the of the, of us them visit them so that this through to, to and you see the exaggeration, your visit here has eliminated the whole world with a flurry of reports and publications. apparently everyone understands of the future of today's rapidly changing world large really depends on the position of rushing china and based on the results of your negotiations here in china, i wanted to find out whether most going badging have a common understanding of what this future system i'll put your national security and international politics you'd be like. thank you. it's just the hutch republic of that. it's but it to the, to the 1st of all, i would like to think chinese president, she didn't think, and the entire chinese leadership for their invitation. and for creating a very favorable, warm atmosphere for joint work. in general, the negotiations were very meaningful and eventful. this is obviously an official

trip, of course, with some kind of state status. but undoubtedly this is a simple old work trip. from morning to evening, we spent almost a whole day together with both the chairman and his colleagues. there were a lot of topics to discuss the fact that the future depends on russia and china is partly only partly true, because the future of humanity depends on all of humanity. but of course, china and russia are important components of modern civilization. and we have our own opinion on how we should develop. and our development will certainly influence the old partners on this planet. and we believe this development must on definitely be constructive and peaceful. it must take into accounts, not only our interests, but also the interests of whole international participants. and of course, we need to strengthen the emerging multi point of well, there is no doubt that it is now taking shape before our eyes. and the world is

becoming multi bonus. i think that everyone understands this very well and is aware of it. and it is important that those who are trying to maintain the monopoly on decision making on old issues and wells to understand this. and i think they understand this very well. i don't think so. i know it. so you understand this very well. and in understanding this, they do everything can for this process to develop naturally, i repeat again, peacefully, conflict free. and so that the opinions of corporate discipline cindy international process are fully taken into account. we were all looking for compromises in the rather complex decisions that we all face. we prepare for this prepared for this kind of work. i have repeatedly said, and the president of the people's republic of china has emphasized this that our interaction, our cooperation, our strategic partnership with china, is not directed against anyone. it is aimed at one thing. creating better

conditions for the development of all countries and improving the wellbeing of the people of china and the russian federation here, across law, russia. and if i, if i may ask, how did your informal meeting, which usually being go, which is your assistance, said, had a very limited pull of participants, but in particular, defense minister andre below, and security council secretary. so do show good to parts in it. do you discuss ukraine and what would you personally consider to be evidence of ukraine's readiness to negotiate you in for administer? certainly elaborate off have repeatedly said that western partners can no longer be trusted. the student says to yellowstone, yes, such a meeting to place in a streamlined format. we did indeed discuss many such issues that are important for bilateral relations. the topic of resolving the ukrainian crisis was touched upon. the chairman of the people's republic of china offered me an outline of what was discussed during his recent trip to europe,

especially regarding his position on chinese peace initiatives. we have said many times, we believe that china is sincerely committed to resolving this problem. offers the various options and is very flex. so the looking for the source, we discussed this, it's something to me because for our counter partners, let's say in this case, this concerns the ukrainian leadership and it's overseas masters primarily in your well, we've talked about this many times when our troops stood outside of kias what did the western partners tell us? you cannot sign documents if the opposite party has a gun pointed at their head. so it's outside us to what needed to be done. we also do we need to draw our troops away from key if we did it. the next day, they threw all our agreements into the trash and said, well, now we will fight to the end. and their wisdom q rate is took the position now known to the whole world of defeating russia, on the battlefield. conflicting

a strategic defeat on it. it was not us who behaved this way, it was partners that behaved this way. and most of the month, and this was said by the head of the ukranian delegation during negotiations 1st in minutes. and then in this done group. then prime minister mr. johnson arrived and recommended that ukraine continue hostilities otherwise, as mr. or asked me, a said, and it was he who was at the head of the delegation. today he heads the section of the ruling party in the parliament of ukraine. otherwise, he said, old military hostilities would have been stopped a year and a half ago. after all, he said this publicly, i think, at a press conference, strictly speaking, no one doubts this. that is, let's draw a line under this part of the answer to your question. we were once again to see. now we must understand with whom and how we should deal food and to what extent we can trust. of course,

