The president s press secretary responded to him, and most importantly your opinion, will peskov be heard in paris and most importantly washington, you know , i admit that i literally have an epigram of the 19th century spinning in my head, all in belligerent excitement in him. Including claiming some kind of leadership in europe, all this together probably prompted a respected president or a nonrespected one, in this case the president of the french republic, to make such, frankly, a lightweight statement, but there are two points that really require a serious attitude military, is present somewhere in in the rear, as instructors, as some kind of support personnel, and so on, this is the first, second, here i would just focus on the seriousness of what macron said, this was at the very beginning, remember, he developed his idea, because they once talked about the unacceptability of the supply of tanks, they once talked about the unacceptability of the supply of longrange artillery and missile weapons, but then they came to the idea that this is probably the most alarming thing, one way or another, escalation, escalation its not that it cant be ruled out, escalation on the other side , deliberate escalation with the aim of prolonging the conflict, in general, unfortunately, is quite possible, well talk about this in a minute, but actually, i asked you first of all about your. The application is not assessed macron, and peskov, because this statement , in its, if you like, simplicity and clarity, made a great impression on me, it made an impression on everyone, the aphorism inherent in the president ial press secretary played a role in this case, it seems to me that i really cant add , in washington , you know, they cant help but hear, its another matter how they show their reaction, but what they hear, but for sure. It seems to me that this is very , very important, because every time they say in congress, and of course, in Biden Administration and in the press. Not satisfied, macron appears, who says that if ukraine is defeated or continues to suffer defeat, then the direct entry of nato troops into its territory is not excluded, which is called the choice is yours, but it seems to me that to a large extent this is the logic now we are being offered from the west, i agree, but again here is my question regarding peskovs statement, because it seems to me that in order to maintain peace for. No one, in principle, supported macron, more besides, he himself started somehow or someone from his entourage began to act out, they say , we dont mean combat units, not combat personnel, auxiliary there, and so on, but a stone was thrown into the water, circle then they walked on water, which means that on the other side they are accustoming or are beginning to accustom themselves to such a thought, on our part it is very important to give a sober and tough answer from the very beginning, because we too. But before him, the Prime Minister of slovakia said this , and he said this completely without enthusiasm, quite the contrary, but he clearly said that such a possibility exists, such a possibility is being considered, and it seems to me that it is very important that Everything Possible is done so that the white house understands the seriousness of russian warnings, i, at least, have absolutely no doubt that. If you look not only at the russian president , but at the entire Russian Foreign policy defense elite, there really is virtually no one who would not agree completely. With peskovs warning, absolutely true, well, i take macrons statement very seriously, because this was not his only statement, he also stated that they were creating some kind of coalition to provide ukraine with weapons, missiles, medium, i repeat, long, long range, lets listen to what macron said. On this occasion. Today we are not negotiating about mirages, but we are training pilots. We are exploring a number of possibilities that could be useful in the future. We have agreements within the existing coalitions. This evening we added the coalition to supply longrange missiles actions. There are aviation coalitions, for example, the f16 coalition. France does not have f16 aircraft. We have our own planes. We are just studying our own capabilities in the context of whether they will be useful. To protect ukraine, within the framework of the existing coalition, we will continue to train pilots. Dmitry vitalievich drozdenko, leading military expert, what did macron mean when he talked about longrange missiles . Well, a Medium Range Missile has already been delivered, both by the french and the british, this is storm shadow and scalp, the range of these missiles has been tested to be more than 500 km, then there is a modification of the same scalp, which has a range. Has a range of about 1. 00 km, well, for now, as far as i know, this is a modification for them either for the sea or for land, which, in principle, doesnt change much, in general, these missiles are already being supplied, another thing is that who programs these missiles, as i have already said many times, launches are carried out from ukrainian aircraft, this suggests that the programming of the missile head takes place on the ground, the aircraft simply performs work as a launch platform, then there is no way he can do this in the air, well, the reason is simple, just like the voltage in the usa, for example, we have different inch threads from metric ones, that is , the architecture of the aircraft will not allow such equipment to be fully placed, but on their own macrons statements are not isolated and those of the slovak Prime Minister and many other chief generals, who, in principle, have long been hinting at this idea of \u200b\u200bdeploying a contingent, or rather not even deploying. Peskova, well, they will probably hear, but sooner in all, they will not be afraid of it, because