yes, of course, i am exaggerating a little here, but nevertheless, this is their style of behavior, conducting negotiations, but it seems to me that they may recover, already 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... admitted to power now, no one will take risks, so the conservatives will believe again, the question here is whether they are missionary-missionaries, er, that is, people like ahmedi nijat , whether they are able to negotiate and rational thinking people? or that we have the whole conversation, wherever you go in the middle east, all the time you talk about messianic attitudes, the question arises, how can states led by leaders with messianic attitudes agree on anything, it is difficult.

practically did not pass, yes, it is true, here is another question, there is such a controversial reaction, we have seen this reaction from many politicians, regarding the actual solidarity or sympathy of iran and the representatives of the iranian authorities regarding the death of the russians, as well as many representatives of the european union, nato , sympathized and, as they say, ran into crete. this is a certain diplomatic language, it should be like that, or is it again an attempt, as they say, to seem so friendly to that state that very often shows aggression towards the civilized world, well, i think both , that is, diplomatic etiquette , he is still such a leader of the state, well, the president of the state, not a leader, but a president, but the second moment, far from it... all european countries, let's say, are

seriously prepared for a confrontation with iran, but one country, france, for example, it definitely does not want to enter into a contract, conflict with iran, it has big business interests, and it loved doing business with iran, at one time, when the nuclear agreement was signed in the 15th year, a whole big bunch was sitting in the neighboring capital. french businessmen who were just waiting for the green rocket to fly to tigray for negotiations. well, this is also an interesting point, that on the one hand, iran obviously plays the role of an ally of russia, on the other hand, the iranians are talking to the united states, on the other hand, iran plays an important role in the south the caucasus, because it maneuvers between azerbaijan and armenia and turkey, 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, and it is obvious that the role of iran in the south caucasus suits the united states and france, because it restrains azerbaijan and turkey by and large, how is it in general does everything look like then? well, it looks like iran is maneuvering, that its strategic culture involves forming around or shrinking around itself enemy circles and formations. friends, it doesn't work out very well, but they try. thank you, mr. igor. ihor samivalos, the head of the center for middle eastern studies, was in touch with us about this, well, we are moving on to an hour of communication with vitaly portnikov, we will talk about various topics, of course about russia, we will talk about this... this initiative

of putin, about the alleged negotiations, let's talk and of course, i think, about iran, let's talk about the global peace summit. in short, we will now discuss all the most important topics. sir vitaly, putin is flying to lukashenka this week, they are talking about the illegitimacy of zelensky, they are talking about negotiations, there are a lot of different statements. interesting, there are uninteresting statements, but of course, these are all things related to the alleged readiness of russia for negotiations, allegedly that zelensky is illegitimate there, allegedly that they are ready to discuss some things there, but only within the framework of the current situation on the front line, what is this, it is putin who wants to influence the peace summit in this way, he wants objects on the territory of the russian federation, on the sovereign territory russian federation, and you and i

must understand a simple thing, what is putin's tactic, putin's tactic consists in deliberately raising rates, because in general, the one who... stops at 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? whoah, whoah. there were strikes, military facilities were destroyed infrastructure of russia. 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 strikes on the territory of the donetsk, luhansk, kherson, zaporizhzhia regions of crimea, no one said that, right ? that is

, now russian propaganda has such a strange terminology that this is the original territory of the russian federation, and it goes without saying, you know, new russia, new russia, new. moscow, in the new moscow, as you know, to live worse than in the old, despite 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, because no one will take revenge for it, but this is the very idea that we should destroy kharkiv and create there is some kind of sanitary zone there, even if russia is not very successful, it is now being presented to the west as a response to the successful strikes on ... belgorod region and the destruction of the russian oil refinery, that is , we will not simply respond the way we responded, we are just a city to them we will destroy, so that they may know, so to speak, and the eyes of learning tactical nuclear weapons - this is the answer to the discussion about whether it is possible to allow

western weapons to hit russian military facilities, so that they understand that putin even then... can raise the stakes, so you will allow conventional missiles to be hit on the territory of russia , and we will strike an unusual missile with a nuclear carrier on the territory of 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, but not them everyone is ready to agree that western-made missiles can be hit on the territory of the russian federation, who spoke out for this from... of all the western politicians, only one person really, it is the foreign secretary of great britain, david cameron, whose mandate is ending in july, well , somehow yes, something, jen stoltenberg once said cautiously, but his family and no, he also

