to make sure that russia is no longer in a military alliance with china. in return for this, we can give russia what is important to russia. we, in order to achieve peace after the war, must adequately discuss what the end of this wars will be territorial concessions. and what will be the guarantees that... will not expand further than what has historically been guaranteed by america, all this, in my opinion, will be an adequate deal that will give each side what it wants, will immediately lead to peace, will lead to greater stability, and most importantly, the weakening of the russia-china alliance, and this alliance is a real threat to us, all participants in this debate for and against financing ukraine do not pay attention to this threat, in my opinion the way we reduce the risk. by breaking up that alliance. so, from an american perspective, the main goal is to weaken the alliance between russia

and china. yes. i think the military alliance between russia and china is the greatest threat to us. so, make a deal that looks reasonable on both sides, but the main thing we get out of it is a weakening of that alliance, no joint military exercises, no military alliances. and these are monitored points, if we are deceived in this, then we will immediately call for consequences in response to deceive them, but we also will not be allowed to deceive in relation to our own obligations under this deal, but all this can all be very painful for ukraine, at the moment ukraine has entered a small part of russia in the kursk region, and russia has taken a huge part, donetsk, lugansk, zaporozhye, kherson region, so given what you propose. but the main goals are a ceasefire, weakening the russian-chinese

alliance, but what will russia get from this, part will be, here is part of this deal, which does not harm ukraine, but benefits russia. i i don't think it's a zero-sum game where the only loser is ukraine. i think that reopening economic relations with the west would be a big win for russia, and also the carrot that... nixon for his role in the growth of the legal and regulatory function of the state, but now i want to praise nixon for something else: he had the imagination to pull red china out of the soviet zone of influence.

zelensky was ready to make a deal back then, before boris johnson, who had his own domestic problems, came to convince zelensky to keep fighting, and this is connected with the fact that when a country... is required to pay for its security, then they have a moral problem of accepting risks, bad risks, because they do not bear the full burden of taking such risks, if they had...

a victory for the united states and the west in general would be a weakening of the union of russia and china. a victory for ukraine would be an agreement that is supported by the interests of the united states of america, an agreement that provides more level of security and sovereignty for ukraine that will stop the current

bloodshed and.

negotiations, all these issues are very complex and historically tangled, relations between russia and ukraine, relations between nato and the united states, the union of china and russia, economic interests, together with geopolitical factors, these negotiations have many levels. the more of these levels, the more options that it will be beneficial for all participants,

so i think that this. it's good that there are so many levels, it makes it very it is likely that reasonable and practical peace negotiations are possible, because the opposite situation, when only one thing is important for each side, then it is very difficult to negotiate, but here there is an opportunity to make a deal and this will require a strong leader,

under whom the united states will behave tough not only with zelensky or putin, but with everyone at once, tough defense of our own interests, which consist of stabilizing the situation, and i believe that if this happens, then it will be in the interests of russia. calculations, you and i know that in modern conditions, this is one of such serious tasks, serious, this is one of the serious challenges for us, in general, the work is going on, it is going well, but it is better to talk about difficulties in a timely manner and outline the necessary actions to overcome these difficulties.