for america, in my opinion, this does not pose any threat, because if a European Coalition is created, it begins some actions in ukraine, then the situation will be like with poland, as they said, but if poland enters ukraine, but america has nothing to do with it, nato has nothing to do with it, fight as much as you want, in principle, in this situation america will not care about anything, america can only care about one path, which was described by comrade karaganov. In his sss on nuclear escalation, last year, here this may worry them, Everything Else for america is a way to make a profit. Then, just now, they showed an interesting moment, when the same storm shadow missiles were in certain containers, they have developed a system for launching cruise missiles not from combat aircraft, but from transport aircraft, that is, an ordinary cargo transport aircraft. A plane, i dont know, an an12 flies, drops a container and these missiles open, that is , in fact, ordinary transport aircraft of ukraine can become a platform for launching missiles, well, theres already quite a range big, american and european, so the way to interrupt this escalation, it seems to me, is only a big escalation, creating precisely well zones of danger for the enemy, you know, i , of course, if. I was talking about the fact that the conflict, if it reaches such level, potential for escalation and in terms of what weapons are used, where these. Longrange types of weapons so that they reach deep into the territory of the russian federation, which in itself is already suicidal, if all this is confirmed, in addition to this, he said, yes, were taking a long time discussed the sending of troops, Ground Forces to the territory of ukraine , there is no consensus yet, but. Look at the admission of finland and sweden to nato, instead of somehow saying, yes, of course, we joined the north atlantic alliance, in the event sweden, this procedure is not yet fully completed, but this does not mean that we have hostile intentions towards russia, we belong to europe and so on and so on and so on, to somehow try to relieve the tension. But they say exactly the opposite, exactly the opposite, look what the New York Times writes about this. Once sweden and finland join nato, it will be much easier to contain the russian Surface Fleet in the baltic sea and control the far north. On the Kola Peninsula , 2 3 of Russian Nuclear weapons are still located, intended for a retaliatory strike, a massive retaliatory strike against the aggressor. This way new members will help. Research, that is, dmitry vyacheslavovich, they are just entering the north atlantic alliance, instead of to somehow reassure russia, they are already talking about how they will change the military balance, they will create a threat not only to the baltic sea, but to the Kola Peninsula, not weakly. Well , this does not come as any surprise to me, because finland and sweden are joining nato, in the context of the hybrid war that nato is waging against russia, so it seems to me that there cannot be any, you know, halftones, yes, and they are also joining fully to this hybrid war, joining the north atlantic alliance, and alternatives it simply cannot be, they enter there for this purpose, they become, at will , another expendable material. In United States politics. As for the Kola Peninsula, i very much doubt that the entry of sweden and finland into nato can change any military situation there. Let me remind you that norway, a nato member, since its founding in 1949, it is norway that neighbors the barints sea, and not sweden and finland, so everything that could be established there has already been established, and the intensity of the finnishnato, especially swedishnato cooperation. There are no aggressive plans against estonia, latvia and lithuania, and that russia has absolutely no interest in making them again. To return under the wing of the russian empire, this was said more than once, when i talk with the military in moscow, i also heard from them that there are absolutely no interests in the field of any aggressive operations there, but this is what our, so to speak, former partners from nato refuse to take into account that. The state of military conflict with russia, then in in general, i dont know anyone, including nato , who believes that they will hold out for a long time, it is very difficult for me to imagine that the garrison of the island of gotland, that this garrison is also located on its own initiative , will be able to resist the Russian Armed forces, so if finland together with. Sweden and the baltic states, on their own initiative , started a military conflict or allowed washington to drag them into a military conflict, then i think that they could find a completely different situation when finland and sweden are largely denied access to baltic sea. I believe that such a situation would be extremely dangerous, and i have no doubt at all that. Provocative actions against russia, because russia has every opportunity to respond to these actions, and it is the responsibility of the russian leadership if the russian country faces such challenges , it is natural to find a worthy answer to them what do you think, dmitry, is the elite in general, the european militaryforeign political elite, are they still capable of thinking in these terms or no longer . Well, as i showed. Macrons statement you quoted, by the way, there was a similar statement by the new Prime Minister of france attal, the european one has extremely degraded in terms of strategic thinking. Let me give you another example, the former Prime Minister of Great Britain said that she would not hesitate to press the nuclear button, if, so to speak, if someone advised her to press it, indeed degradation, degradation of the elites is one of the main problems. Because that he considered biden incompetent, and