no, earlier i saw the done for an extended interview with russia's deputy ambassador to the united nations, the talk white western nations. the organization had refused to debates. the 1999, they told foaming this lobby of the 25th anniversary, which was marked this way by phone conversation with the machine. oh yeah. and the mister plug into you're most welcome to the program. so thank you. so once again, our discussion of this security council on nato is actions and you can slow up here, they've been blocked. why are western powers in your views so reluctant to, to even reflect on that episode of their military intervention? i think they, they are afraid. they, i free the tools that will come out. they don't want the world to lose some once again to the details of a that's a horrible military campaign and totally unlawful new to the campaign of the

conduct it's against against yugoslavia. they also don't want us to highlights the responsibility of their leaders at the time of need to leaders. that's why they want to, to shut the miles of everybody. they are not interested in this, but in reality we 1st um ask for the before this meeting on monday and differentiate presented to using proceed procedural uh, whose is uh, blocked uh i will be. but in reality, we stopped at every meeting of the security council during this week. with highlighting these procedural, russo follow a french colleagues and the 14th of the votes of the agenda of the meeting. and we also squeezed the phrase or 2 about nato's aggression. i guess you guys live here, so instead of having one meeting on monday, just heard they actually had the whole week. it's worth pointing on it as well,

isn't it fed? russia simply requested a discussion regarding the nato bombing is not the adoption of any kind of formal resolution on the mouth or something as basic as that. on the 1st real significant down there for history, all of the bombing 25 years on. it's an important date. it was that are opposition from a specific countries. you mention france, there was, it wasn't one we're using. do you think a certain reason or where there are various reasons why i, those countries did not? why there was so such opposition to having a discussion of the debate. this is something that's uh, usually not happening. the un and the security council, because there is an article, a number 2 of the provisional rules of procedure of security council, which implies that the current president of the council calls a meeting upon the request of any council member. usually these equals some kind of

freedom of speech and freedom of expression and nobody questions such beats. but in these and this time at this time, we really looks like we really have shipped the nerve fall west some colleagues, especially the french calling. there is nothing extra ordinary, not request. and we said that's the consequences of nato aggression. i felt until this date and actually all the problems that we have on the ball comes specifically in the relations between serbia and its integral parts costs of a. we're also triggered by need to address them. we can say that this is right there elements, we can say that this is historic for fact only there are a lot of historic situations on the agenda of the call. so that's a mets or even today. how can we discuss me the east, for example, without discussing the consequences of the last of the 9. 273?

09 to 6, to 7 or even 1948. it's absolutely impossible. so this is ridiculous. the last of all to yesterday, there were a 6 countries altogether, and actually it was clear divides between the west, some countries on longer as some countries and the security council. so the wisconsin was the rest of the countries. they acted in line with the block discipline and they supported each other, but it was absolutely clear that their way behind these attempt to impose the sounds. so sheets in security council, which is a very difficult to conceal from from world public. yeah, there are 15 countries, 5 permanent members, so we got just below the threshold without, without the 2nd number, the 6, if we adopt these very, promote is french logic. them of put in order to hold a meeting, we should have got a 9 volts for the meeting so we will have a short so see what was short of these 9 volts. but according to our logic, as french questions, not the agenda items that we used about the meeting itself. they should have. uh,

they should have updates 9 votes, but the president of japan, also blaine doesn't bleed into the hands of western countries for obvious reasons. and so she didn't want to formulate the question made in the right way. that's happened sometimes. unfortunately, this curious across the people in survey just to pick up and something you said people in the country who survived. they the $78.00 days of nato bombing, and then of course, the aftermath were many more people died. and they said, we will never forgive. and we will never forget. but you think that you and you've mentioned some of the countries involved, that the western powers that took part wish that they could for a guest thought it was just essentially put under the rug. exactly. that was behind their reasoning, french and best of the planes. that's uh, survey it was not aware of the fact of the meeting so rational didn't consult with serbia. and this was

a belief and flight because of it was very much interested in the holding these meeting up to everything. prime minister even. so that's just a case specifically to new york to be brought to this meeting and run the friendship presented. he was thinking she was teaching in default listening to his beasley explains that serbia was not the way of freshman requests. so actually, to a survey who was even more interested to spell that through. so spell out the truth about what has happened then to remind that the consequences of this aggression i still felt this, do felt by people's leaving their hands. we had to reverse the whole mind, very thankful for their readiness to participate in these reverse whereabouts to explain in detail what are the consequences for certain population medical, illogical infrastructure or whatever that i felt even right now, 25 years after these aggression. so these would have been a very, very important discussions, and of course it gave our west and colleagues hold seats and they wanted to avoid

