implementing the new means agreement is 50. this agreement endorsed by the circular council in its resolution 22 o. 2 is a good binding your food either foundation. no political document recognized by all parties. ready and should really be effectively infant mcgriddle china. so pause all there for a single lie with this direction and spirit of disagreement and hopes that all padges concerned will show their positive willingness. ready to implement this, you means can agreement resolve their differences arising from the implementation of the agreement through consultation, and promote the actual implementation of this new means agreement here to city, the expansion of nato isab problem. difficult to circumvent in handling the coven tension. nato is the product of the cold war, and nato expansion epitomizes group politics. ma'am,

we believe he died. the security of one country cannot be achieved at the expense of the security of other countries. still less cand regional security. ready be guaranteed by intensify him or even expanding military. ready groups today in the 21st century, all parties should completely abandon the cold war mentality and come up with a balanced, effective, and sustainable european security mechanism through negotiations and luscious, legitimate security concerns should be heated and addressed. i thank you madam president. i thanked the representative of china and i gave the floor to the representative of the russian federation a little. thank you madam president. me would like to thank miss decarlo for her briefing. and 1st and foremost, i would like to thank those countries who conducted themselves was war and deemed

it possible to vote against or abstain against the proposal of the you as to discuss this topic today. grow the worse lawrence of which one might have the impression was here that russia is scared of discussing the situation are regarding ukraine and therefore put forward this procedural vote with russia. congress is not to as refusing to discuss the situation in ukraine, but we just don't understand what we are discussing here today. you've got you and why we are indeed here to day. a group, as i already said to him. on the 17th of february, when we are planning to hold a meeting during our presidency of the 7th of or 3 of the implementation of the minsk agreements, where we are able to talk about the situation with it regarding ukrainian settlement. but today's meeting is not about that through recently we have been

encountering a very unusual even a given today's difficult time situation. a very unusual situation. a deployment of russian troops within our own territory has that who frequently occurred on varying scales before and has not caused any hysterics whatsoever. we must have a troops and service men who are in that boon areas of deployment and barracks where they were before. and they are, by the way, but not actually on the water. so it's pretty michigan, is this deployment of russian troops in our own territory. is it getting all weston and you as colleagues to say that there's going to be a planned military action and even an act of aggression. but the u. s.

p, i said, as if that act of aggression that has already taken place a very carefully listened to her statement where your me or her, the great her, i mean a traction of russia against ukraine, that they're all assuring us is going to take place in just a few weeks time, if not a few days time. we have been there however, is no proof confirming such a serious accusation whatsoever being put forward. however, it is not in preventing people from whipping up his from dairy. it is such an extent that an actual economic impact is already being felt by our ukrainian neighbors on your it wasn't, colleagues are talking that the need for the escalation. however, 1st and foremost, they themselves are whipping are tensions and rhetoric and are provoking escalation or the discussions about a threaten of threat of war is provocative in and of itself. you are almost

calling for this. you want it to happen, you're waiting for it to happen as if you want to make your words become a reality. whether this is despite the fact that we are constantly rejecting these allegations. and this is despite the fact that no threat of a planned invasion into ukraine, from the lips of any russian politician or public vigor over all of this period has been made. no such that has been made. rather at all levels. we've been categorically rejecting such plans and i, we're going to do this right now. super busy, but everybody who claims the opposite is misleading. you were up to you. you must, if our western colleagues for us who provoked and supported the 2014 bloody anti constitutional to bringing to power and key of nation as radicals. rosser folks, and a pure fascists. nazis robber,

who if they not done less than we to date, would be living in a spirit of good neighbor, the relations and mutual corporation. however, some in the west just don't clearly like this positive scenario. what's happening, today's yet another attempt to drive a wedge between russia and ukraine. thanks to their do, but to call her o games are as colleagues have been suffering for some 7 years now. the ukrainians ah, are actively being brainwashed with their cultivated othe, russia. phobia in radical thinking a leading to the belief that for ukraine to have a bright future, it mustn't establish relations with its neighbors, but rather at any cost, strive to join the e. u. a nato. they are banning russian, which is a native language for a significant, if not the majority of people in ukraine. they are causing an orthodox,

a split church that you throw, divide, you have your, they are making heroes out of those people who fought on the site of hitler who destroyed jews, polls ukrainians, and russians. if the interest of the ukrainian people in this destructive game is something that our west and colleagues are not taking into consideration, their aim is to prevent the natural brotherly coexistence of our 2 people. a country country brotherly people's struggle peoples and countries rather, which would destroy their plans to weaken russia and would create an arc of instability around it. there's nothing that we're seeing that's new here. they're in the same spirit of divide and conquer. the. you are going to divide and rule