this is written in black and white in this document, well, when really Climate Change and nuclear war, and Global Nuclear war. Are put on the same level, i agree with similar conclusions of mr. Hur, and this is very scary, this is very scary, because they are still a military force, they are expanding to our borders, they are militarizing europe, including the baltic sea region, but of course we have something to answer, and once again i want to emphasize the significance of the statement that Dmitry Peskov made, we need to make similar statements literally every day in order reached the spinal cord and. Use existing contacts between people in the russian government, the American Government use these contacts , so that even biden does not have the slightest doubt that when peskov said what he said, that this is really very serious, and that he said this on behalf of the president , but what if there are any reasonable voices in the world. Then one of them is the un secretary general, who warned about growing tensions, even the growing nuclear threat, does anyone even Pay Attention to this . Is it attention, or has he in this sense lost all moral authority . You know, the capacity of the un, with all due respect to this organization, i worked in it for some time, you were a bit of a russian ambassador, yes, but not for long, but be that as it may, with all due respect. It has somehow started to become interested in this organization lately for a very obvious reason, which we have already talked about here, uh, all its effectiveness in those cases when it was not always, but manifested itself, it was always based on the possibility that that an agreement, some kind of understanding between the main players, the permanent members of the Security Council. Now, unfortunately, this opportunity, as we see. On key, cardinal issues, has been practically lost, perhaps, when we are talking about extending the mandate of some peacekeeping operation, somewhere in africa, then in the quiet of the Council ConsultationRoom SecurityCouncil Members still come out with somehow agreed upon decisions, especially since there are africans among the nonpermanent members of the Security Council states that lobby for these kinds of issues and simply demand to reach agreement, but how. As the ancient greeks said, when the gods want to destroy someone, they first deprive them of their minds, and uh in diplomacy, in military diplomacy, especially, it was considered that it goes without saying that, uh, no matter what ambitious plans you have, you cannot afford to have a conflict with the west and east of europe at the same time in europe. There were two people who violated these plans, one was, of course, napoleon, the other was, of course, hitler, and, as they say, we saw what happened to them. Henry kissinger, who recently died, repeatedly warned the United States against simultaneous conflict with russia and china. And now it seems that, like napoleon and hitler, in general, the american administration, and more broadly, the american Foreign Policy elite, believe that it is possible to simultaneously enter into confrontation with beijing and moscow. We will talk to you, andrey ivanovich, about this , right after the advertisement, we will come back literally in a few minutes. Others, the Investigation Continues into the crash of the private falcon 10 plane flying from thailand to moscow, we spent one and a half acres in the cold, we didnt understand why they didnt look for us for so long, theres a whole range of violations, there should be an emergency beacon, 5 hours of wind in the snow, if i wouldnt have dared to go through the village , they would have saved you, i initially just climbed the slope to see the situation, an evacuation ambulance flight was ordered by a businessman from volgodonsk for himself and his wife, but only them were on the list of survivors. There is my fault, too, only you and i are to blame not for the fact that we aroused dreams in some sensitive natures, but for the fact that we served the truth, not people, youre my friend, maybe the last one, i wouldnt want to lose a friend, listen , tomorrow no one can know, for sure, we have the same goal, what difference does it make, what role, who will play it, you said that you love me, and you believed me, i want to take over the throaty, courageous, bleached, stupid, swaggering empire, it so that to the outskirts, so that to the farthest corners, imagine what a storm will arise, you will probably lose, and i will retreat, but a beginning will be made, just hurry up, will the gentlemen conspirators want to wait, they believe these may start disturbances, i have not started yet. Gentlemen, big premiere, union of salvation, what are you whispering . Were preparing a coup, take me, tomorrow after the program, theres a big game on the air, lets now talk about china, more specifically about american policy towards china, lets hear whats on this matter. Says the United States ambassador to china, nicholas burns. Our interests collide, maintaining a balance between them is the reality of relations between the United States and china. Of course, we will compete, and responsibly, in order to maintain peace between our countries, but we must compete. I think beijing ultimately wants to dominate the world and surpass the United States. And we dont want this to happen. We dont want to live in a world dominated by china. Relations with china are the most important, competitive and dangerous for the United States, i think they will remain so for the next decade, no less. China is our most serious rival, but at the same time it is our Third Largest trading partner. 750,000 american jobs are at stake. Speaking of agriculture, china is the largest market for american agricultural products, sending a fifth of all us agricultural exports there. Last year the volume amounted to 4