said too, carelessly, he said, yes you have, but his powers are also ending, who know that their political career running up finished stolpara is at least in the position of secretary general of nato, and cameron is in the position of minister of law of great britain, as a former british prime minister, he thinks about the legacy, he wants to leave this position, with dignity, but the current western politicians who do not think about the end of punishment er, they talk completely differently, and i will tell you more, we are already seeing the onslaught of people who have always been connected with russia, in the direction of no, but just today they are absolutely categorically against the possibility of using such weapons. vice prime minister of italy matteo said salvini, 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 italian taiani, he heads the party of the deceased prime minister berlusconi, that is, it really gives them... the opportunity does not give putin such an 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 hit 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 the negotiations, he is clearly not alone, but in the company of the head of the people's republic of china xizen ping, decided to give, one might say, to zelensky. battle on the territory of the ukrainian president, why? in principle, as we understand, zelensky cannot act on the territory of the russian federation with the help of troops. the entire war between russia and ukraine is taking place and, probably, will take place on sovereign territory of ukraine. but zelensky

can start an offensive on russia's diplomatic positions, and by and large, this whole, i would say, story with the peace summit with... the previous meetings of the national security advisers, it was all connected with the desire to get as much support for the view as possible of ukraine in conclusion. war, so that the war ends justly, justly. now the question arises, quite important, i think, if putin just watches this, at least the countries of the global south, will decide that he absolutely indifferent, and they will have the opportunity to demonstrate their loyalty to the event. without the risk of worsening relations with

moscow, but russia has gone the other way, it is actually acting through china, there are peaceful proposals of actually freezing the conflict that have been expressed by china, and these proposals are starting to become more and more globalized, so china came up with this plan with.. . birth, which was presented to the capital of the global south by lihui, then this plan was supported by shizen ping in paris, then this plan was supported by vladimir putin is in beijing, now wanyi has discussed this plan with selsuam, the chief adviser to brazilian president lula, who by the way refused to go to switzerland, and there is already a joint sino-brazilian vision of the freeze, now they say that there will be an alternative summit in moscow of foreign ministers countries of the group of seven. and this summit may end up with a much more concrete document than the swiss summit, because the swiss summit, again, thanks to

the presence there of representatives of the countries of the global south, will soon end absolutely vague wording, for all good, against all bad, and the brics summit in moscow may end with a clearly defined 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 of ​​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 won't be there, maybe not just because he wants to raise money, but because he doesn't want to be in an event that won't end in anything. the next moment, and another moment, along with this, supporting the chinese plan, he ... practically does not give up any of his conditions, because what his

press secretary dmytro piskov says is no different from what moscow said in february 2022, we have special operations goals, and we can achieve them politically, which these goals? there are subjects of the russian federation that ukraine should stop claiming, and we just have to clearly understand for ourselves what this means. this means that ukraine, at least de facto. if not deyura, should recognize the autonomous republic of crimea, the city of sevastopol, donetsk, luhansk, kherson and zaporizhzhia regions as part of the russian federation, and ukrainian troops should be withdrawn from the territory they control in these, that is , even, even those there, conditionally speaking, donbass, donetsk region, that's how long we are there we control, 40%, approximately, and 30% of the zaporizhzhia region as well, no, well... this, this will be such a blow to ukraine, then, huge,

of course, of course, but this is an increase in rates, if they, if they will it offer, and we will say, we will not go anywhere, they will say, well, we will not go anywhere, you do not want to go anywhere, you do not want to leave the territory of our subjects of the federation, and well, we will not go anywhere from the territory of our sub objects of the federation, this is correct, these are negotiations according to the russian scenario, they understand that we will not get anywhere, but they they understand that we will... from them to get out, this is called a russian trap. the second point is demilitarization, they can 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 they are not guarantees, well, they are not ratified

parliaments, so this is a classic freeze, that is, putin says that in principle, if i have the desire, we can freeze the conflict, so we raised the stakes, they raised the stakes, we lowered them and froze them on the line of contact, but now the next moment is really interesting, legitimacy, if russia does not consider president zelenskyi at the same time... well, let them figure it out in ukraine, then this means that after signing any ceasefire agreement, they can say, we ... we are asking, but we are not clear with whom signed, especially if after that, imagine a different situation, if after the armistice, new presidential elections will be held, and their winner will raise questions about the legitimacy of his predecessor, this may happen, we do not know who will win in the elections, well, in theory, anything can happen, such a person who will