it at any price. and that's why the really stakes the, for the ability and the they all started to the council asking for the so the degree to the procedural goals and trying to conceal the fact that they were questioning the effect of the meeting and not the item on the edge and the lease was very shameful, then pathetic to which there may be people are watching start wondering why 255 years old. that of course, the anniversary is so significant this week. but why the offense of what happened in you? then you can slow, i'll be a why are they so important? know for russia that they are important not only for us and they are important for the whole world. and we see that there are still open the ones in the balkans, not only serbia about elsewhere. and especially when we speak about the

relations between bill great. i'm preaching that there are a lot of the full outs. that's really a sense of us as a sensitive premium right now in serbia and around and the cost of, of storage is defining international community. i define security council resolutions. the relevance of 1st and foremost, foremost, 1244 recently were shows that the elementary assembly of the council of europe recommended the mission of course. so to the council, which is a clear violation of resolution $1244.00. so all these things are happening because of a need to aggression goes through gus lobby because of the fact that the national war was absolutely devastated tons of rapes by with some countries. they bypassed security council that moments the this to the trash a china will not support such an action. uh some uh,

some scholars believe that this was a turning points in the whole system of international relations because this was kind of a different uh, the freezing or for the free for, or the freezing of the contradictions uh that frozen off to the cold war. so it was kind of a resurrection of, of, of cold void southern form. and i think that there are a lot of reasons for that. so we, we believe that these presidents are when the need so blocks attacked an independent country and actually sees about to get started today. and them declare it's uh, the independent clause, the independent states there of always imposing on every body to recognize these states. this is likely a precedent when the post war post cold war system was chapter and the helsinki act was chapters at this moment. and of course,

the west doesn't want to acknowledge it. they, they say that doesn't matter very much. they are now referring to the ones that happened in 2022, but they are absolutely authentic in trying to conceal the truth about this aggression and its role in international relations. and the, they're all of which fall out in the national relations years. a lot of fab big topics there. i'll return to something a little bit later if i can, but just returning to 1999. what was your assessment? what is your assessment of russia's stance on the nato bombing campaign of thought? time on? how's most school was position shifted at all over the years since then? well, that was the turning point. i remember it's quite well, i was already a young diploma to me before and service. and you very many people remember as well. that's uh, there was these famous, so you turn over the atlantic by the russian or by the russian federal government.

so you're getting, you pretty. my goal was going to washington to sign. so it's in agreements about financial assistance from the states and the international money to the funds. so what that i don't remember exactly about the people that decision i'm going to learn to about the aggression to make a u turn indicated. tons of moscow. this all was a very symbolic and so i think that was the rights move to make because it was absolutely clear at this point. that's the only problem is this of the west. all the, all the hopes that there will be a fair international system built up to the dissolution of the soviet union out that, that the west will keep the problem. is that where you want to, to solve it on the russian leaders at the moment. all these hopes are absolutely useless and baseless the west is having its own agenda and implies these, these time. and then some flies doing away with us live in serbia who knows what will be next time. so the moods right them where kind of a shock,

because people really where hoping that this going out, this would never happen. that way. hoping that where there were some openings in the relations between the russian, the west. they were hoping that the, these rudiments of the cold war has gone forever. but the west with its actions prove otherwise. and we are where we are. i think that a lot of things that are happening to the also read back to these very unfortunate criminal decision by inviting you to lead us just to point out what the russian leader has said subsequently, invalid were put in stating at the bombing of belgrade was a turning point for most school itself and one of the defining moments between east and west since the cold war a do you agree that it was significant? how's that? it's absolutely. absolutely. i would like to say that. so this is a, this is

a ethics ethics of, of these time and ethics of international relations. and of course, this is a benchmark, a hallmark that we all remember and this will forever stay in our memory. and no matter how the west tries to, to consume attempt to put it in the shade they will never succeed. in doing so. the western refusal to discuss the events coming shortly after serbian president alexandra bu church warren, that quote difficult days lie ahead for his country. what do you think he meant by that? well, i may be mistaken, but it looks like she was mentioning this decision. that's a reference to the decision of 11th or assembly on the council of your to meet the customer as an independent states. this is of course, total violation of international law for you guys, security council resolution absolute lawlessness basis and the place on the example

