that the son of ali khamenei wants to take the post of president, and then claim the post of supreme leader, all the same, all iranians will tell that it was he who killed raisia ​​in order to get rid of a competitor, in the best traditions of persian history, you can say, but it seems to me that this is again - after all, it is a theory of language, and here it is simple, well, people are mortal, as you know, and sometimes they die very suddenly. do you think that this will somehow affect political quotes? in iran, in general, raisin was not so much a president, but a player a figure in the iranian establishment, well, he was considered as such, that is, in principle , he lost something, especially against the background of economic and political troubles, but he was still a person close to the corps, and the corps obviously counted on him as well , and there are no information that khamenei, for example, expressed some serious dissatisfaction. resi, although

recently there have been reports that it seems that reisi was not happy, but from the very beginning, his role was this, that is , to take on all the troubles, so there is, there is one the nuance that is important in this situation is that political groups, clans, and economic and political clans of iranian society, which are absolutely legitimate, many are not satisfied with the fact that khamenei is conducting a rather strict policy of screening candidates, that is, not giving access to resources, it seems to me that at some stage, not now, a little after a step, but there will be a certain consolidation of disaffected groups, and then we can already see manifestations of political instability, yes, but turbulence without doubt in the near future should be expected in connection even. hamne is 85 years old, and he does not

look like such a super healthy man. mr. igor, the question that probably worries many citizens of ukraine is iran's relations with the russian federation, the supply of certain types of weapons to the russian federation, whether this will change in any way in the near future, and perhaps whether it will change after the elections. the president of iran, that is, i emphasize once again, the supply of certain elements that relate to the weapons of the shaheds of the same and so further and so on. you know, i don't think so, because the key decisions are still made by alikhmenei, and communication with russia takes place with his blessing, which means that most likely only the direct will of alikhmenei can change the situation. i do not yet

see any reason to change this will, considering that the islamic revolutionary guard corps is essentially the backbone of the iranian regime, and without support, and they are lobbyists to a large extent of this situation, we remember that since the days of qaz suleimani, and neither do i do you think that richa menei will suddenly change his position, for example, the position of iran in relation to the united states of america and vice versa? there is some minimal movement possible here, at least after the presidential election, i mean the same nuclear weapons that they talk about so much, are we also going to see the same belligerent rhetoric towards the civilized world, here i here i will add to andrii's question that , to be honest, i am very interested in the presidential election, because in iran it is a ceremony like in russia, but i am interested the american-iranian negotiations, which we... hear about from time to time and do not understand what it

is, what they are talking about there, yes, yes, without a doubt, they are continuing, that is , the level of these negotiations may have decreased, that is, they are not are official as before, yes, the delegations meet and discuss possible options for the agreement alone, but they continue, and the agreement with the americans is important for khatami, for khamenei. khaminiya, gentlemen, yes, and accordingly, it is worth expecting that these negotiations will continue. i don't think the rhetoric will change because it is there traditional, and if it shows iranian courage, yes, well, i'm exaggerating a bit here, of course, but nevertheless, it's... this is their

style of behavior, of negotiating, but i think they may recover after the month of november . more actively and taking into account the circumstances, who will win the elections in the states, who will win the elections in iran, but it is obvious that moderate politicians are unlikely to be allowed into power now, no one will take risks, so there will be conservatives again, the question here is whether they are messianic , i.e. people like ahmedi nijat, are rational thinking people able to negotiate, or do we have a whole conversation that goes nowhere... you go to the middle east, all the time you talk about messianic sentiments, the question arises, how can states led by leaders with messianic attitudes to agree on something, it is difficult, practically nothing, yes, it is true, here is another question, certain such

a controversial reaction, we have seen this reaction from many politicians, regarding the actual solidarity or sympathy with iran. and representatives of the iranian authorities regarding the death raisi, as well as many representatives of the european union, nato, sympathized and, as they say, ran into criticism, this is a certain diplomatic language, it should be like that, or is this again an attempt, as they say, to seem so friendly to the state that very often shows aggression towards the civilized world, well... both this and that, i.e. diplomatic etiquette, he is still the leader of the state, well, the president of the state, not the leader , the president, but the second point, far from all european countries, let's say , are seriously set on a confrontation with iran, well

