[000:00:00;00] russia , russia, russia, russia, russia, russia, russia, russia, russia, russia, russia, russia, russia, russia, russia, russia, russia, russia, russia, russia, 24. hello, international review is on air, in studio fedor lupyanov. today on the international review program. events of the week. chronicle, facts, comments. macron promised troops to ukraine. europe is on the warpath, but this is still not certain. decisive artificial intelligence. in

an unclear situation. launch rockets. materials of our program. european the farmers went wild. tire casters scuffle with police. report from the scene . french troops land near the vietnamese settlement of phu, exactly 70 years ago, in march 1954, a battle began there, the result of which predetermined france’s withdrawal from indo-china and the independence of vietnam. actually, paris was ready for negotiations with the vietnamese communists, but hoped to strengthen its negotiating position with military success. it turned out

the other way around. french in may. for security and stability in europe, and although there is no consensus on sending western troops to ukraine, nothing should be ruled out because whatever is required must be done to ensure that russia cannot win, it was said after an international conference in paris to support ukraine. over the next 3 days, the allies took turns dissociating themselves from the french president; there are no such plans and there will not be any. the germans

disowned themselves several times. scholz three times. berlin is especially angry with paris. the germans allocated almost 10 times more to ukraine than the french. and france accuses them of indecision, and even so here he sets it up. burkhart mohr and his drawing are a risky game. a controversial german artist has depicted emmanuel macron as a troubodour who caused a stir in europe with his statements. vimar fuentos from the island of cuba, macron and his promise to send troops to ukraine, the image of the bear is completely traditional. in the background, in the corner , the president's european union colleagues appear to be perplexed. from the section, we warned you. rutis daukantes with a drawing from 2019, which was published in the magazine policy. here is angela merkel on

the right, emmanuel macron on the left, the image of russia. perfectly recognizable. another cartoon from the baltic states. gatja s sluka from latvia reveals the topic of helping ukraine on the battlefield. ammunition from the west. many boxes say: blah blah blah. patrick chapat from switzerland continues the theme. the situation in ukraine. grandma asks: yes, what is broken there? washington - the tankers answer. statement. is macron a cunning deceit or, excuse me, a boneless tongue? what did the head of france mean? the first reason i think is really to send a signal to putin to remind russia that ukraine is important, we will not surrender ukraine, and as for macron personally, there is probably another subconscious reason, but to atone for guilt before ukraine, before

the pro-ukrainian public in france. for the fact that he has long been in favor of dialogue with russia, there is still a moment of improvisation, this must be understood, this is done in macron’s style for the sake of

a bright word... clarified, even despite the risk of the third world war, macron himself insists, spoke in sound mind and strong memory. the old guard brought up in the gaulist tradition, domenic dovepin, jean-claude chevenman, pierre lusch, horrified by irresponsibility, very different formative experiences between generations. it is tempting to attribute everything to macron’s personal characteristics, but that would be too simple.

europe goes deeper into the crow. get better. returning to the nato structure it was wrong, but we are just starting under sarkozy - a mistake. we have lost sovereignty, independence and strategic thinking. today the french army is bleeding, cannot make independent decisions, only those that

america offers. it is france that is escalating, but history is whimsical. on the day when macron did not rule out nato participation in the ukrainian conflict, german chancellor olaf scholz said: germany will not transfer the long-range taurus cruise missile to kiev. the decision is final. the taurus cruise missile began to be developed in the mid-nineties. it was a joint german-swedish project between diamler benz air space and the swedish concern bofers. the missile can hit protected command bunkers, ammunition depots, as well as naval targets on distance over 500 km. they can be launched from

various platforms, land, sea, and aviation. the main carrier is the f-16 fighter. the length of the rocket is 5 m, the launch weight is more than a ton. it is equipped with a turbojet. engine of small size and thrust, the main part of the flight takes place at low altitude, which makes it difficult for air defense systems to detect it early. the warhead has two charges. the second hits the target. warhead weight - 480 kg. when installing a multi-mode fuse , the missile can be detonated both upon contact with the target and inside it. it is believed that the air force germany has about 600 such combat missiles. an analogue of the taurus is the british-french stormshadow missiles, which have already been delivered to ukraine. in nato armies they can be carried by f-16s and tornados. mirage or eurofiter, but in ukraine their main carrier