be in strict opposition to president zelensky during the election campaign and will win. his election, the next day after his election, he can submit a request to the constitutional court about whether the president of ukraine was legitimate from on may 20, 2024, if this person says, and you know, the constitutional court did not agree with that, the russians will say, don't you 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 legi'. the president, he, let him recognize this agreement, because we are not sure that it will be legitimate, and the new president of ukraine will say, and what should i recognize, there is a signature: no, but this signature, if you do not sign it, blood 'yu, and now imagine that the whole pre-election campaign this person's campaign will be based on the fact that it was a wrong agreement and that it does not give us any security guarantees, you understand that the successor of president zelensky as the president of ukraine in

the conditions, if this war ends in a freeze with no security guarantees, will be the people ... with much more populist slogans than the person who won the 2019 elections, and putin can understand this, he creates 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, uh, process, well, and nato, that’s how the possible accession of ukraine to nato fits into the framework of this whole process, because... we understand that ukraine will not immediately join nato, but on the other hand, we must understand that whether russia wants, conditionally speaking, to ensure that ukraine does not join us, we understand that this is basically one of the postulates that russia sets before itself,

of course, but russia will not be able to in the agreement about the freeze to require us not to enter anywhere, because it is not... there will be an agreement with conditions, if it is freezing, then we do not recognize their sovereignty over our territories, they do not recognize our sovereignty over our territories, they do not provide any security guarantees, the west does not provide security guarantees, they cannot achieve anything from us, we cannot there is nothing to kill them, this is a ceasefire, but here the question arises not about ukraine, but about nato itself, but nato knows that there are two armies standing against each other, there are no guarantees that one of the armies, even the russian one, will... we want to solve these problems peacefully, we are they talked from the 14th to the 24th, the truth is that putin accuses us that we wanted to fight, that we bombed donbas there, both of our presidents, from the 14th 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 its positions, at least on part

of the occupied territory, they said that they wanted to peacefully solve the territorial problems of ukraine, the peaceful way is the minsk agreements. 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 war for war for the return of sovereignty to crimea, so what? so that ukraine will have a serious dilemma, whether they can accept a country, a country that is not under the threat of a new war and without established internationally recognized borders, that is... there are no guarantees that ukraine will join nato under these schedules, there are no , because ukraine does not control its internationally recognized borders if the war ends like this, and does not recognize territories that are under the control of russia, together with nato countries, 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 it with you. so you and i talk all the time in logic there, relatively speaking, not in the 21st, but in the 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 in 1975. and nato nato countries, and the united states, and the countries of the european union, they come out of it. no, not a violation of the border. this is a sacred thing, in the 19th century, if we talked with you, if there was television, we did not talk about it at all, in the 19th century, some regions of one country moved to another. with such a speed that very often the inhabitants did not even understand where they were, remember, not even wars, conflicts, ultimatums, this continued until 1945, look at

our neighbor the republic of moldova, part the territory was in the ukrainian ssr, it was annexed by the 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 this... which 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 ukraine, left as part of the ukrainian ssr simply as a part of the odesa region, and from this emerged a real independent state, which now does not control part of its territory, which was formerly moldavian autonomy within the ukrainian ssr, with the exception of the city of bendery, which was not part of this autonomy, and it is the so-called transnistrian. well , this is not the whole problem, there is also gagauzia, there is gagauzia, which never existed as a separate factor, but gagauzia at least did not exist as a separate factor in the year 1991, relatively speaking, i

am just telling you what it looked like , they just took the territory of moldova, the territory of ukraine, we will also see, there is territory that was part of the russian empire, there is territory that was part of the austro-hungarian empire, there are territories which was part of austria, was a territory in... hungary, there is a territory that became part of poland after the first world war, not only the territory of austria, but also the territory of the russian empire, there is a territory that 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. this is crimea. this is how you can tell about each european state that... we will start with you to talk about poland, what did it consist of before the war, poland after the war, and czechoslovakia, that is, you understand, and the czech republic and slovakia now, you can talk about it

