the 2 miles, do you have any or was the only 2 prompt as opponent or do you think? so give it to consider what does, what needs up upon that more so we wish uh, the panel of experts didn't involve into politics based on the gutters going to have certain companies. and that was the major mistake that they made. it was commenting that in the beginning we were when the term of the, the panel of experts expire, it was expanding. we, we offer the way out of the sections that are using it games, devota keys, and then presidents a thing in the united nations. it's, it's not timed both is not to, it doesn't have any, any provisions for the viewing. uh and this can, can not be told that is we need to stop talking about it because all right,

you've been watching the press briefing by the russian ambassador to the united nations bustling i've been here. he is representing russia and russia is taking the presidency of the un security council today for the rest of the month. as of today's, the a known that he outlines the shuttle of activities for the rest of the month. and he said the death costs that the u. n. will focus on the roles of the united nations in ensuring adjust and a fair weld that he talks about several other things. all right, well we'll certainly go on a short break. now we'll bring you the updates of all the issues happening around the world, a top of the still with us on our team to national the the vonage spots, tables. me story on this. thank you for joining us once again to discuss important

geo political issues. i would like to start with the recent statements by nature secretary general sultan. but who said that the countries of the lines are ready to deploy more nuclear weapons on standby. so what does the main tool with? how would you comment on the source of the to be sure you remove, i think this is a typical example of escalating nuclear rhetoric. it is a very unfortunate example. the nato secretary general has a very 10 general relationship with nuclear weapons which belong to the united states, britain and france, which generally considered their nuclear arsenals to be separate lately, as the end of his term in office draws near, stultz and berg has been making bizarre statements, and in this case the us essentially had to disavow his words. white house officials said that the us is quite satisfied with the current status of its nuclear arsenals . and washington has no plans to change anything on douglas the can i need. do you

think they are ready to inflict this procedure to states on russia script, but as a claim, see, how can they talk about it when they must realize the immediate consequences of such a move looks like you need the most of these are the times we live in when people do not think much about the consequences, stone in front minister kind of callous is now likely to take you somewhere else place she to said last week that rush, it must be defeated to prevent bullet or 3. so their hands are in a very special place. i think they're very disturbed by the major changes in the international arena or international relations may not be moving away from western and american gemini so quickly. but they are moving steadily and surely toward a multi polar world, and this worries them a lot and they see our country as the locomotive of this process to the end are trying their best and to prevent a negative scenario for them as much as possible. hence such states and scheme of technical slogan and under what conditions converse should really use tactical nuclear weapons. we'll hear that if they go 90 to the support,

something will definitely have to be done as dealer but the west gibson flaming. the situation. this is the russian nuclear doctrine contains the answer to your questions, both tactically and strategically. we are ready, we can see a red, ugly use any nuclear weapons in 2 cases. if weapons of mass destruction are used against us, and if russian statehood itself is threatened, so there is nothing like that at the moment. and so i think that the possibility of using tactical nuclear weapons in ukraine, within the framework of our nuclear duction can be ruled out completely. another thing is that our president has pointed out several times when nuclear doctrine is a living document. it can change. and in all probability, it will change, we will know when which direction when the relevant decisions are made. we'd been use. i've got such a set of what that, what does it like to work in western countries? now, how has everything that is happening now, especially with diplomacy?

what does this, i don't think what's happening has had much impact on the centers of multilateral diplomacy, which are new york to geneva and vienna. of course, some things have changed with these changes are not as big and dramatic as they could be, as is sometimes the case with russian bilateral for admissions in some countries, which are working under very difficult conditions. we still have a normal process in many respects. similar to what we had before the special military operation before the pandemic. of course there has been some changes, but in general we cannot complain. think it seems to me, and i hope i'm not deluding myself that we are more or less in control of the situation for i repeat, we are working hard as before, russia plays a very prominent role in the activities, some of the international organizations in vienna, and everyone recognizes this and so it has become a bit more difficult, but we are managing it out. i think that the audience will be interested in such understands and the little bits, what has changed in house. we're going to use a some things have changed

a little bit and won't weigh more. with the most striking example of this is that meetings of specialized bodies, such as the one commission on narcotic drugs, international atomic energy agency, c meetings of the governing council. and others usually begin with western statements of a political nature and of the statements that have nothing to do with the mandate. the bodies in which these statements are made up. of course we have the right to respond and we have rather intense heated discussions here. but strictly speaking, i will work and the work of the western countries is not about this. such political discussions are more appropriate at the you in general assembly and perhaps the on security council. but this happens, i repeat within those bodies which is by definition you should not get involved in big politics close to nothing to this not. i'm curious about your opinion about what some in the wasn't impressed i calling to to find stuff something marine research does. it recently launched russian nuclear submarine not hunger. so i'm