one country, france, for example, definitely does not want to conflict with iran, it has big business interests, and would love to. business with iran at one time, when the nuclear agreement was signed in the 15th year , a whole bunch of french businessmen were sitting in the neighboring capital, who were just waiting for the green rocket to start the negotiations. well, this is also an interesting point, that on the one hand, iran plays the role of russia's ally, obviously for once. on the other hand, the iranians are talking to the united states. on the other hand, iran is playing back an important role in the south caucasus, because turkey is maneuvering between azerbaijan and armenia, so president raisi met with aliyev before his death, and was supposed to meet with pashinyan, as far as i understand, also during this same period. well

, it is obvious that the role of iran in the south caucasus suits the united states and france, because it largely restrains azerbaijan and turkey. what does it all look like then? well, it looks like iraq. maneuvers that its strategic culture involves forming around or shrinking around itself the circle of enemies and the formation of a circle of friends, it doesn't work out very well, but they try. thank you, mr. igor, igor samivalos, the head of the center for middle eastern studies, was with us on e-e communication on this broadcast, thank you, well , we're moving on. to the hour of communication with vitaly portnikov, we will talk about various topics, of course, about russia, we will talk about this initiative of putin, about the alleged negotiations, we will talk, and of course, i am thinking about iran, we will talk about the global

peace summit, in short, everyone the most important topics, let's discuss them now, mr. vitaly, this week putin will fly to... lukashenka, they are talking about the illegitimacy of zelensky, they are talking about negotiations, there are a lot of different statements that are interesting, there are uninteresting statements, but of course, these are all things, which refer to the alleged readiness of russia for change, allegedly that zelenskyi is illegitimate there, allegedly that they are ready to discuss some things there, but exclusively within the framework of the current situation on the front line, what is this, is putin wanting to influence the peace summit in this way , wants to knock out a certain one the ground, perhaps, in relation to those states that are currently wavering, yes, whether to support ukraine or not, why today,

why these statements now in this period, why putin is flying to belarus, and again, by the way, is brandishing nuclear weapons, well the fact that putin flew to belarus just in the period when there are... trainings on the use of non -strategic nuclear weapons, it is clear why, well , he flew to belarus to show that these trainings really bother him and lukashenka, he yes.. . the opportunity to speak on this matter lukashenka, all this, by the way is happening against the background of a discussion in western countries about the possibility of using western weapons so that ukraine can destroy military facilities on the territory of the russian federation, on the sovereign territory of the russian federation, and you and i must understand a simple thing, what are putin's tactics in general , putin's tactics are in deliberately raising rates, because in general , the one who stops

raising rates will lose in this war. and so we started our program with this tragedy in the kharkiv region. i want to remind you that the intensification of russian actions in kharkiv, against kharkiv itself, coincided with successful ukrainian drone strikes on the territory of the belgorod region. do you remember, ugh, ugh, there were strikes, russian military infrastructure objects were destroyed, and what putin said, we will create a sanitary zone so that none of our regions are affected by ukrainian strikes, although again, when it came to about strikes on the territory of donetsk, luhansk, kherson, zaporizhzhia regions and crimea, no one said that, right? that is, now russian propaganda has appeared some such amazing terminology that... this is the original territory of the russian federation, and it's not like, you know, new russia, new

russia, new moscow, in new moscow, as you know, life is worse than in the old one, despite on the unification of these territories of the moscow region with moscow, it is more difficult to live in the new russia than in the old one, because no one will take revenge for it, but this is the very idea that we should destroy kharkiv and create some sanitary zone there, even if not very successful in russia, it is now presented to the west as the response to the successful strikes on belgorod region and the destruction of the russian oil refinery, that is, we will not simply respond as we responded, we will simply destroy the city so that they will know, so to speak, and this training with tactical nuclear weapons is a response to the discussion about that it can be allowed to hit russian military facilities with western...weapons, so that they understand that