we are now analyzing everything that is happening in this regard in this direction . we are, of course, looking at what is happening around the meeting. what everyone is announcing in switzerland, in geneva, in my opinion, this is what we are going to do. of course, we're not going to discuss any formulas that we don't know, but we have never refused negotiations. unlike the ukraine inside, it was they who withdrew from the negotiation process. they announced that they were going to inflict strategic defeats on us. and they said that we would fight to the end actually not to the end, but to the last ukranian. they did it with their own hands. we have a basis for the negotiation process. it's what we agreed to in this stumble and what the head of the ukranian delegation actually signed under and exit from this voluminous document. the initial that we have the document signed. we have never heard of any additional conditions. we don't know anything about them. what is the

points of this? clearly together as many countries as possible, declared what has been agreed upon. and then present this to russia as an already result issue. as an ultimatum, events will not develop this way. just wanted to kind of allow me to continue on the topic of ukraine. yesterday's, the last 2 visited card costs. how the headquarters meeting was active bottles for ongoing. the car calls in which all middle to personnel are receiving success. it doesn't seem like they're trying to achieve it. every day we move strictly according to plan. so what's the plan? is all gold cops or car cof, or is it the creation of a sudden terrorism which you spoke about earlier? thank you. i don't know what the ukrainian head of state said. i only know that the indians they are to blame for what is happening. firstly, all of the authorities and key of these days have their origins in the crowded talk . this is the source of today's power in ukraine. secondly,

by allowing the crew data and by allowing western sponsors to facilitate it to organize it, they created the conditions for the transition of a smoldering conflict into an armed conflict. it is they who are to blame for this . they are trying to shift the blame from a sore head to a healthy one and place the blame on russia for today's tragic events. but this is the result of their policy. as to what is happening in the comforts of direction. this is also their fault because they fired and unfortunately continued to show the residential areas of the border territories, including belgrade. civilians are dying there too. it's still obvious that they are firing right in the city center in residential areas. and i said publicly that if this continues, we will be forced to create safety zones, sanitary zones. this is what we do. ask for car. there are no such plans today. must date and everything else. i have now, some sort of monster sticking the recently, information has appeared that chinese banks have stopped accepting payments from

russian banks. have you discussed this issue with the chinese leader? if so, were there any results? and was it possible to agree on a possible settlement scheme that would not be effected by western sanctions? thank you. and is up of nissan. so especially with sunset, traditionally the sanctions, auto sherry or in relation to 3rd countries, participants in economic activity. they are, of course, doubly strictly illegitimate because if they are adopted without a decision by the us, without the you and then they are generally illegitimate. and in relation to 3rd party countries, this is completely beyond the balance of common sense. by the way, such sanctions are applied either by the americans or by the europeans and even against their allies. europeans do not apply such sanctions against americans. but americans accept such sanctions against european economic operators and often take them to the logical conclusion. and not only in relation to russia, but also in relation to other situations in other countries. this is the practice.

and the european swallow will, once again confirming the vessel dependents on an overseas southern. well, dc with them is the fact that such decisions i made decisions that, of course, cause direct damage to the world. economies. not only to those countries in respect of whom such decisions are made and the make up the rates of these countries. but also to the world economy as a whole, to energy and other areas of activity in the economic field. and festival issues related to payments are discussed at the level of participants in economic activities. solutions are possible, they exist and of course they must be supported at the state level one way or another. i hope it will be so. it is possible to understand the motives for the behavior of large financial institutions, but no one wants to suffer any losses in connection with the legal actions of the us government. but i must say, and i want to repeat it. this is periodic and

a huge mistake on the part of the american political leads because they are causing enormous damage to themselves, undermining confidence in the dollar, and gradually curtailing the status of the dollar as a world currency of account and reserve currency. although they have a huge gain from the dollars position 1st to bretton woods system, then they abandon the gold support for the dollar and switch to the jamaican system . what is it based on? only on the printing press for, let's say, nobody on the power and quantity of the american economy. yes, this is actually true. in many countries, full countries of the world. trust this american economy. it's power and it's stability. and they take these pieces of paper. but this gives enormous at 1st glance, inexplicable advantages to the american economy and financial system. they can be assessed directly in certain numbers according to our experts. this is over 10