those up about the same spirit was characteristic for a western powers of western states rather earlier. but it is also noteworthy that our american colleague, american colleagues artificially are getting involved in the sham attention that they themselves created on the russian ukrainian border. there was the negotiation process i pushed by yourself to insure for russia, legally binding security guarantees refer her they deliberately are creating the impression that must go apparently is passivity or was it on purpose staring up tension? that means that it can be more accessible for you the us and later if you look at the time table for the negotiation process, you'll see that such considerations are fundamentally untrue. the situation fact is completely the opposite. our west and colleagues are trying on the wave of honor of the top of this wave of his syria to boil our dialogue

solely down to so called settlement of the situation on the border with ukraine. article security demand so much broader. the non inc session of ukraine to nato, the non deployment in its territory of foreign troops. all of this is just one part of the agreement that could fundamentally improve the military political situation in europe and for the world as a whole. and this type of agreement, additional service is something that we talked about in the as donna. it's belinda b o. s e. um it's where apart from the freedom to choose one's eyes or alliances was also the stipulation of boston. that zip was see. these go didn't, is, of, or some states should not be dock carried out to the detriment of the security of other state. but since our american colleagues convened us to day,

let them show us any evidence apart from bogus narratives that russia is intending to attack ukraine. in the statement of my american cody, there was a significant hodgepodge of accusations over aggressive actions by russia, but no specific fact given. incidentally, i'd like to put a question not only to our u. s colleague, but also to those that where did you get the figure of a 100000 troops that are deployed as you stayed on the russian ukrainian border? although that is not the case. we have never cited that figure. we've never confirmed that figure. we warn you, we do recall this and we recall they since is late the secretary of state, colin powell in this very room are waved around a vile with an unidentified substances so called evidence of the presence of

w. m. d is in iraq. they didn't find any weapons, but what happened with that country is well known to one and all through graven ukraine as well is a country. it seems that our colleagues are prepared to sacrifice for their own initiative interests. otherwise, it's hard to explain why and convening us to day. the initiators of this meeting did not even heed the opinion of the president of ukraine, who asked, though west not to wrap up panic room, which has already had harmful impact on the economic situation in the country. otherwise, it's difficult to explain why our colleagues from the u. s. and a number of other countries are actively pumping ukraine full of weapons and ammunition. we've heard of land talk about this with great pride. moreover, the weapons that it would readily use again to civilians and the east of its own country. and all this is being done in violation of the immense agreements approved

by the un security council. as the only basis for a peaceful settlement of the internal ukrainian conflict. incidentally, to my american, my colleagues was she mentioned the fact that a 14000 people have died in the contract. i would recommend that she reads the report of the special monitoring mission of the o, a, c, e, y, and look at what was the side, or how many people died on each side. out of these 14000, most of these people are civilians. in don vos, who died from shelling from the ukrainian or armed forces is not up let him president league maneuvers of the. ready us that regarding the convening of this meeting is particularly hypocritical, because it was the americans who hold the records for having true presence is outside their territory. american troops, advisors and weapons, including nuclear weapons of frequently deployed thousands of kilometers from

washington. and i'm not even talking about the fact that the military adventures of the u. s. have killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, of countries of places where they were supposed to be bringing peace into ma, cleaning u. s. consistently including over recent years as used forced against other states without the authorization of the insecurity cancel. consumer in that arsenal unit, actual sanctions and coercive measures as threat of implementing it is used to be like the ruling of some kind of a supreme court and they want to impose misapplied enemy. for example, what would you go on to do in the family members? in many countries of the you and what have been subject to an aggression or attacked by the u. s. and 191 countries of the security council have seen american troops deployed and there is data available on the internet stating that he was there. a 750

u. s. faces wanted humor in more than 80 countries of the world. the overall numbers are deployed of roads. ready ready of u. s. troops. this is 875000 troops deployed abroad, resumes with 175000 movies and fish you more than as 60000 troops deployed in your, of the volume of the u. s. military budget. renewable was an i 700000000 dollars, 1000000 dollars. so $77078.00 rather than instances. so russia's budget was 12 times lower. so these examples are specific. suppose a specific threat to international peace and security. my clear example of this, i prefer as regards the root cause to settle the crisis regarding ukraine. we wholeheartedly clapping food is that this crisis just has one dimension,

