automatically be drawn into a military conflict with russia, of course, the potential of the united organization of nato and russia is incomparable, there will be no winners, and you will find yourself drawn into this conflict, in addition to of your own will. before you even have time to blink your eye, it turned out that macron, of course, is a phenomenal cretin, being under frantic pressure from his farmers, trying to at least somehow pretend to be something, he portrays himself as just some stupid, insignificant little man. both dmitry anatolyevich medvedev and maria vladimirovna zakharova answered him very accurately today, but he simply lost his mind, he began to talk about sending. european troops to ukraine , the other leaders immediately began to disavow this. well listen, macron. total we currently have eight capacity building coalitions. we agreed to strengthen the ammunition dimensions of these eight coalitions of capabilities, giving immediate impetus to the air defense coalition, the need for which was stated by the president of ukraine. create a ninth coalition tonight, a coalition for de

automatically be drawn into the war. conflict with russia , of course, the potential of the united organization of natoe they against, judging by macron and what he’s against, he doesn’t understand that we’re just not going to be anyone, our concept very simple, this is not ukraine. it doesn’t exactly say nato, no , that’s exactly the point, no, it says there, it concerns our territory, namely, it doesn’t only say there is a threat, not only a threat, there must be, there must be a justification for the threat to our territory, not only our territory, our existence, our statehood, this statehood continues, even if, if we can use, even if we threaten with conventional weapons from someone else’s territory. only now there is a war going on on our territory, that’s right, it’s already our body is that derson is ours , zaporozhye is ours, at the present time, i say, we have no principles, the president said this, he also piled up there, answering koraganov, that we now have no need to use our nuclear weapons, there are no karaganov had a phrase about nato’s participation, and karaganov’s question.

nato. >> european countries would automatically be drawn into a military conflict with russia. the potential of the united organization comparable to russia's. we understand this. we also understand that russia is one of the leading nuclear powers and ahead of many. there will be no winner. >> martha: strong words. joining me now, former secretary of state, mike pompeo. good to have you with us as always, sir. so what do you think about this? what do you think about ian stoltenberg saying that ukraine will join nato and finland is in, sweden is in on putin's border. >> martha, that is a really good place to start off. putin said at one point, nato on my border, we could have nuclear weapons. remember finland, astonia, latvia will be one more nation to share that boundary. first things first, we have to restore the deterrence that we lost three years ago. more important than thinking about five or ten years from now when the nato nations accepting ukraine in. the important thing is to set up deterrence that works so we don't have constantly be doing battle with vladimir putin for decades. those are the principles with

answer to the question why germany and the united states of america, unlike many other nato members, are still against ukraine’s membership in this organizationting report from the german institute of security and international relations, and yes, i agree with you, you can find a lot of interesting things there, and you can find a lot of answers, not only in germany, but in america. and so on, we often quote their journals, their reports, this suggests that we lack this, so they write that why are they against, they are against, because they are still afraid, they are afraid, they are not they know what moscow's reaction could be if they cross these red lines, they understand what these red lines are lines, they quote the same karaganov, his thoughts about nuclear weapons, they are afraid not only of this. russia because many people no longer like what the americans are doing, and a striking example of how they don’t like it is the middle east, which we are talking about now, because there the americans continue to behave like bulls in a china shop, make a lot of mistakes, blinken's new visit shows how coldly he is received in saudi arabia in

walesa: -- translator: a new concept of growth came around, namely such as with the united nations, the european union, and nato joining a larger organization by choice. pres. walesa: [speaking polish] translator: so, my question for today is, which of the two concepts will eventually win? because russia and china still use the old concept. [crosstalk] attached such as those on ukraine -- attacks such as those on ukraine. the second concept will prevail. up until today. the world is not keeping up with changes. and we have a similar situation today. pres. walesa: [speaking polish] translator: because of the changes in technology and in other processes, technology and i.t., things have to encompass entire continents or even the world. things have to be on a bigger scale. no single country can deal with pandemics or environment protection on its own -- environmental protection on and sound. -- on its own. we are approaching the end of life on this planet. because previous civilizations had technologies -- pres. walesa: [speaking polish] translator: similar to those who built the pyramids in egypt. we still don't know how they got built, how t