trillion dollars of simply earned money that fell from the sky due to the use of the dollar as a result of world currency. but in general, the obligations of the american monetary system to the rest of the world are approximately $53.00 trillion dollars. but as for political reasons, the united states authorities under mind confidence in the dollar, they weaken their main most important instruments of power. to the dollar itself and cause irreparable damage to themselves. that is, to put it trivially in our so to speak, well known saints. they are simply sewing off the branch on which they see it is terribly idiotic. they can't stop. there are disadvantages for us in that we are forced to look for other opportunities for there are also advantages because this situation in which one country dictates its will to the rest of the world, including and the political sphere using financial and economic instruments is

unacceptable. in all the countries of the world, i assure you you need only to look at the volume of reserves and how they decrease in dollars. the whole world is reacting to this. i think this process is inevitable . of course we are transitioning and this is the right process. it is associated with certain costs and difficulties, but on the whole it is correct. so when we talk about switching to national currency settlements or creating some other supplement instruments with other countries, this process is underway. it has begun and it cannot be stuck with them to let the marriage, let me return to the topic of ukraine and some initiatives from the west. you have already mentioned that you discussed the issue of the length of the shootings being as of today. please tell me, was the topic of my grounds initiative to declare an olympic truce raised in your opinion, is such an olympic tree as possible now? or is this another attempt by the west to laura rush into a trap, especially against the backdrop of russia's military successes?

yes, the president, she didn't thing told me about this. we discussed this topic with him. well, we may be touched on it. what do i think about this? the 1st thing is that these principles, including that of the olympic truce, they are very correct. and it is no coincidence that they have been developed by the will community over the centuries in truth, few have ever adhered to this principles with the exception of ancient greece. but on the whole, the idea itself is very correct and constructive. so the question is different. the question is whether it is today's international sports officials who are violating the principles of the olympic charter. they themselves politicize support, which is completely unacceptable. bearing in mind the purpose of support as a platform for communication between peoples and for finding compromises during this communication, including on political issues. if they themselves violate these principles,

including in this case, in relation to russia, by not allowing our athletes to compete at the olympic games with their banner, with their flag, and with their national music, with the on some, they violate us. in turn, they want us to follow the rules that were dictated to us. does it not a code to anyone whether or not this corresponds to basic standards of justice? not at all. save themselves commit violations, but they demand compliance from us. dear friends, we aren't going anywhere anytime soon. no one has ever come to an agreement like this. no one has ever agreed on any issues. in order to demand or expect something from others. you yourself need to follow the rules. but in general, sport is certainly developing and will continue to develop. i don't know how the olympic movement will feel today. under the leadership of such officials. if they put money up the forefront and make it the main principal of their activities. as

in any commercial enterprise whose main goal is to make a profit. if this is put at the forefront, then nothing good is to be expected from the future of the olympic movement. after all, the state has already turned into just a commercial corporation. what is everything built on, on what's on receiving money from sponsors, from large information companies for broadcasting rise. in general, this is a whole enterprise for making profit, some sports competitions. still, the principle of olympus lies elsewhere in humanitarian principles. my opinion is the shot really this week the united states introduced duties on a number of chinese goods on ships, semi conductors, metal solar panels, and most importantly, on chinese, electric cars. raising them by 4 times may be up to 100 percent even. can this be considered as sanctions against china and does cooperation between russia and china helped counteract such attacks to integration of interest as much as the sanctions?

of course, outwardly, it looks like sanctions, but to a certain extent, they are already elements of an economic war. this is not the 1st time they have been used, and by the way, politics, the nature of relations between russia and china, the situation in ukraine, i assure you have nothing to do with this. these are simply elements of unfair competition. for example, we made certain components for the s 21 aircraft that we agreed on, and which has nothing to do with military production. certain components has to be inserted into the wings. they simply refused us by adding it to a sanctions list. more over one that is related to military production, but it had nothing and still has nothing to do with military production. yes, we last time. production was delayed by about 6 months, but we ourselves made these components harnesses for the wings. they were made well