good. how do you sing these demonstration on the russian military on navy power influence just the one to 2 months to upset the court movies. oh, stupid special. well, i don't know how much effective can house, but the fact that such a demonstration is useful and necessary isn't absolutely certain. we need to remind them that we're not playing silly games. this is a very serious situation. so the west is entering into a confrontation with the largest nuclear power and it is probably a good idea for them to remember that that is demonstrations are useful. but it is important, of course, to plan them very carefully and to conduct them in such a way that they do not escalate uncontrollably so far. i think we have been quite successful in doing that. the what the most those up i did. yes, sir, because in the west it is often interpreted as russia is to prepare and then it's happened. the 1st step of the distorted and you know was the but this is their world view condition. and we should also bear in mind that of course we are dealing with information warfare, which all means are good and their opinion, the yeah,

that was let's move on to this is tory as you've trained, paste some. indeed, with the issue of nuclear security was discussed. what do you think of it? this event to which of course, russia was not invited you this to and i will give it a solid effort. so that as far as discussing issues of peace without the participation of one of the 2 parties to the conflict is nonsense, absolute nonsense, okay? does a p r starting to feel completely pointless or rather hurtful? and that is how the international community saw it. as far as i remember, the invitations were sent out to 168 countries. out of those $92.00 delegations actually showed up many of them far from the highest level. do you mean joined, communicate, released at the end of the broken stock meeting is only signed white and 80 countries. 12 of the most influential countries in asia and africa and latin america refused to sign the document issue. and the day after the summit ended,

iraq and jordan withdrew with their support with one of the following suit a couple of days later, that gives us a total of $177.00. if you read the joint statements in the drawing communicate, it is hard to hold back tears. the whole thing was not worth the bothering so many delegations for it is a trivial documents of very little political significance. that's what the discussion of nuclear issues that this meeting with today, these discussions and the documents itself, the relevant section of it are very be no indeed. it's no revelations. they're telling lee and i a director, general rafael grossing for refused to attend the event. he explained to the decision in an entry when he printing mass media, saying that the i a a performs very serious technical ask solution and who stays away from political matters far from the agencies mandate diseases. i think this has the right to position. i feel i've never been up to this, i was just about to bring up this cause the situation of disapproval, she nuclear power, the tongue, which is a hot topic right now of course because this worries rushes cooperation with the i

a here. so in particular with direct to grow, say to me, just mentioned just on the moon was interviewing, did shooting this to me. you know, our relationships with mr. grossey looks quite constructive. should end of business like to me, of course, in our opinions, assessments and approaches do differ from time to time, which is normal. anyway, grossey believes that the agency should maintain relations with both ukraine and rush up, especially with restaurants, which is a major nuclear power, is a country with a powerful nuclear energy industry. we've got a country that builds numerous power plants abroad. we communicate regularly. grossey has regular meetings with alex say we have to over the head of los angeles . besides missing rosie has mentioned twice would be the president of russia. the last meeting took place on march 6th instructions. in other words, i think our working relationship is very good. this however, does not mean that we have no disagreements on certain issues. this, i repeat isn't absolutely normal. the main thing is that both we and semester grow

. so you have a spirit of business cooperation, and in my opinion it is working out in general, get to go through. so with the opposite guardlick, i can't, the problem was done this disagreements cause any problem. yeah. to be as tactile corporation in any way. it's just going to be, well, of course they do, for example, we're not satisfied with the way mr. grossey is regular reports on nuclear safety in ukraine are prepared. they describe the situation at this approach in newport power plants and the facts lead forth on these reports and the assessments in them, so that sometimes leave much to be desired. more recently, including thanks to our ongoing work. certain misrepresentations has been gradually corrected and is and the reports are becoming more honest and objective so, so i do not see anything really dramatic. in this regard, there has been a lot of discussion with simply about the possibility of for launching is that promotion power supply that most of the chances with a social that is

