to division, so lensky has already seen so that because there is no political opposition in ukraine point, now, there are no papers that are empty government or will bind as a result of selected skis when men plus push to control the whole narrative. not to be too much for some for democracies do not ban elections, but ukraine has put the democratic process itself on hold. since declaring martial law in 2022. this hiatus was supposed to be temporary, but it has been repeatedly extended. democracies do not censor media. in february 2022, the ukrainian government ordered the 9 largest television networks in ukraine to combine their news operations into a single state control news program called tele marathon. so lensky had only lost a being throwing around the idea that new election would be held to test his metal at the ballot box. but he sent done a uterine according to the committee voters of ukraine nuts,

down to one reason alone. a massive drawer brings the land skis approval ratings, and one pole has shown that if the election had been held, zalinski may have got to boot, especially if this going, ukraine's former head of the army had stood against him. the other reason being finds you, the fact is that ukraine called told elections during martial rule. well, the only person who can lift that is lensky himself, may prove that will he will. so what has the west, which has so often demanded the elections in other countries? fed? not a lot of what elections is concerned in ukraine. this is a domestic metro of ukraine. so not for me to come and take some of these are questions for the training people to decide. we want to see presidential elections and all elections in ukraine, but we recognize that it's a difficult thing to conduct in the middle of the world. and so it's

a very difficult issue to work through. and ultimately it's a decision for the planning people to make it. interestingly, it had quite a lot to say about russia's recent presidential election. russia's recent presidential election occurred in an environment of intense repression of independent voices. and the imprisonment death, or ex iowa, 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. this has not been to see on fair elections. no sea of service, you highly risk take to to invite them in position for them. i think they what i can say, but more than that, these are elections as being bays and regression and intimidation. the vile in the recent elections in russia were an election without a choice. the election process not only shows putin's nefarious actions against his

own people, but also against the united nations charter. on the one hand rusher is bad because it has elections in the west, didn't like the outcome only of the ukraine doesn't have to hold the elections and it's still a bed woke of democracy go figure. yeah, but it's not just russia that's attracting the west courses in many africa, nan, south american countries of being in the firing line. now those nations all standing up for themselves, i'm sorry for the west, but what the west thinks is not my problem. not everyone in the west is spinning the same line. is the lensky over the known elections there? all those who are saying, hang on a minute, i want to see this country have free and fair elections, even while it is under assault, the american people need to know that ukraine is different. this has been a very corrupt country in the past. incredible qu buys a lensky which purely and simply cancels the ukrainian presidential election,

which was to take place in march 2024 after having already cancel 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. you're going is have no idea when they'll be able to vote in such elections because there is only one person who can make that cool. so lensky himself and right now he's clinging on to power. he has absolute authority. he is suspended elections. he has wordpress political opponents, he has proclaimed a state of emergency those up all characteristics of a dictator. alright, big interview time. next. see who i spoke to earlier, right ahead. the

mr. plug into you're most welcome to the program or 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 not 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. and totally unlawful. moved to the company end of the conductance 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 off. so everybody, the, i'm not interested in this, but in reality we 1st off before the,

before this meeting on monday and differentiate, presenting to you for using proceed. procedural who's is locked. 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 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 they actually have the whole week. it's worth pointing out as well, isn't it? that russia simply requested a discussion regarding the nato bombing is not the adoption of any kind of formal resolution on the monitor at 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 as the un and the security council because there is an article, a number 2 of the original rules of procedural 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 beads. 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 uh, all the uh, problems that we have on the ball comes specifically in the relations between serbia and it seems like robots 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 way. and so for 9 to 73 or 9 to 6 to 7 or even 1948 is 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 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 censorship and 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 sale, zeroed shorts 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 volts, but the president of japan. also blaine's was like bleed into the hands of uh, west. some countries for obvious reasons and so that she didn't want to formulate the question maybe in the right way. that's happened sometimes. unfortunately, i disagree with your call some people in serbia just to pick up and something you

said people in the country who survived the, the 78 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 uh the finds uh the 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 some of it was very much interested in the folding, 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 him default listening to his beasley explains that certainly it 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 peoples 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 so event, population medical, illogical interest, structural 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 western colleagues hold seats and they wanted to avoid it at any price . and that's why the really uh, stakes the for the ability and the they all sorted to the council asking for the so the degree to a procedural 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 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, 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 serbia bucks elsewhere and especially when we speak about the relations between billed rate increase to now there are a lot of the full outs. that's really a sensor assessor assessor too frequently right now in serbia and around and the, the cost of us artist of 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, the will to the council, which is a clear violation of resolution $1244.00. so all this things are happening because of a need to aggression. it goes to gus lobby because of the fact that the national war was absolutely devastated tons of rapes by west. some countries they bypassed skewed to cancel the movements uh the this to the trash of 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 one 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 war is 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 part of it started today. and them declare it's uh, the independent clause, the independent states. they are, am always imposing on every body to recognize these states. this is likely a precedent when the post war post cold war system was chattered, 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, the role of woods fall out and that the national relations. yeah, you raise

