giving you any money, i want to see this country have free and fair elections, even while it is under a salt. the american people need to know that ukraine is different. this has been a very corrupt country in the past. incredible qu, by zalinski, which purely and simply cancels the ukranian presidential election, which was to take place in march 2024 after having already cancelled the legislative elections last month. ukraine is a full fledged member of the council of europe is of course a democracy. and although democracy is far more than only elections, i think we all agree that without the elections, democracy cannot properly function. i don't want be. so i'm asking questions that you know, won't kill every say, ukraine cannot hold elections during the war. we have these and baffled russian regions. the recently joined the rest of the nation to vote for its president. so how exactly has that works? how? yeah, it's interesting isn't it, that the west is go to a very different opinions when it comes to what's going on. as you mentioned, that before newly incorporated regions into russia did vote during the recent

presidential election here just a few weeks ago. and that was despite the fact that they were under the stripe of attacks coming from ukraine. we also know that one person died in one of the voting areas as a result of from the attack on that day. so despite the fact that they were clear threats on that day, the election went ahead. people in those incorporated regions were able to vote for the person they wanted to be russia's president. and we sold the people according to the election commission, went that any incredibly high numbers and turned out to cast the pilots. at the same time, ukraine is saying the dates and this rest and it caught hold an election. and it's interesting how you've got this one sense of the west saying, no, they caught hold elections because there's a threat. we understand what ukraine is saying. but what's happening in russia? yes. the holding elections when this. that's right. but at the same time, those elections are ripped, rushes,

recent presidential election occurred in an environment of intense repression of independent voices and the imprisonment, death, or exile of virtually all genuine political opposition. the kremlin has denied it citizens that transparent, meaningful democratic process against this backdrop, this election can only be described as un democratic to mcdonough these days the russian dictator was simulating another election. everyone in the world understands that this figure, as often happens in history, has simply become addicted to power and is doing everything he can to rule forever . there is no legitimacy in this imitate sion of elections and there cannot be lot . it's like that talk about dictates ship, who said with a bit of tongue in cheek, because let's look at ukraine. this is a country that is fund opposition policies. this is a country that isn't fund or position media. essentially, there is nobody to stand against lensky at the moment and not for many use. what

you would say is the definition of a dictatorship, the same time here in russia, they were full candidates on the election ballot. and of course the 3 of us who didn't when we're able to go on millions of votes between them. just thing with the story we spoke to political commentator, good rache cruces ministers. landscapes rule is now showing the traits of a dictatorship liskey is concerned. he's a little bit more pretty good. and if you look at is the golden age, he's june. the agenda missed. he had already been on the political party. he has what 20 men, all the, the media. so the 580 called you not a double click that and uh what, what do you really want me, the lifted kind of does keep going on in the you grid with the support of the entire best on brock and that's who you would also find them in the of the survey is coming from the residence. there are only a few of these persons, people afraid people are going to be fund won't be addiction right now because of

the mark. all the listings become because these guys in this get, this is look at it as feler fair with the korean people, people know that this is the guide to who is this part of the country. this is the guy who has the dental or at least hop on the graveyard, and this is the guide be fine. most of the problems global politics, viral videos, liars, on heroes. that's all part of the course. in ortiz, new show, must go mules, catch the latest slice of action with the whole shape bows. next, the mr. plug into you're most welcome to the program. as thank you. so once again, our discussion of the security council on nato is actions. and you've been slow 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 lease some once again to the details of a that's a horrible military campaign. i'm totally unlawful. we went to the company end of the conductance against against yugoslavia. they also don't want us to highlight 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 the french representative using proceed. procedural uh rooms is uh, blocked uh i will beads. but in reality, we started every meeting of the security council during this week with highlighting these procedural, russo follow

a french colleagues and 14 for the vote 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? that russia simply requested a discussion regarding the nato bombing a, 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 their 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 a, usually you're not happening the as

a 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, 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 ships. the nerves are far west and 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 uh, all the uh, problems that we have on the ball comes specifically in the relations between serbia and it's integral part 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 fax 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 1973 or 9 to 6 to 7, or even 1948. it's absolutely impossible. so this is ridiculous at the last world. yesterday, there were a 6 countries altogether, and actually it was a clear divide between the west some countries and along with some countries on 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 censorship 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 uh, 9 volts, but the president of japan. also blaine doesn't bleed into the hands of wisdom. countries for obvious reasons. and so that she didn't want to formulate the question in the right way. that's happened sometimes. unfortunately, i'm just curious across the people in serbia, just to pick up and something you said people in the country who survive. 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 the reasoning, french and best of the planes. that's uh survey it was not aware of the fact of the meeting, so we're actually able to consult with serbia. and this was a belief and flight because so that was very much interested in the folding. these meeting. ok 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 the spell out the truth about what has happened then to remind the consequences of this aggression. i still felt they still felt by people leaving their hands. we had to reverse the whole mind, very thankful for their readiness to participate in these briefers whereabouts to

explain in detail what are the consequences for certain population medical uh, ecological infrastructure or whatever that i felt even right now. uh 25 years after these aggression. so these would have been a very, very important discussions, and of course it gave our western colleagues hold seats and they wanted to avoid that as any price. and that's why the really stakes the, for the ability and there they all started to the council asking for the so the degree to a procedural a votes and trying to conceal the fact that they were questioning the effect of the meeting and not the item on the edge and the reason was very shameful and pathetic to which there may be people watching, sir, 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 ball comes not only is so it'd be about elsewhere. and especially when we speak about the relations between bill great, i'm pretty sure you know, there are a lot of the full outs. that's really a sense of us as a sense of security on the right now in serbia and around and so the cost of assorted is defining international community have defined security council resolutions. the relevance of 1st and foremost, foremost, $1244.00 recently were shows that the elementary assembly of the council of europe recommended the mission of course of the, to the council, which is a clear violation of resolution 1244. so all this things are happening because of