putin can raise the stakes even then, so you will allow conventional missiles to hit the territory of russia, and we will strike with an unusual missile with a nuclear carrier on the territory ukraine, what will you do next, you have a plan, so to speak, how you will respond, that is, this is an invitation to further escalation, and by the way, you understand that it can affect western politicians, not all of them are ready agree with the fact that... western-made missiles can be fired at the territory of the russian federation. who of all the western politicians spoke out for it? only one person really is, the uk's foreign secretary, david cameron, whose term ends in july. well and somehow yes, something, somehow expressed jen stoltenberg cautiously. but his father and no, he also said too, carelessly, said, so you have, but his powers are also ending, the person who. who know that their political careers are coming to an end with stolpinger,

at least as nato secretary general, and cameron as british legal secretary, as a former british prime minister, he is thinking about his legacy, he wants to leave this position, worthy, but the current western politicians, who do not think about the end of their careers, are completely different are talking, and i will tell you more, we are already seeing the onslaught of people who have always been associated with russia. in the direction of no, but just today italian vice prime minister matteo salvini spoke absolutely categorically against the possibility of using such weapons, you know that his league party has always been against the use of western weapons, as such, to help ukraine. after 2022, he changed his position. another italian politician who is against the use of western weapons for strikes on russian territory is the minister of foreign affairs italy tajani. he heads the party. the dead prime minister berlusconi, that is, it really gives them

the opportunity putin does not give them the opportunity to say: what, you will allow them to destroy a couple of russian airports, and what will we do with the airfields, and what will we do if putin hits them with nuclear weapons , we have a plan, and it can paralyze the will of the west, so it is clear why he went there, now regarding his talks about negotiations, he is clearly not alone, but ... the company with the head of the people's republic of china xizen ping decided to give, can tell zelensky to fight on the territory of the ukrainian president, why? zelensky in principle, as we understand. cannot act on the territory of the russian federation with the help of troops. the whole war of russia against ukraine is taking place and will probably take place on the sovereign territory of ukraine. but zelenskyi may launch an attack on russia's diplomatic positions. and by and large, this whole, i would say, story with the peace summit, with the previous

meetings of advisers on national security issues, all this was connected with desire. get as much support as possible for the view of ukraine at the end of the war, so that the war ends justly, justly. now a question arises, quite important, i think. if putin just watches this, at least the countries of the global south will decide that he doesn't care. and they will have the opportunity to demonstrate their loyalty to the west without the risk of worsening relations with moscow. but russia took a different path, it actually acts through china. there are peaceful offers of de facto freezing of the conflict, which have been

expressed by china. and these suggestions are starting become more and more globalized, so china came out with this freezing plan which he presented in the capital of the global south lihui, then this plan was supported by xizen ping in paris, then this plan was supported by vladimir putin in beijing, now wangyi discussed this plan with selsuamarim, the main adviser of the brazilian president lula, who, by the way, refused to go to switzerland, and there is already a joint chinese-brazilian vision of the freeze, now they say that there will be... an alternative summit in moscow of the foreign ministers of the countries group of seven, and this summit may end up with a much more concrete document than the summit of switzerland, because the summit of switzerland, again, thanks to the presence of representatives of the countries of the global south, will most likely end up with completely vague wording, for everything good, against everything bad, and the brics summit in moscow may end with a clear, clear chinese

plan, which will be the brics plan, what is putin doing? at the same time, putin demonstrates that he is so ready to support this idea that ukraine and russia should talk, that the very idea a conference without the participation of russia is doomed to failure. on the one hand, it reduces the interest of the countries of the global south in such participation, on the other hand, it creates the conditions for the diplomatic defeat of the west, and we are already hearing that maybe president biden really will not be present there, maybe not only because he wants to raise money, and because he does not want to be present at an event that will end in nothing at... the next moment and another moment, along with that, supporting the chinese plan, he does not give up practically any of his conditions, because what he says his press secretary, dmytro piskov, is no different from what moscow said in february 2022, we have goals of special operations, and we can achieve them politically, what are