its domestic ukrainian crisis in changing the situation improving. it can only be done through key of implementing the already mentioned means agreements that stipulate primarily direct dial over to next and the guns. and there is no other option if our western partners pushed here to sabotage the minsk agreement. is there something that you can improve your worst, your hood, that they're willingly wanting to they willingly using the willingly doing furthermore, then that might end in the absolute worst way for ukraine and not because somebody has destroyed it will go with her. but because of it, it would have destroyed itself. you are huge, and russia has absolutely nothing to do with this. don't try to shift the blame on somebody else. and moreover, we are going incident to talk about all of this in detail on the 17th of february

during the long planned annual. you unscrewed council meeting on the implementation of resolution 220. 2. thank you. i thank the representative on the ration hydration . i give the floor to the representative of global murphy. madam, thank you, madam president. i'd like to flying on a really talk about the threat of war is provocative, says the russian ambassador to the united nations. he went on to caution, what he called his western colleagues, addressing them saying you want to make this happen, referring to the war that's bringing our senior diplomatic out at the james phase. he's at the united nations, james listening to the speech now that we just heard sickly from the russian ambassador, the rhetoric, the talk of brainwashing ukrainians of the west supported fascists. russia, folks, this is not the language that you would think is indicative of 2 parties coming 20

understanding. it sounds like the diplomatic gulf is very big indeed between the 2 sides. absolutely, and it was very much russia making its case not just in the security council, but the wide international community. he said that russia was very happy to talk about the subject of ukraine. it wasn't scared about the fact, but russia is already got a long standing meeting when it becomes president the security council, on the 17th of february, a meeting to discuss the minutes the courts in this meeting should have taken place, then should. there's no reason for the meeting now because he said that the troops that you currently seeing are in russia's own territory, they're not doing anything that hasn't been done before. he says it exercises by the russians. he says the u. s. is making the consistent case that there is imminent war. he says there is absolutely no k that no proof of that. and he said

he made the accusation that you want to to make your words become a reality to the us and its allies. and then we had some strong comments about the difference in size of russian forces in the us forces in the u. s. that has basses all over the world and has many more troops and has a military budget 12 times that of russia. and of course then the reference which you might have expected in the speech like this, referring to that famous meeting of colin powell making the case for war in iraq, w. m d holding up that vile. and he said this was exactly the same that making a case for a war that is unproven and untrue. and clearly this is the russian ambassador trying to make a case to the international community. and to refute what we heard earlier on from the us, ambassador linda thomas greenfield. this is what she said to the security council. the situation we're facing in europe,

it's urgent and dangerous. and the stakes for. busy ukraine and for every un member state could not be higher rushes action strike at the very. busy heart of the un charter. in addition to military activity, we've also seen a dramatic spike in cyber attacks on ukraine in recent weeks. russian military and intelligence services are spreading disinformation through state on media and proxy sites. and they are attempting without any factual basis to paint ukraine and western countries as the aggressors to fabricate a pretext for attack. and james, you know, listening some of the speeches from others, china, india, gabon. is it fair to say that there seems to be a considerable degree of concern about people sliding into war? people whipping up too much concern that actually does produce an escalation

so i mean you have 15 members on the un security council and it's pretty clear what some of them think on this. but i think this was aimed at it as an effort to try and convince the wider international community, not those that are invested in european security. and that's why i think the result of the procedural vote at the start of this is important. russia decided to have a vote said this really isn't a subject. there's no imminent war here. this isn't a subject for the security council. and if they'd one that vote, it would have stopped this meeting even taking place. now, the u. s. one that vote, they got 10 votes on the council, but there were 5 members, russia and china, the voted no, and 3 other members, gabon, kenya, and india that abstained, showing that there's some doubt on among the international community that the, the views aren't, aren't clearly, there among everyone that this really is a threat to international peace and security at this time. and i know that the u. s

. will say what we want the procedure or vote we got the meeting, nothing to see here. but i think probably in court rooms in the u. s embassy, da's office here in new york in the state department, maybe even in the white house, they'll be some concern about that. or like of software from james base asking the, the black editor, let's continue this now though with hood abdur, i mean, joins us live from the ukrainian capital in kia. this is still ongoing, but 1st of all, let's start with a question. is how is this being perceived right now in ukrainian circles and kia they're well, it's kind of have to get kind of messaging coming out from the ukranian government on one hand. there is this flurry of diplomacy actually from that kid at the moment is the center of europe today. you had the foreign minister of greece and

a foreign minister of netherlands and sweden rutter tomorrow in british. prime minister boys johnson should be here to polish foreign minister. shouldn't be here. and then in a couple of days also triggers put a president. and everyone will be showing up here. so there is a lot of diplomacy coming up going on, and ukraine and leaders are telling their people, this is not the time to panic. as long as diplomacy is ongoing, then then the threat of an escalation, the effect of an invasion is low. we heard from president zelinski a few days ago. he was actually frustrated. he said that the foreign media and international community, some leaders around the world were causing too much panic. that this was costing the country too much. he said that the time has already $12500000000.00 had left