a need to aggression. augusta. gus loved it because of the fact that the national war was absolutely devastated tons rates by west some countries they bypassed security council. the moments the this to the trash a china will not support such an action. some uh, some scholars believe that this was a turning points in the whole system of international relations. because this was kind of different uh, the freezing or for the free for the freezing of the contradictions that frozen off to the cold war. so it was kind of a resurrection of, of, of cold was searching for. and i think that there are a lot of reasons for that. so we, we believe that these precedents when the night, so of luck attacked an independent country and actually seized about to get started today. and them declare it's uh, the independent clause,

the independent states. they are of always imposing on everybody to recognize the state. this is likely a precedent when the post war post cold war system was transferred. and the helsinki act was shut up 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 and trying to conceal the truth about this aggression and its role in international relations of 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, it was already a young diploma to me before and service. and the very many people remember as well that's uh there was these famous. so you turn over the atlantic by the russian by the russian federal government. so you're getting you pretty my goals. you was going to washington to sign certain agreements about financial assistance from the states and the national money into the funds. so what that i don't remember exactly about 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 of the whole. the problem is 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 way, given to, to solve it,

then the russian leaders at that moment, all these hopes are absolutely useless and baseless the west is having its own agenda and it's implies these these time and then some flies uh, doing away with you. best 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 happen easily, also route back to these very unfortunate to the criminal decision by inviting a 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 to 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 the ethics of international relations. and of course, this is a benchmark the hallmark that we all remember and this will forever stay in our memory and no matter how the west tries to, to consume with them to put it in the shade they will never succeed. in doing so. the western refusal to discuss the events come 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

a decision of 11th or assembly of the council of europe to meet costs or as an independent states. this is of course, total violation of international law for you guys. security council resolution. absolute lowest was places in the place on the example of these rules based international order that the us on this allies 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, and you mention costs of oh, earlier the self proclaimed authorities they 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? so what's on the minds? i think they better think about how to manage the problems that they have created

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 us from is to build right in the framework of the brussels discussions under the us of the european union. but the gaps, no single pro from is out of this and things are further being complicated 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 some of the disgusting, frankly, what the west is doing in these costs of association. so i think that the cost of all the fact i started to distribute to think about these events and lots of

mentions, something else is 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 inconsistent approach to this? it just seems to be an absolute different levels as well. these are absolutely shameful. the blades and double standards, we discussed this issue repeatedly with the rest of the colleagues, but they pretend to be absolutely deaf blind. and now when we raised these issues, we, for example, points out to them that you know, even costs of the independence was brooklyn's by the problem. whereas the decision

on the crimea was taken as a result of the forensic. so if you speak about democratic procedure, so then they way absolutely observed in case of, of russia, but they were absolutely disregard as in case of customer. so of course, these are, these are believes and double standards. this is the, the cornerstone of these double stand that sound the policy of rules based international order. that's the west is trying to impose. i think this is all just for everybody for every unbiased scroll up for every unbiased diploma. this is absolutely clear or what has happened and across the world. and what are the for a lot, what does they fall out of? it's on all of us. if i can turn away from the uh, you can stop the underbrush tree for a moment or 2 and talk about the un security council itself. or to what extent is it still relevant able to fully function when it comes to conflicts like ukraine

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 security council is the relevant and the, i don't think that there's a price comparison between the u. m and the league of nations. the big difference is of the existence of, 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 use the veto when you yes. table to 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 determined 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 the 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 edge of the security because of those where there are no deep differences among the 5 permanent members. and so they are, the council was very efficient to forget the council works together. i specifically have in mind for example, african issues or like columbia know 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 cancers a very different of anybody, for example, acknowledges that's a security council. it should be the compositional disagree with your council should reflect the situation in the world. and that's there should be in the correction of historic injustice, was the african continental, which is numerous. and we should presents 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 is too important, and this will never work if it is the case, and they are comp some diverse, you'll see that version says on the representation. for example, it all 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 was in the, in the us live am using 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 beach, so sometimes united states and its allies, they don't need to devote against. hence this doesn't count as a veto power because because um, we simply do not have enough votes to proud to 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 way to clear out 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 be hers. and just finally on the, i hope i don't part of the 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 you look at certain things in the recent past, the past 100 years or so, you've got to san francisco conference and 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 uni portal world order. know that the world is again, going through a huge change. the next lunmark peace conference be as world offering it.

is there it 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 at this stage the west is still trying to print and that's uh, nothing is happening. that's uh the world is not changing 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 of 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 item is the basis for international lawyer as you're on the is in itself. it's the, the cornerstone of multi polarity is the question of interpretation. not the fact

that the, you know, for example, the shots that needs to be corrected. seeing the 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 stuff, stubborn. it doesn't, the ones dialect still has some folks 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 is the for them that this is the uh, the only thing that we can discuss and what we should discuss a lot of things, including gus, lot of you including needs are in large amounts including the uncapped promises of

uh, what's the latest to up to the saga time 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 at 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 see you. the

the breaking news. it's our russia hold. you crane accountable for the crocus cities and terror atrocity and the mountains, the rest of the premium security chief for that stating he was also behind the deadly try me and richard talked of 2022 and the issue it shouldn't be like a us republican lawmakers suggests or rather killed solution to ending the war in gaza as washington approves another 2 and a half $1000000000.00 worth of weapons to the trail. plus also coming up in the program. the 2 people are really.