of these rules based international order that the us on this ellers are promoting. where they are formulating the rules and they are asking and demanding that all this a be to this rules. it says nothing to do with international law. you mention costs of what we're earlier, the self proclaimed authorities there, or how they choose most good trying to use the issue of the nato bombing and beat this lobby a some sort of justification for what is now happening in ukraine. how would you respond to that as well? is difficult for me to comment. so what's, what's on the minds? i think they'd better think about how to manage the problems that they have. great, it's in relations between christian and build rate. we recently discussed in the security council of the issue of the banning of the circulation of serbian deena in the northern parts of, of crossover. which means the life of tolerable for thought for certain population

of these, of these the area. there are a lot of other things that's cost of lead has promised to build right in the framework of the brussels discussions under the use of the european union. but the gaps, no single pro promise out of this and things are further being complicates. it's by these a prospect of, of course, so being admitted to the council of europe, this up to so again, friends to formulate the reaction. but this is that something disgusting. frankly, what the west is doing in these so called solicitation. so i think that the uh, possible effect i started to distribute to think about the, these events and lots of mentions, something else happening in the other. but, you know, you can solve an ukraine, have both become focal points in the re shipping on orders in europe. however, while the west was quick to back, the self proclaimed independence of costs of a rapidly quick. i remember when that happened it's refused to recognize rushes,

re unification, to try me on more recently for new regions. can i get your why such an inc consistence approach to this? it just seems to be an opposite the different levels as well. these are absolutely shameful, the blades and the double standards. we discussed this issue repeatedly with the rest of the colleagues, but they pretend to be absolutely deaf lines. and now when we raised these issues, we, for example, points out to them that you know, even costs of, of the independence was brooklyn's by the problem. whereas the decision on the try me, i was, they can as a result of furniture around them. so if you speak about democratic procedures, then they way absolutely observed in case of, of russia, but they were absolutely, uh, disregard as in case of customer. so of course, these are,

these are blazing double standards. this is the, the cornerstone of these um, a double stand that sounds the, the policy of rules based international order that the west is trying to impose. i think this is all because for everybody, for every unbiased scroll up for every unbiased diploma, this is absolutely clear or what has happened to impossible and what are the for a lot, what does they fall out of? it's on, on all of us. if i can turn away from the yeah, you can stop the anniversary for a moment or 2 and talk about the un security council itself. so to what extent is it still relevant able to fully function when it comes to conflicts like a train and gaza? there's some critics say it's turning into another league of nations which became the funds that had of the 2nd world war. how does the time come to reform the u. n . s. c, and what sort of changes are needed there in your, if you? well, frankly,

i don't think that the skillets across the also goes across what was the relevant and the i don't think that it's a price comparison between the u. m. and the league of nations. the big difference is of the existence of the permanent members of the security council who have the right to veto. this is a very important function which x actually should be viewed as the key incentive to find and negotiate a solution. and that's how it usually works, for example, recently uh, restaurant china to use the veto when you yes, tables resolution, which was uh, actually the green light for you. so to continue what it does in gaza, which reference to the ceasefire, which was actually the main demands of the international community only as the tournament determines, the imperative obedience. he's fine. so i really felt on the stand. what does it

determines to imperative on how it would have been implemented practically? so when he told these draft, and immediately after this uh, there was another draft prepared by the non permanent members of the security council which demanded ceasefire. and these draft was adopted, the bulk of the situation was on the agenda of the security calls of those where there are no deep differences among the 5 permanent members. and so they are, the council is very efficiently forget the council works together. i specifically have in mind, for example, i have frequently issues or like columbia or some other crisis situation so. so these 2 issues, they have very important. they are very loud, but they do not to present the bulk of the agenda. i'll disagree with the cause of the counsel of course needs to be formed. everybody agrees that it's needs to beautiful, but the positions of the country is

a very different of anybody. for example, acknowledges that's a security council should be the composition of the security council should reflect the situation in the world. and that's there should be a correction officer. started can justice was african continental, which is numerous and which represents a lot of items on the agenda of security council. so everybody's in favor of adding a african members to the security council. same of all different kinds of age in america, but they are, there is also understanding that's such an important issue as a form of disagree with your call. so uh, should i come through a solution which would be uh, ideally, consensual or close to this because this is something that can be imposed by a majority to minority, for example, is a vote in the general assembly. this has to be important, and this will never work if it is the case. and there comes some diverse sources that version says on the presentation. for example,