is the su-24 front-line bomber, which was specially converted for this purpose. this missile is of the forget-fire type; after launch, it cannot be controlled, commanded to self-destruct, or changed in the target information. all data about it, as about air defense, is laid down earlier. the rocket is flying guided by the gps system, and only gains altitude before impact. and then dive towards the target. scholz terribly angered his partners. he referred to the fact that the missiles supplied to ukraine by the french and british, and guided by their specialists, were, in general, handed over to the allies. but the germans say they cannot send their personnel. let everything take its course, especially since the ukrainians will spray moscow with the product received from... schulz and his social democratic fellow party members understand that

the historical trail forces germany to be more careful than others. other german parties, from the greens to the cdu, no longer seem to think so. they paid for the past. in russia , meanwhile, they remembered the relatively recent past. almost 34 years ago , a final settlement agreement was signed in moscow. germany. the agreement on the final settlement with respect to germany was signed on september 12 , 1990 in moscow, as a result of lengthy negotiations in the 2+4 format. on the one hand, it was signed by the winners of world war ii, the ussr, great britain, france and the usa, who renounced their rights in regarding germany, on the other hand, the federal republic of germany and the gdr.

agreement 2+4. berlin, paris and moscow. their outcome remained in doubt until the last moment. initially, the parties considered the

“4+2” option. the first two are about borders and the renunciation of territorial claims to other states, the subsequent ones are about the reduction of the bundeswehr from half a million to 370 thousand people, the withdrawal of soviet troops by the end of ninety-four and the final liquidation of the occupation institutions of the victorious powers. in addition, the treaty emphasized complete sovereignty. the united states of america, so this

connection was destroyed, literally physically destroyed, if we talk about the symbolism of the destruction of the nordic stream, now germany is separated from russia, cut off from russia, deindustrializing, will this germany play a role, well, if you like, such a motor europe, which... must take on more responsibility, a greater burden, confrontation with russia, this is what, as it seems to me, the german question is about now. although the second 2+4 agreement proclaimed: the government of the two german states, the gdr and the frg, guarantees that only peace will come from german soil, and that the united germany will never use the weapons at its disposal except in accordance with its constitution and the charter of the united

nations. you can quibble for a long time about the compliance with the constitution and the un charter. but if we take not the letter, but the spirit of the agreements taking place. of course, was not intended in the nineties, hence the idea voiced in the federation council to raise the question of denunciation of the document. our guest today is the wonderful domestic diplomat sergei borisovich krylov. he held various high positions in the foreign ministry, including for many years as our ambassador in berlin. sergey borisovich, hello. now, looking back, it was a long time ago, long ago, when the 2+4 agreements were concluded, generally speaking, they existed. options, because now in hindsight everyone is strong, based on that reality, look, it means the end of the eighties, more than 40 years have passed since the end of the second world war, and the german question, which was the central issue for europe, was not completely resolved,

although the first attempts to solve it were made during the post-dame conference in 1945, there was one constant: the germans wanted unification. yes, we believed that the gdr was forever, but in the west they assumed from the very beginning that this was a temporary, incorrect situation, and that unification would happen. if we recall the constitution of the federal republic of germany, written in 1949 . the twenty-third article already said that the east would unite with the west. the impetus for the start of negotiations, for the start of this movement, was given by the americans. they pushed kohl, well, knowing the situation, knowing the situation, in particular in the gdr, they pushed kohl to start negotiations, then it went, then everything went, that is , faster, faster, faster, the subtext of your question, was it possible to do better,

could greater results be achieved, this is why when concluding this agreement it is always 2+4. the country had already undergone internal unpleasant processes leading to the collapse of the country, the economy was in a terrible situation, during the negotiations, we then turned to kohl with a request for humanitarian and financial assistance, since it was necessary, it was a very good time, yes,

since we had to give him a long time, he reacted within 24 hours, it was allocated, if i’m not mistaken, i’m just calling 200 from memory now ... would it be correct to say that it was precisely in the process, in the model of german unification that was carried out, including with the active participation of the soviet union, that the acute crisis that has now broken out in our country was built in, because the process nato expansion, essentially began with the consent of the soviet union to the membership of a united

germany in nato, which, as far as i remember, according to the memoirs of various people, including yuri vladimich dubinin, a prominent diplomat. the americans, generally speaking, were not at all sure what they could achieve, because this was not, there was no confrontation between germany and the outside world, it was a confrontation between two socio-economic systems, when one of these systems began to collapse, well, the eastern bloc, then they matured conditions for concluding this treaties, nato, to be germany in nato, not to be in germany and nato, the debate, as far as i remember then, as far as i know, was very serious then. around this, on our part there were proposals, ranging from the fact that germany should be completely neutral, ending with an absolutely crazy idea, one part will join nato, the other part will remain as before. well, how