deployment of troops to ukraine is a sovereign decision that each nato ally would have to make purely independently, but in the united states of america and the north atlantic treaty organization previously gave to understand that they have no such plans, about that. during the briefing, the coordinator of strategic communications of the white house security council, john kirby, said in response to a question about whether the united states can send its troops to ukraine for a purpose that is not directly related to the conduct of hostilities . the admiral answered what exactly we are listening to in direct speech. no, in ukraine, only those american military personnel who are connected to the embassy, ​​they are part of the apparatus of the attache from the... defense and they do important work, helping us with security accountability of weapons and systems provided to ukraine, the president made it clear that there will be no us troops in ukraine, but here is a person who stubbornly continues to call herself an official representative of the ministry of foreign affairs of russia, whom i stubbornly continue to call just a spokeswoman, masha zakharova on it answered that if on

clearly, i have no reason to believe, personally, that nato - this is some kind of unfeigned, self-made organization, because well, there is the unitedoney and material assets in reality - this is the united states, plus warehouses housing weapons. he is their man, everything is clear here, who is whose, it is clear that orban also cannot jump above his head, yes. yesterday, orban simply won’t listen, there seems to be such a thing, by the way, the same thing is happening in the united states, but if you go to the metropolis, why did biden and obama keep the border open? southern, why did they support all these abbreviations, blm, lgbt and everything else, just to piss off white patriarchal men and women so much that they began to show their guns, well , remember the case of kyle rittenhouse, who shot himself during the pogroms, and it turned out that there was not a single black person there. only at the very last moment, when everything is over, a civil war is unleashed, because debts are a way of extracting wealth, well, when the civil war begins, you can write off debts, or you can write off debts and then start a civil wave, a w

of the north atlantic treaty organization . with the united states, drawing a line by this alliance led by the united states on the task of russia's strategic defeat, expanding the practice of joint nuclear natond many other things. our joint decision with minsk to deploy tactical nuclear weapons in belarus is determined by the line of collective action. is it possible to conclude from these words, mr. volodymyr, that russia, with all these nuclear threats, has simply... taken three steps back, because the leaders of this country were told something about what would happen to them if they used nuclear weapons? well, the leaders were told back in the 22nd year, and then the intensity of swinging this club stopped, but it seems to me that for the ukrainian side now, as part of, so to speak, establishing a certain nuclear balance, it makes sense to invite, uh... the placement of british, for example, or american nuclear potential on the territory of ukraine, why? because belarus placed until well provided. the permission to place nuclear weapons in violation of the same budapest memorandum, where, in addition to ukraine , the same belarus and kazakhstan appeared, that is, if belarus withdrew fro

forces units from france and other nato countries have been in ukraine for a long time. and they actively participate, including, they participated in, well , in organizing the physical protection of zelensky, at the initial stage of the special operation and also led, in fact, the operations of attempts related to attempts to cross the dnieper, so there is no need to be surprised here, now. .. i must say that on the eve of this paris quasi-summit, they had a rather serious altercation with the german chancellor scholz on the parameters of military assistance to ukraine, they generally disagreed on participation directly in the supply of certain weapons, because... finally, so to speak, he gathered up the willpower and said that - these taurus missiles, after all, berlin should supply it won’t, well, it won’t send troops, so in this situation , macron did such a thing, i must say that the circles in the water went very wide, and across europe, affecting the united states. and so on, practically and apart from the ambiguous statement of the lithuanians, everyone else spoke against this, this, so to speak, stuffing of macron, against the idea of ​​direct participation in hostilities

so the north atlantic treaty organization was born in 1949 and made law in the united states as a treaty. nato is an extension of president roosevelt's vision in building a permanent alliance to prevent european wars. one day before the tenth anniversary of germany's surrender in world war ii, president eisenhower on may 6th , 1955, welcomed germany as the newest member of nato, ten years after the troops under general eisenhower's command forced germany to surrender. germany signed a treaty promising to defend the united states of america if the united states were attacked, or defend any other nato country, if that country were attacked. donald trump doesn't know that. donald trump doesn't know why nato was formed. he doesn't know when it was formed. he doesn't know what nato has accomplished. and he doesn't know that no country pays anything to nato. donald trump wants to destroy the careful work of the winners of world war ii. and you live in a country where the news media thinks joe biden's age is more important than that. you never know when a president is going to die. we lost abraham lincoln at age 56. we