that i shot and some other countries. clearly saying that the rest is over representative. and i think that the recent situation that we just talked about discussion, ways in the, in the us live imaging clearly shows this, the western countries, they use blog discipline and the defect to block uh, security costs are from discussing the issues that they don't want to discuss, they have these kids on the deed, so sometimes united states and its allies, they do not need to devote against them. this doesn't count as a veto power because because um, we simply do not have enough votes to prep the remo. the decisions definitely want . so the west is already presented various of the international or arena. now they're all over. the west is declining. best buy the clear sounds, the voices of the african agent. ways in american countries. uh, sounding loud and louder and they are not codes in the security call. so either way they should because i'm just finally on the i hope i don't part of phrase you

wrongly but, but earlier you're saying that if you don't have an understanding of the past, you're doing to repeat the mistakes in the future. not if we go, if we look at certain things in the recent past, the past 100 years or so, you've got this san francisco conference in 1945 famously leading out the post world war 2 order of international relations the most to summit in 1989, the us and the soviet union to turn the end of the cold war, essentially paving the way for a unit portal world order. know that the world is again, going through a huge change. the next lunmark peace conference, b as world altering it is there, is there a bill it so you for that to happen on where could that happen? well, it's difficult to speak about through this stage because we are not there yet. i think that the, the stage, the west is still trying to print and that's uh, nothing is happening. that's uh, the world is not changing in the way it is changing and they are trying to degree

and to grasp that's there waiting position in the world. but this is the process that we, we negatively come to the point where then you, then you will to really manage the multiple world. and we will of course, have to discuss the foundations of this world. by the way, i could say maybe some people will not agree with me about the u. m. b. and shouldn't be very helpful in these exercise because the chapter of the i'm is the basis for international lawyer as you're on the isn't in itself. it's the, the cornerstone of multi polarity is the question of interpretation. not the fact that the now for example, the charts that needs to be corrected. so in the, in the so that way it's not necessarily so, so why don't you have there when we could discuss the next conference where it should take place and make some traveling arrangements for these so far the way to so just varies, step stubborn. it doesn't,

once dialect still has some hoops to inflict to my country strategic defeats or at least a week and it's significantly, but it's quite obvious from what we see in reality. that's um, this is a really wishful thinking. i'll follow with some neighbors and they will inevitably come to the understanding that we should talk. we should speak about the root cause is not, that's what happens in 2022 as the for them that this is the uh, the only thing that we can discuss and all we should discuss a lot of things including gus, lot of you, including needs are enlargement including the uncapped promises of uh, what's the latest to, to the saga ton, the address and lead us at least a lot of issues that should be very frank discussion and we are ready for these. we already, we all was cold for the west, stay engaged on site discussion. you know, that we made the proposal proposals on european security and in the late to 1021,

which with understandingly rejected by the us and by need. so there are a lot of things to be discussed on that. i'm sure we will find a time and place provided the west uh takes away, so rosie glosses and looks uh the reality which is quite green for some transfers right now. well, thank you for having a dialogue with our tea. you've been more than good with your time today, sir. we've been speaking to rest as deputy and foster to the united nations. dimitri podiums. good. good to send you the a. the same rom, just don't you have to shape house after kids

and engagement because the trail when so many find themselves will support. we choose to look so common ground that says, you mean yeah, the big the band list to hit the assumption, i'm assuming i should but have to tell you the most to cancel the familiar with if i video are students to to go to check on the board is showing that i'm showing here in st. louis to ship them to suck the movie. available,

solution accessible was in your total for the so with this the, the russian states never is as tight as i'm one of the most sense community best. most all sun set up the in the system must be the one else holes. question about this, even though we will then in the european union,

the kremlin move. yep. mission, the state on the rush of funding and supports the r t spoke neck keeping our video agency roughly all the band on youtube tv services. for what question did you say it would twist, which is the position i was suggesting? bell great. was suggesting that we send americans and the bridges on the drain and put on your bill is us have one of the most move dining

probably now. now that seems that histone wanted see it. all the youngest will tell you that only it will save you from esl classes in the middle city. so what i knew on file a possible explanation was always, does really as long as now as a guide on a source or sit emotional around noon. it might be, you know, a lot less radioactive than that something is active uranium, but still it's radioactive, as toxins that can kill a laptop. you want me to kind of see some of these. let's see. again, let's see. i can see the boeing good. i don't usually do mold. i was suggesting we firm fell great bill, call us what they were just the

5 people are reportedly killed during an a delivery effort and goes the coming of the it's really pm since his job security officials to egypt and could tar for negotiations. come also ahead of us citizens on their supporters, worldwide commemorates until monday, the deadline, 1976, protest against these really allocation of habits spinning and aligned goals for a cease fire. and, and so the idea of setting up civilian solid and in this freak here at the clinton message to it's what and they not the test of i'm going to get that piece of the time to.