realistic is all this, of course not, it was impossible, naturally, that the americans, the west pushed the fact that germany would be a united germany would be a member of nato, but they united, why? well, because, firstly, the western germans themselves, since they could not even imagine that it could have been somehow different, and most importantly, that

the eastern germans did not object either. that we refuse this is doubtful , they keep it in the agreement, it is said that in particular it is said that in the eastern part, in the eastern lands there will be no foreign troops, this does not suit us, or do we agree to the implementation of the idea that it was said some time ago that nato’s american base will eventually grow, yeah, that’s just one of those - real if we withdraw, we will lose even such, today perhaps not a very effective lever of pressure, as this

agreement. i have a question for you, as a germanist and a person who has known germans for a million years, a little less than a decade, yes, and worked, in different capacities, and what is happening now, changes in the trajectory of german politics, in particular the behavior of chancellor scholz, which seems to be maneuvering, but somehow... figuratively, does this surprise you or is this what you were actually expecting? and you know, he’s in a terrible position as a politician, look at his coalition, it consists of god knows who, and somehow to reconcile different interests, this requires great skill, he does not always succeed in this, for example, the greens, who criticize the loudest now, when they were just emerging, their goal, well... what they were counting on was somewhere 20 years in the future, now they are already talking about how they

will achieve their goals in the sixtieth year, well , if you look at this matter, well, all this green economy and other things, because of which , in fact, everything turned upside down there, well, firstly, they will live, they won’t live, we ’ll see, they proceed from the fact that they themselves will not live, that is, someone else will have to pay, these are temporary workers. who only think about holding on now, and then we’ll see further, and look how the same khabek, who is responsible for the economy and energy, treats them, he’s just running away from his voters, there were wonderful personnel, how he tried to disembark from the ferry at the front end and how he was met there, nothing it turns out that he is a philologist by training, what does he understand at all about economics, real economics, practically, probably, nothing. anna lena berbak, well, she has excellent results in trampoline jumping.

uh, what she’s doing in the field of foreign policy, not only in relation to russia, no, in general, it’s completely mind boggling, it’s not difficult to understand. and you know, there is an interesting thing, she makes decisions that are implemented, in particular, we will close four consulates from the consulate general out of the five that were us in russia in germany. and the german professionals who work in the foreign ministry in conversations with us say: listen, guys, let’s somehow make this matter funny, let’s find some solutions, yes they are unpleasant, but at least they will allow us through some it’s time to return to a normal conversation, to push some decision that is unpleasant for us through parliament, scholz is also not succeeding, there is such a mixed, such a vinaigrette of voters that... it is practically impossible to make a normal decision, the whole matter remains with him, he time is stalling

yes, time is dragging, well, that is, we can say that now it’s like this... such an intermediate moment in anticipation of something that will happen, and that no one knows, no one knows what will happen, but we assume that everything that will happen it is necessary, well, by the way, it will happen, let’s say everything that is necessary, but what the reaction will be, what the reaction will be, no one can predict now, of course, thank you very much , sergei boris krylov was our guest, you can regret the unused opportunities, but the division of germany after the second world war was artificial, and the unification of the two german states is inevitable, or what? it is interesting that in the early eighties, in the late seventies, in the early eighties, when various such multidirectional processes began in the socialist community, in the gdr there was a very marxist-leninist state, a very

similar state in mungir. those who visited berlin paid attention to the equestrian statue of frederick ii in the center of untraden. after the second world war, this statue was kept for several decades in the royal castle of sanssouci in pozdam and in eighty-two, if i'm not mistaken,

it was transported to berlin and installed where it stands now. and this. west germany became largely americanized during its 30 years, well 40 years, as part of the western bloc. the gdr was mothballed, on top there was

a march-leninist shell, and under this march-leninist shell... history does not provide for reversals through continuous history, although the voting results in the old and new lands of germany, that is , the former federal republic of germany and the german democratic republic, show that even after 35 years the ghost of the wall did not disappear. by the way, this is when kohl spoke with his program

for the german confederation in the fall. what was good, what was not done very well, what was done was in vain. another key country in europe - poland: its passions for ukraine. following the truckers, farmers are rebelling, demanding protection from ukrainian dumping. prime minister donald tusk, a passionate defender of the ukrainian cause, even allowed