these goals, what are the subjects of the russian federation that should stop to be claimed by ukraine, and we should simply... clearly understand for ourselves what this means, it means that ukraine, at least de facto, if not de jure, should recognize the autonomous republic of crimea, the city of sevastopol, donetsk, luhansk, kherson and zaporizhzhia region in parts of the russian federation, and ukrainian troops must be withdrawn from the territory they control, that is , even those over there, relatively speaking, the donbass, the donetsk region, from which we control there. 40% approximately and 30% of the zaporizhzhia region as well, no, well, it will be such a blow to ukraine then, of course, but this is raising the stakes, if they, if they will offer it, and we will say, we will not go anywhere, they they will say, well, we won't go anywhere, you don't want to go anywhere, you don't want to leave the territory of our subjects of the federation, and

well, we won't go anywhere from the territory of our subjects of the federation, this is correct. these are the negotiations according to the russian scenario, they understand that we will not get anywhere, but they understand that we will hesitate to ask them to leave. this is called the russian trap. the second point, demilitarization. can they achieve demilitarization? from us, no. but they can achieve the absence of security guarantees. there is no demilitarization. and we say, we will not demilitarize. but then we will not give you security guarantees. if you do not want to demilitarize, then russia will not give you real security guarantees, and the west, the west also does not give, well, we sign some agreements, but these are not guarantees, well, they are not ratified by the parliament. so this is a classic freeze, that is, putin is saying that in principle, if i feel like it, we can freeze the conflict, so we raised

the stakes, they raised the stakes, we lowered them and froze them on the contact line, but now the next the moment is really interesting, legitimacy, if russia does not consider president zelensky legitimate, she says, he says, well, let them be in ukraine understand, it means that after signing... any armistice agreement, they can say: we apologize, but it is not clear with whom we signed it, especially if after that, imagine a different situation, if after the armistice, new presidential elections will be held, and their winner will raise the question of the legitimacy of his predecessor, it could be, we don't know who will win the elections, well, in theory, anything can happen, such a person who will in... during the election campaign to be in strong opposition to president zelenskyi and wins the election from him, he can the next day, after his election, submit to the constitutional court a question

about whether the president of ukraine was legitimate from may 20, 2024, if this person says, and you know, the constitutional court did not agree with this , the russians will say, don't see, they are devaluing our agreement, well, we will start a special operation now. or even vice versa, that is, they themselves will say that it turns out that now he is the legitimate president, let him recognize this agreement, because we are not sure that he would legitimate, and the new president of ukraine will say, and what do i have to admit, there is a signature, no, this signature, if you don't sign it, in blood, and now imagine that the entire election campaign of this person will be based on that it was a wrong agreement and that it does not give us any security guarantees, you do understand that the successor of president zelensky as the president of ukraine in the conditions, if this war ends in a freeze, in the absence of security guarantees, will be a person with much more populist gasam than that person who won the 2019 elections, and putin can

understand this, he is creating a situation for himself, so to speak , an open chance, a pause, and the ukrainians themselves, from his point of view, will give him the opportunity to start a new, similar process. okay, and nato, here’s how it works... ukraine’s accession to nato is possible as part of this whole process, because we understand that ukraine will not join nato right away, but on the other hand , we must understand what russia wants, conditionally speaking , to make sure that ukraine does not join us, we understand that it is basically one with one with the list of postulates that russia sets before itself. of course, but russia will not be able to demand from us in the freeze agreement that we do not enter somewhere, because it will not be an agreement with conditions, if it is a freeze, then we do not recognize their sovereignty over our

territories, they do not recognize our sovereignty over our territories, they don't give any security guarantees, the west doesn't give any security guarantees, they can't get anything from us, we can't get anything from them, this is a ceasefire, but here the question arises not about ukraine, but about nato itself, but nato knows that there is only one... we want to solve these problems peacefully, we said that from 14th year to 24th, however, this is what putin accuses us of, that we wanted to fight, that we bombed donbas there, both of our presidents, from the 14th year to the 24th, president petro poroshenko, president volodymyr zelenskyi, at least after the signing of the minsk agreements, when russia deployed its regular units in order to defend their positions, at least part of the occupied. territories said that they want to solve the territorial problems of ukraine peacefully. the peaceful way is the minsk agreement and the peaceful way is the crimean platform. on the crimean platform, everyone already talked about