a good question. thank you. the thing is that i'm not quite sure why, but there have been some strange allegations in the western press. allegedly, the russian federation decided to bring the reactors back online. he never had such an intention. in fact, this is this information. the issue was discussed between mr. grossing and me for the last time on may 28th and colleen and grad, where the director general met with the russian entered group delegation as the outcome of that discussion. so both sides confirmed publicly in front of the press, the common opinion that it wouldn't be premature to restart the separation of the power plants. reactors. no, it wouldn't be too dangerous, given that ukraine never stopped attacking the power plant. if operating nuclear reactors get damaged as a result of such strikes, but the consequences could be terrible. so we're not going to rush the relaunch of the power plant. we wouldn't be able to leave, it even looks, and nobody meant them with eggs and the same time as well. so say you pray and trying to deprive russia of its membership on the board of governors,

in the international atomic energy agency who bought them. what did they try to do that to week or so? it seems to me that ukraine has largely lost its expertise. and from time to time, it takes some exotic stems that are either unimpeachable or completely unjustified . and we see this and a number of international organizations, including the i a, a board of governors. so the trainings began to promote the idea that rush out so as an so called aggressor and occupier, the country that sees this approach and you for power plants. if you cannot have a seat on the board of governors, what they were saying goes against that by a statute, according to which a dozen countries are not elected, but appointed to the board of governors on a permanent basis every year. and the only criteria for pointing a country there is that a country's level of nuclear energy development is sufficient. stood russia is among the leaders come this regarding to face, which is why it hasn't been on the board of governors. never since that i a was

found, it was interesting is that keeps for least thought opposition was strongly opposed by all members of the board of governors. all the $34.00 countries, other than ukraine, including western countries like the west western countries admitted clear. and so what if you crane keeps pushing the issue or brings it to a vote. and the western countries themselves will vote in favor of russia, but not until then the ukrainians back down there. and they had an excellent chance of getting themselves into a very stupid situation, additional things. so there's a stubbornness, the lack of common sense of them and unnecessary expertise. do you, do you want to keep the goals? so what are your thoughts as to what looks like you print ends and ask you sometimes dis things without running them by washington? fast will you tell me oh, we better pass the washington and keep about that. we probably do coordinate most things, but there are situations when the tail starts to wag the dollar, things a slight expression. i don't know what they were counting on. i repeat, it was

a very poorly thought out initiative that was doomed to fail. but apparently, the cubes level of understanding of the current situation is not sufficient to make reasonable conclusions. they almost pushed themselves into a trap. things, for instance, it. imagine if all these 34 member countries of the governing council to them except ukraine grew and voted in favor of prussia against the ukrainian approach. it would have been an embarrassment of epic proportions and ukrainians had almost created themselves as a courtesy or type of that's right. and on the whole issue on the nuclear energy, which on the age of most, yvonne and it's nuclear programs. and on this side of the i a recently adopted an and see you running the resolution. see it on, can you talking to us to little bit more about this cuz why did the i a, a choose to go this way? let me just go to sleep. well, i can tell you that the board of governors is composed in such a way that live here arithmetic and majority belongs to the western countries and

all western countries. the corners from washington dc, paris, london, and berlin. once the order is given the following, without thinking much about the consequences, this is just the way it is you, because you, in this case century 3 major european powers for germany, france and the okay. so you're looking for some reason decided that it was necessary to send a strong message to t. ron and the timing was really bad. country barely finish morning, the depth some of their presidents and for administer itself. the vote we didn't know was plan through the door over. it's true that the resolution was adopted by 20 voters certain but during and previous votes, november 2020 to 26 nations voted in favor of the resolution was as opposed to only 20 this time. also in 2020 to $5.00 nations, abstained tennessee, while this year and she had total of 12 countries did. so russia and china voted against the resolution 1000 times. why? because the resolution is meaningless. department was this was

a typical example of megaphone diplomacy. if it is not reopened and this resolution built a serious blow to the relationship between the i a, a and iran recently by the sheer fact of being there. and even regardless of the content view, our approach is completely different than we are betting unreal diplomacy. this is a more promising track to follow, but we have failed to prevent the resolution from being adopted to the tend to run has already responded to this resolution by taking a number of steps to ramp up as peaceful nuclear programs. and if this is what the european powers wanted, then we can congratulate them on their success for a cox, so they can more side as it is. and how can this disagreement between the i a, a in the runs to be results by or as long as the west insist almost spoken to the wrong. roughly speaking, everything will continue in the same thing. even as it was worthwhile. it's really hard to calm their relationship with a ron a dialogue that's more of an attempt to dictate to the west of swelter and iran, as a country that does not respond well to dig tapped. therefore,