and even better than american production in terms of quality and your ability of the use. the same will happen here. i just spoke at a meeting with students about why such restrictions were introduced against the chinese automobile industry. these electric cars it is because they have become better and cheaper than european and american ones. that's well, they simply kill a competitor, in this case, the chinese competitor and do not allow them to enter their market. this is a prohibitive duty. and in europe, of course, the same thing is happening as soon as a country, as we often say, becomes the center of world development. as any center rises, becomes more competitive immediately to push down 10 russian chinese cooperation somehow count to this maybe. but in order to prevent this from happening, they interfere with the financial posting because we could buy more. but since they

create problems and money transfers, we are limited in purchasing these products. what can anything be done about this? it's possible we will develop joint production. it takes time just like we did for the aircraft component. we moved everything to the side for 6 months. well, it's the same here. we will work on joint production. this is the most eroni is stupid way to build an international economic system. the most correct thing is what they have been telling us all the time for decades, so to speak, excuse the bad manners set, the market decides everything, but the market will push them back anyway. do you understand what's going on? this is a problem they create for themselves. after all, what will this lead to? so they introduce sanctions against such and such goods. where does this lead to, to inflation in the usa. this is what it will lead to because they will try to

produce it themselves on the sites for the wages to the workers, for their already expensive metal, based on their expensive energy. here is the results. the german economy in europe is already working at a loss, and the french one is teetering on the brink of recession. and if the german economy gets a sniffle, if it gets bill the entire year of and economy will not feel very healthy to put it mildly, this is what decisions of this kind lead to these i'm not the market based solutions . they are absolutely stupid solutions that have no prospects. it's because it's part of the stuff because you would you please tell us under what conditions you would participate in a peace conference on ukraine in switzerland. if such an invitation were extended to you. if i need to come over to politics doesn't operate on hypotheticals. if is not a basis for discussion, you know the scenarios where the applies, but there's no if here they haven't invited us. moreover,

they say they don't see us being there. they suggest that maybe if we do something specific then they'll consider it. but if they don't want us, they're fine. secondly, and very importantly, we won't discuss things we know nothing about from the mid field. i mentioned that we have seen staking negotiations for almost a month and a half 1st in minutes. then it is stumble, reaching certain compromises. the ukrainian side, signed off on extracts from these documents. it was a hit, the documents with key points paraphrased and initialed by the ukranian side. we worked on it. now any formula is based on desires, rather than actual situations are impossible to discuss. but we're always open to discussions. we've never refused them. as i just said, it's no joke. when we withdrew our troops to the west, immediately told ukraine not to sign and to continue fighting. they obliged, and that was made clear to us. we'll fight to the end. that's what we were told. no

more negotiations. now they see it's not working. perhaps fighting to the last man might work out. but the strategic, the feet of russia isn't happening. seeing this there clamoring for a quick conference. let's be sure. with russia to be participating. we're ready for peace of singles, but we're not being invited. so there you have it. and yet they accuse russia of not wanting to participate when we're not even invited. you asked about the conditions. why should i set conditions and big to be involved if they don't want us the same together as many countries as possible? convince everyone that the best proposal is ukraine's and then present it to us as an ultimatum, saying the whole world has agreed. so comply is this the way to conduct a substantive serious negotiations? of course not. this attempt to impose conditions will fail just like the attempt to inflict the strategic defeated certificate. however, as i understand it,

your condition is that the agreements reach and should remain enforced, correct. and then of course, that's the foundation you see the initial goal of it. but the document itself wasn't signed. there are very serious issues in this. you know, there are questions related to ensuring ukraine security. they are written in such a way that we still need to think about them. but overall, it's a foundation. they were drafted by the ukranian side. and i think if not dictated, then certainly agreed upon with the western sponsors. everything is strictly outlined from the perspective of their interests that are elements that consider russia's interests regarding our security. there are many issues. i don't even want to delve into all of them. i don't remember every single detail, but i do recall the main points. we are ready to discuss this later. they discarded it, hoping to gain an advantage on the battlefield, and a chief strategic superiority that didn't work out. for now,