forever, but i’m not talking about that, i’m saying that when, when did the breakdown of the soviet union begin and yugoslavia, we all decided that in order to prevent a big war, the borders should pass along the borders of the former union republics, despite the fact that these were not s... these 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 that allowed us to start normal relations between these new countries without a war, to keep calm there, to keep peace there, to keep international peace there, but russia and serbia won't do it. first serbia, then russia. look, since the 1990s, serbia has been fighting in bosnia and herzegovina, in croatia with the help of paramilitary formations. first they expel

the croats, then they expel the serbs from croatia. bosnia and herzegovina, in fact a country in which ethnic cleansing is legitimized for the sake of preserving its territorial integrity, but republika srpska does not want to be in bosnia, this state actually does not exist. like a normal institution. let's look at... kosovo, its independence is recognized by a number of countries, but they demand from the albanians, 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, but with all this territory of theirs, but no one says, we can hand them over to serbia, because it is the same, because it is the same issue of the territorial integrity of kosovo, which was actually autonomous within serbia, again the question of what the territorial integrity of kosovo, it's just an autonomous region that was so... created by the yugoslav communists so that the serbs would live together with the albanians and control them, at least here. now the soviet union, near dniester we

have already mentioned, abkhazia and south ossetia, from where the entire georgian ethnic population was expelled. ukraine, part of the territory annexed by russia. that is, there are no established borders at all, do you understand that? neither here nor in the balkans. that is, bosnia and kosovo. now these are countries with very problematic borders, and serbia, instead of developing, is busy destabilizing bosnia and kosovo, you all saw president vučić during this week, when there was this vote on the genocide in srebrenica at the un general assembly, wrap himself in the serbian flag, and we are talking about events in a city that is not part of serbia, that is part of another state of bosnia and herzegovina, and they are not blaming serbs for this genocide, serbia is paramilitary. the formation of the bosnian serbs led by general radkomlach, who is in charge of daughter, we have nothing to do with serbia as a state, but they... have it as

their own, like putin ukraine, what, why am i talking about this, if we are going to live, we are living in the 19th century, we are trying to do pretending to live in the 21st century, and actually being on the hook for these ideas, and our western partners telling us, we want you to return to your borders of international recognition, and after that everything will be fine, and when we return, we for do you need to expel the russians from there? by force, if we cannot by force, then we mean we are in a whole zone, we can still be conditionally accepted into the european union, well, as cyprus was accepted, well, yes, because it does not oblige anyone to anything, you understand, but in nato, in order to provide us with security guarantees, it is unlikely and i think that if you and i do not say to ourselves and the west, listen, let's forget about these established borders, that is

, the modern state, the state of the 21st century. century, this is not a state with fixed borders, this is a state that can preserve its sovereignty where it can preserve it, and you, please, give it to us, give it to moldova, give it to georgia guarantees of their security where they exercise their sovereignty, don't bother kosovars with these kosovar serbs, if you can't develop bosnia, give an opportunity to republika srpska to join bosnia, give an opportunity to bosnian muslims and croats. build a normally functioning state, do something, and then, maybe when russia changes, when serbia changes, in 30 years, like after the war, there in the 54th year, in the 60th year, we will hold a new conference in helsinki, and we will solve all this , all issues of borders, when dew, and what should we do in such a case with those whom russia will settle there, well... nothing, this is already

an established fact, you are talking about a situation that can happen in 30 years, if we succeed in 30 years, those territories that we did not recapture, return, then i will tell you what we should do, what the baltic countries have done after 50 years, we will recognize as ukrainian citizens those who had citizenship during... the occupation and their heirs, we will give passports to citizens to all others, what about problem, but it's still a destabilizing factor when, you know, in why, what am i leading to, you and i talked very well about the territorial issue, that is, we talked about territories, about accession, about sovereignty, about administrative-territorial division, but russia always used another very

bad for us and for... for other peoples, and a very good feature for themselves, and this feature was that they immediately, as soon as they established effective control over some territory, they immediately began mass resettlement, they did it in crimea, they did it, as only ukraine in fact was occupied, the ukrainian people's republic, then the directory, as soon as it was occupied by the soviet union, and i frankly believe and always say that it is an occupation. yes, what did they start doing? they began to settle, evict those nationalities, those peoples who lived on the territory of the then ethnographic, relatively speaking, territory of our country and resettled from any other, from any other part, so-called russia, or then the russian empire of the soviet union, they always did it, they, they did it.