this line of action is doomed to end up in failure. the vienna talks on the nuclear deal went on for almost a year and was from april 2021 to march 2022. that's i was the head of the russian delegation to you. and so you know, it was a tough negotiation. but by march 2022, the deal was almost completely ready. unfortunately, it's hard to say exactly, but i believe it was like 95 percent or even 98 percent ready when we were in the home stretch. when the negotiations were broken off. and then by the fall of 2022, it became clear that this was a conscious decision made by the european powers and the us. in the meantime, could ron and china and russia worse and remain ready to continue talks net, if the negotiation process isn't ever resumed once there is political will to do so . there is still every opportunity to restore the nuclear deal to everyone's satisfaction. by the way, if this were to happen in the sixty's and all of these claims, almost all the claims somebody's right,

the west against the rhonda would be cleared in a matter of months and use all of them. so in fact, in west positions is hypocritical and has no leg to stand on because the powers of the west on the one hand are driving a wedge between the 8 and run we're going to getting on the other hand, they're accusing or on the model send us with your despite the fact that a wrong is ready to set a law issues through negotiations, iran and will be willing to return to the original parameters of the nuclear deal, such as long as the usa withdraw skids illegitimate sanctions. and we almost got there. so i'm gonna go see ations was wrecked the last moment you can print something from the entire responsibility for that slides with western countries. so to be the hands of the most dangerous concept. one, some that is just that the resulting uncertainty is for rods with uncontrolled escalation. we have a very explosive situation on our hands. now, we just go, let's say we were wondering again, why is that? what's the next for the, what is the thing is if they can get one, the one from

a wrong and they know with you and you just said it was present much of 90 percent on jail book. almost everything was ready for me. so why not go for it? you go to the issue of the, i think there are 2 reasons. the 1st is the geology, underlying this approach, it gives you some very strong ideology and that is pretty obvious. and secondly, there are big problems with the level of professionalism, which is the level of professionalism has significantly decreased over the last 10 to 15 years compared to what we saw. and let's say at the beginning of a century, war and the like, 20th century. and that is really a tragedy if it makes sense for all the involved parties to approach negotiations from a rational positions or yet in the case of the uranium nuclear programs to the position of the west. isn't many aspects of irrational infected by launching a massive campaign against or on the us. it's pushed a wrong to step up its nuclear program and well ahead of its own file is the responsibility lies entirely with washington. let's see if they did it on there or

is it completely absurd situation that is the reality issue. it was patient for the past for the 1st smith. it's been 6. yes. since you west withdrew from the nuclear deal with the wrong and let's say, yeah, well the house has changed. is the west and inclusive. so the way from resolving these issues between america and the saying it to, you know, i don't think supplies ministration has much to boast, allows in terms of international policy and they don't have any major treatments or surgery. but this mix or deal was at least one particular area where the americans had a chance to make a positive break through under bite. and they began negotiating the nuclear deal and they weren't quite actively involved in those single seasons. and i would say that the americans play to it rather constructive role. that 1st the are tough negotiators, which is just as the uranium just tough negotiators to cuz they weren't able to make progress together. but then the decision was made for them to be, i don't know whether it was for political reasons for teaching. so whether it was

because some strong objections under a republican party, i don't know what happened there. because for a while there was hoping that the negotiations would resume this thing after the mid term congress elections in the us and of them for 2022. but no, they didn't. and, and response to reporters question whether the nuclear deal was dead. bite incentive? yes. it seems to me that this is a strategic miscalculation on the part of the united states. they have no backup plan. they have created a situation of uncertainty in terms of both regional security in the gulf area and international security. it is a serious strategic miscalculation the same can be said about europe since at one point the europe distanced itself from trump and his policy is he has, it has ended up being in the same boat with the americans as the current stage, as opposed to some new and as i thought it has a and finally, let's talk about russia so called isolation. i see another boy, there was a narrative in the west, and that's last night to attend in russia isolated because no one wants anything to

do with them a score. so most of the people are actually saying about that to us here in the do the belief that rush race to truly isolated one that with us who, you know, many people do actually believe this, though i'm not sure how many implemented core things this way. but if we take the general public picture for far removed from day to day international affairs, and quite a few of them believe this narrative is an issue of mentality. they seem to think that the western world is the whole planet. but in reality, western countries only account for about 12 percent of the world's population, which is not that much really here in vienna. and there are about 50 countries that have a strong anti russian position, some and sometimes, or the most thrust of 60 votes. but no more than that to the surface and the rest of the world has very little desire to participate in these and to russian campaigns in many countries, distance themselves from such a course which is also reflected in the volume in many countries abstain ends in