they throw new conditions at this point. are they out of their minds? on what grounds? naturally we will proceed based on the realities on the ground that goes without saying, oh yeah, but it keeps. i spoke about china and our hydrocarbons supplies. there has a fundamental agreement been reached on the power of siberia to project is when will construction begins to is this year next year, yours. and has there been any discussion about increasing supplies as much you know? yeah, sure. so i am not ready to provide the technical details right now, but both sides have confirmed the interest in implementing these projects. because the chinese economy is growing, requiring more energy resources to sustain that growth through there is nothing more reliable. and i think this is obvious, then supplies from russia. we share of us borders, and nothing can hinder this. neither sanctions on tank or fleets, nor financial institutions. we will trade in national currencies. therefore,

there is mutual interest from both sides. on one hand, that is interested in receiving additional volumes and on the other, an interest in operating in the chinese market, say with us i believe economic operators. it's always a complex process because the questions involve prices and who earns what. but strategically, both sides are undoubtedly interested in these projects and we will proceed guess from and an oil companies will certainly agree. there are various routes including one through mongolia where gas and oil pipelines can be laid in one corner. those specialists need to decide the best approach tank of fleets can be acquired and the northern sea root can establish almost like the pipeline options available and normally feasible. we just need to choose the best one. i am confident this was will also be completed. the progress coaching them up. i also have a question about ukraine breast and split them as the landscape to him is coming to

and then soon expiring on may 20th of to these days. will russia stop considering him as the legitimate president? does it mean anything to us? will you be willing to talk with him off to this? stay on the contract handle. so we used to communicate regularly before the conflict escalated into this acute phase of on struggle regarding legitimacy. this question should 1st be addressed by ukraine's political and legal system. there are various options in their constitution. it's a matter of assessment. this assessment should primarily be given by the constitutional court and ukraine's political system. for us, it doesn't matter, because if it comes to signing any documents, we must sign them with legitimate authorities, especially on such a critical issue. that's an obvious fact. but i repeat, this question should be answered by ukraine's political and legal system. mr. mccaul has repeatedly stated that he is ready to send troops to ukraine. if regular

french troops enter ukraine, will that mean a combat conflict? a war with france white flesh you 1st get an answer from him on whether there will be troops or not. then we will consider the consequences of this step. why was fellow to solve chosen as the minister of defense, given the current significance of the special military operation. this seems like a crucial decisions association, but there's no, you know what the level of defense spending in our country just for the ministry of defense to 6.7 percent of g d p this year. if we include the entire security sector of the state, the expenditures will be over 8 percent. and within this budget, the ministry of defense plays a key role. this means that the expenses of the ministry of defense influenced the spending of the security agencies because it primarily makes certain purchases and other security agencies follow suit based on its choices. more over the ministry of defense establishes the entire defense system of the country involving other security agencies,

which also affects their expenditures. given that the ministry of defense is, chair is 6.7 percent. and overall defense and security spending is just over 8 percent. it's not critical levels, considering the current state of our economy and macro economic indicators. andre below. so, as you know, was the minnesota, the economy commission. he is regarded as one of the best economists in the country . he served as my assistant on economic matthews and was also the 1st deputy prime minister in this capacity is certainly capable of coordinating the activities of the defense ministry with all other ministries age susan regions, which is crucial. not just the board of regents, but others as well as they are participants in economic activity to some extent. that's the 1st thing. secondly, much his responsibilities will include opening up the ministry of defense for constructive collaboration with research centers, economic participants in a broad sense. and manufacturers of military tech and components needed for

military equipment production. he must open the ministry of defense to innovations . yes. so to get a show who has already taken some steps in this direction, initial steps. but i believe that for a former prime minister of the russian federation, given his recent responsibilities, it's simply easier to achieve this. these were the motives for pointing him to this position. as for saturday, show who you've seen. it was all public. he often visited enterprises, inspected them, understands what's happening, knows the needs of the armed forces, both in the short term and medium term, and understands industrial capabilities. the also dealt to some extent with our international context and partners in military technical cooperation. since the federal service in this area was under the ministry of defense, he essentially managed to there's an enormous amount of work in store for him. combining all these aspects. if you notice,

i supported the idea of appointing dennis month off as the 1st deputy in the government, precisely because we want to concentrate administrative resources on achieving the primary objective. facing the country today. reaching the desired outcomes within the framework of the special military operation. thank you very much the the the i'm actually.