a peaceful way to solve the problem, not about a war for war for the return of sovereignty in crimea, so what, so the country will have a serious dilemma, whether they can accept a country, a country that... is under the threat of a new war and without established internationally recognized borders, i.e. no guarantees that ukraine will join nato under these schedules no, no, because ukraine does not control its internationally recognized borders, if the war were to end like this, and does not recognize the territories controlled by russia, together with nato countries, as russian, so this is the basis for a new conflict. you understand, there is one problem here that may need to be discussed or clarified, i don’t even know how to solve it, but we just have to understand, you and i are always talking in

logic there, relatively speaking, not 21, but 20th century in the logic of the inviolability of borders, which was adopted after the second world war and enshrined in the geltsin act on security and stability in europe of 1975. and nato, nato countries, and the united states, and the countries of the european union, they come out of it. no, violation of boundaries is not a sacred thing. in the 19th century, if you and i were talking, if there was television. we did not talk about this with you at all, in the 19th century, some regions of some countries moved to others with such speed that very often the inhabitants did not even understand where they were, remember, not even wars, conflicts, ultimatums, yes continued until 1945, look at our neighbor the republic of moldova, part of the territory was in the ukrainian ssr formed moldavian ssr, part of the territories in romania, and before that in the russian empire. and

the part that was in romania was returned to the soviet union by ultimatum, united with the territory that was part of the ukrainian ssr as an autonomous republic with part of the territory, part of the territory of the autonomous republic was annexed to remained part of the ukrainian ssr, simply as part of odesa region, and from this emerged a real independent state, which now does not control parts of its territory, which was the former moldavian autonomy as part of the ukrainian ssr. with the exception of the city of bendery, which was not in this autonomy, and this is the so-called transnistrian republic, well, this is not the whole problem, there is also gagauzia, there is gagauzia, which was never considered separately, but gagauzia was at least not a separate factor before 1900 there in the year 91, conditionally speaking, i 'm just telling you how it looked, they just took the territory of moldova, the territory of ukraine , we'll see too, there is a territory that was part of

russian empire, there are territories. which was part of the austro-hungarian empire, there is territory that was part of austria, there was territory that was part of hungary, there is territory that after the first world war became part of poland, not only the territory of austria, but also the territory of the russian empire, there is territory, which became part of czechoslovakia, there is a territory that became part of the soviet union, all these territories in the 45th year became the ukrainian ssr completely, and then the territory that was the territory of soviet russia was added to them. it crimea, this is how you can talk about every european state, if you and i start talking about poland, what does it consist of pre-war poland and post-war poland, and czechoslovakia, that is, you understand, and the czech republic and slovakia now we can talk about it forever, but i i'm not talking about that, i'm saying that when, when the collapse of the soviet union of yugoslavia began, we all decided to prevent a big war.

should pass through the borders of the former union republics, despite the fact that these were not real states, you and i understand that, they were conditional states, it was more convenient for stalin and tito to rule these countries and their states, but the problem is that it was right, a good decision, which allowed simply without war to start normal relations between these new countries, to keep there... to keep peace there peace, to preserve international peace there, but would russia and serbia undermine it? first serbia, then russia. look, since the 1990s, since the 1990s, serbia has been fighting in bosnia and herzegovina, in croatia with the help of paramilitary units, first expelling the croats, then expelling the serbs from croatia. bosnia and herzegovina is actually a country in which ethnic cleansing is legitimized to preserve its territorial integrity, but

republika srpska does not want to be in bosnia. this state actually does not exist as a normal institution. let's look at kosovo, its independence is recognized by a number of countries, but they demand from the albanians of kosovo that they create autonomy for the serbian municipalities on the border with serbia, whose inhabitants do not want to live in kosovo at all, with all this territory of their own, but no one does not say, we can transfer them to serbia, because this well, because this is the question of the territorial integrity of kosovo, which actually was. what is the territorial integrity of kosovo? it's just an autonomous region that was so created by the yugoslav communists. for the serbs to live together with the albanians and control them, at least here. now the soviet union. we have already mentioned transnistria, abkhazia and south ossetia, where did they expel the entire georgian ethnic population from? ukraine?