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? has most schools 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 or by the russian federal government. so you're getting, you pretty michael. he was going to washington to sign. so it's in agreements about financial assistance from the states and the international 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 to 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 way, given to, to solve it on the russian leaders. at that moment. all these hopes are absolutely useless and baseless the west is having its own agenda and its implies these these time. and then as implies doing away with us live in serbia who knows what will be next time. so they move right down 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 and the west. they were hoping that the, the 30 minutes of the cold war has gone forever. but the west with its actions

proved otherwise. and uh, we are where we are. i think that a lot of things that happen easily also reach back to these very unfortunate to the criminal decision by anybody need 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 from moscow itself on one of the defining moments between east and west since the cold war a do you agree that it was a 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 no matter how the west tries to, to consume. we attempted to do the shades, they will never succeed in doing so. the western refusal to discuss the events come

shortly after serbian president alexandra boot 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 the reference to the decision of 11th or assembly on the council of europe 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 police on the example of these rules based international order that the us and its allies promoting, where they are formulating the rules and they are asking and demanding that all the other updates of this rules. it has nothing to do with international law. and you mentioned costs of, oh, earlier, the self proclaimed authorities there, or how they choose moscow trying to use the issue of the nato bombing of deepest

lobby of 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 us giving us a call. so of the issue of the banning of the circulation of serve and dina, in the northern parts of, of crossover, which means the life of tolerable for thought for certain population of these, of these 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 gets no single pro promise out of this and things are further being complicates.

it's by these uh, the 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 absolutely disgusting, frankly, what the west is doing in the so called solicitation. so i think that the cost of all the fact i started to distribute to think about this 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 shaping of borders in europe. however, while the west was quick to back, the self proclaimed independence of the cost 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, your, why such an inconsistent approach to this? it just seems to be an opposite 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 them. now, when we raised these issues, we, for example, points out to them that you know, the costs of the independence was brooklyn's by the problem. whereas the decision on the cry me or was the can as a result of the friends. and so if you speak about democratic procedures to them, they were absolutely observed in case of, of russia, but they were absolutely disregard as in case of costs of. so of course, these are, these are believes and double standards. this is the, the cornerstone of these, um, a double stand. that sounds the, 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 for every unbiased diploma is absolutely clear. or what has happened?

impossible, and what are the for a lot, what does that fall out of? it's on all of us. if i can turn away from the yeah, you can stop the underbrush tree 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 on gaza? some critics say it's turning into another league of nations which became the funds they 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 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 actually should be viewed as the

key incentive to find and negotiate the solution. and that's how it usually works. for example, recently a restaurant china to use the veto when you yes, table to resolution, which was actually the green light for he's able to continue what it does in gaza with reference to the ceasefire, which was actually the main demands of the international community only as determined determines the imperative of immediacy is fine. so i really felt on the stand, what does it determines to imperative on how it can be implemented practically. so only the totes these dropped and immediately after this, uh there was another draft prepared by a non permanent members of the security council, which demanded ceasefire. and these dropped was adopted. the bulk of the situation

was on the agenda of the security because those where there are no deep differences among the 5 permanent members. and so they are, the council was very efficient. they forget the council works together. i specifically have in mind for example, african issues or like columbia or some other crisis situation so. so these 2 issues, they are very important. they are very loud, but these are not to be present. the bulk of the agenda will disagree with you, cause the counsel of course needs to be reformed. everybody agrees that it's needs to be before, but the positions of the cancers a very different of everybody. for example, acknowledges that's a security council. it should be the conversational disagree with your council should reflect the situation in the world and uh that there should be like a correction officer started congest as was african continental issues. numerous and we sure it 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 about different candidates in america, but uh they are, there is also understanding that's such an important issue as a form of the security council should come through a solution which would be. busy 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 there comes some diversions to diversion says on the representation, 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 you got 5 am using clearly shows this. there are some 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 dense. this doesn't count as a veto power because because um, we simply do not have enough votes to print to remo. the decision will definitely want. so the west is already presented. where else are the international or arena? they're all over the west is declining. best way to clear out the voices of the african agent ways in the american countries of sounding louder and louder, and they are not codes. and the security council in the way this would be code 10 just finally and 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 the san francisco conference in 1945 famously annual at the post world war 2 order of international relations. the most of the summit in 1989,

the us and the soviet union, the current, the end of the cold war, essentially paving the way for a unique port of 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's that you for that to happen on where could that happen? well, it's difficult to speak about it at this stage because we are not there yet. i think that at this stage the west is still trying to pronounce that nothing is happening . that's the world is not changing in the way it is changing. and they are trying to degree to grasp it's there waiting position in the world. but this is the process that we will negatively come to the point where then you, then, you will, will emerge the multiple worlds. 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 un i'm going to be, i'm shouldn't be very helpful in these exercise because the chapter of the down is the basis for international law. and you're in the isn't in itself. it's the, the cornerstone of multi polarity is the question of interpretation. not the fact that the, for example, the charts that needs to be corrected seen in the so that way it's not necessarily so. so why don't you have there when we could discuss the next conference way, should take place and make some traveling arrangements for these so far the way to so it's better is step stubborn. it doesn't want to dialogue, it still has some hoops to inflict to my country strategic defeats, or at least the we can, 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 what we should discuss. a lot of things including yugoslavia including needs are in large amounts including the uncapped promises of uh, what's the latest to, to the target and the address and leaders of these type 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 foundation side discussion. you know that we made the proposal proposals on european security and in the, in late to 1021 which with understanding late 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 in place, provided the west a takes away, so the 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 pol against a good to see you. the russia demands p ever reyes the ukrainian security chief along with other suspects over potential links to the crooked city, whole terrorist. a substitute last evening. he also floated big, deadly try me and bridget tuck up 2020 to also add on. the program is really pm. benjamin netanyahu say's there will be no stop elections as thousands of protesters gather outside his residence and to run parliament interviews love to add the.