the current context, so understanding is almost like voting against an anti russian decision. move to another indicators that we regularly and successfully look forward to various initiatives that receive brought supports, especially in areas such as drug controls put our approach to this issue has been supported by more than 40 countries of the ocean. we'll see how much the liberated it is, and i'm curious about what russia has to offer in terms of drop control. many those countries, like most of the, the things we propose are quite elementary, really efficient. it's clear that you need a balanced approach to successfully fight drugs. first, you need the efforts of law enforcement agencies. that is the central aspect without which nothing will work or 2nd, you have to take care of human rights to the rights of drug addicts are an important aspect of it, though not the main one. and finally, will organize medical treatment is crucial for the this is the kind of comprehensive approach that we advocate to let you know, in the west. the law enforcement aspect as often is completely overlooked. and they

believe that the problem can be solved by dealing with human rights alone, including providing drug addicts with drugs for substantial therapy syringes so that they don't pick them up on a street just as it would get packaged as infected syringes. so inject themselves to sure this is their way of looking at things because the, so you obviously has had, far reaching consequences you seeking with now western countries, one after another mean maybe a dozen of them so far are actually violating the legally binding you in drug conventions and legalizing cannabis and marijuana. and this is, this is a direct violation of legal obligations. and in canada, they have gone even further in british columbia. they're starting to legalize harder drugs for that's why they doing this. i wanted to find out what i need done, the see that there had been into a dead end. let me go list of so many boys the show. they say they're fighting the black market to be moving the drug trade from the black market to the gray, or even white market to be able to get additional taxes. i think it is

a preferred view of the world, but it is what is happening is even the human rights aspect has become a striking example lakefront. we started talking about the need to protect the rights of drug dealers and drug producers. that is rock bottom illustrated, doesn't get any worse than that. they've put the slogan of harm reduction at the forefront. they have already given the opposite, believing that the harm from drugs is inevitable. and there is no need to fight it much, only to reduce the harm a little we and many other countries have a different for your business so that the task is to prevent harm in the 1st place . and we see our goal, our vicious mission as building and drug free society. of course, it's hard to do that in real life. but if we're going to set goals, we should set them higher. you watch that they have already raised the white flags in advance and are only fighting to make the harm a little less suitable. so we have more than 40 countries under our banner, and it turns out that we have to do this is difficult for any other country that

shares our approach and to lead such a movement. and they trust us recently, for example, we initiated the adoption of a strong statement on combat in the summer full bmw, which was co sponsored by 34 is lumnick countries. can this be called installation? of course not. this assertion is very far from the true to, there is no installation, but there are certain difficulties and relations mainly with western countries being so slow for be was this we came and talking about multiple that receipt of us . so your colleagues and you see it doesn't leave it, the world is a really change and the dynamics of building relationships between different countries that are on the friends. now, what do they think? it's some kind of fairy tale that the kremlin incidentally look at while in reality as we sat and they're isolated and no one wants to deal with the emotions the which is good. to be honest. i don't think we even discuss this issue with other delegations. our agenda is

a very practical one because there are specialized international organizations, all kinds of conditions and committees. and we prefer to deal with issues that fall within their purview. and as to what they think and the west. i think there are different people in the west. some are able to assess the situation more accurate. the language, in my opinion, is the trend towards dismantling the american and germany is obvious. we see manifestations of this trend at every step. and so of course, there is not a single event. there are processes that are spread out over time, but the trend is quite obvious. and so, and it is quite obvious that new centers of power are hearing on the world map report. russia is represented in many of them, such as bricks, most of the seo and other groups of children. she's, there seems to be no arguing against us. but the most important thing is that's the reaction of the western countries to what is happening, which is sometimes hysterical. and their behavior towards the russian federation can be explained. it seems to me precisely, by the fact that deep down western countries understand that we are entering

a different era from where international relations will have to be conducted different place to them to say in the 2nd half of the 20th century, that most of what are supposed to find him a, it's good that they understand the thing, you know, it's for them to accept to the new, to accept it is the reality is life itself, the forced them to do this. thank you very much. it was me, hey, when get most pama, there's representative of the russian federation to international organizations in vienna as well as always, it's very interesting to talk with you. thank you. thank you. the

the crate and security service claims is for the time my activist just doing the countries and finally been in off the current leadership and not submit questions of a lot of the meetings. the last keys legitimacy as as to um, expired in may, it since i get the thoughts of having and also to really come on guys, white copy and paste thoughts. are they on the way to and then you create and conflict and that's according to ronald musician and activates raj a one time exclusive interview with all the mass protest. did robin from.