ukraine since this crisis has begun, and that the country couldn't sustain that anymore. so i think really, ukraine to the leadership in ukraine is trying to navigate the waters. on one hand is very happy, obviously with older supports is getting that support means that the underground here in ukraine you now have military trainers from the u. k. from do you s? are you getting on a daily basis? a lot of a, i mean, nation weapons, all sorts of military hardware coming in the country, boosting ukraine and military. and actually that is reflected among the public opinion. one of the latest pulls us is saying that 72 percent of ukrainians now do trust. the ability of the ukrainian army, but on the other hand, there is a concern among the british ship, that really this crisis continues like this. if this alarm is done, continues like this, then it could, the country could be

a very high price and is paying it or read it already, regardless of whether it is a war or not. if you listen some of those speeches and what was going on in the security council moments ago, it didn't sound like there was a lot of room for progress or diplomacy, or least a lot of progress has been made and you speak to ukrainian officials there. do they feel that there is a lot of room for compromise or do they literally feel like they're fighting for their political survival? well, at least publicly, they say that there is room for diplomacy. they point to the fact that there's going to be a meeting of the normandy format in 2 weeks in berlin. and they, they point to the fact that all these foreign leaders are pouring into a cave on a daily basis. so that's the messaging diag day given. on the other hand, they know that the big problem here is one between ukraine and russia, but also between the u. s. and a russia, and that's where they are bit at

a loss when we've heard that several times from president zalinski wanting to make sure that this issue remains about ukraine above all. and no decision is made about ukraine with that ukraine is a slogan that you hear over and over again. and actually last week, when you as, as secretary of state, anthony lincoln was here. he also said that public, but behind closed doors, it is a huge concern forwarder, ukrainian leadership. actually, when you speak to people also, many would tell you the problem is, is not only about our country. this is a big issue going on between the us and russia, about new lines being drawn in europe and the new makeup of europe for security. and ukraine knows that in that context it doesn't play such a big role. so i think the leadership here is having

a hard time making sure that this whole, the whole conversation that the diplomacy remains focused on the well being a new grade on the fact that a ukraine needs to survive through this crisis that is already paying a higher price, and it cannot go on like this for very long without any sort of outcome coming sooner rather than later. i mean, they're from cliff go back to dosage. abolish joins us from moscow. so again, listening in to what was said there in the security council, sounds like the russian position is in the love of mood for compromise and what it sees as its basic interest and security being threatened by a very aggressive west certainly. and i think the russian investor to the u. n. c. lead of em zaya was very,

very critical. of the statements and accusations, same american ambassador was making and her speech. he said, that's what evidence do you have that we intend to invade russia. we have said over and over again on all different levels of government that we have no intentions of invading ukraine, and that you only have our troop movements within our own territory to site as your evidence. and that is something that is just not acceptable. we don't have to answer to anyone about where we conduct military drills. and he pointed out to the fact that russia has carried out before a russia military drills alongside the border with ukraine. and you have to remember the western side of russia that borders ukraine has one of the most military outposts in this country than and anywhere else alongside its borders. so it is natural for them to carry out military drills on a regular basis. and they had one that was taking place last april, and that was even bigger than the one that we've seen going on over the past month

or so. and they said that this never has caused this kind of panic. but what the america's doing now, they're using the security council as a form to can be used as megaphone diplomacy was the phrase that he used. he said that the americans are just trying to manifest this events in taking place by the rhetoric that they're using. the ambassador also said that he had some figures about the american military and in comparison to the russian. he said that there are 750 bases in more than 80 countries. that house u. s. troops in some places are not welcome, but they're still there. he said that this is not the case with the russians, that there are at the requests of it. for example, bell roosts are going to carry out a 10 day military drill starting february 10th. and that is why there is such a huge military shipments of equipment and personnel going to that country in the north west of russia to carry out those joint drills. and he said, there really isn't any substance to the accusations coming from the u. s.

government, it is just the u. s. trying to assert their power. and this rhetoric is not conducive to diplomacy. he said, why are we even here? this meeting should not be taking place. this should give diplomacy a chance to happen behind closed doors. this kind of rhetoric is not helping the situation. he also said that there is a meeting scheduled with the un security council to take place on february 17th to discuss the minsk agreement in the right platform and the format at that time. and they will answer any questions the other members have about the situation between russia and ukraine. we have to remember that the kremlin has also said that at the moment they believe the us russia relations are at an all time low. at this said similar to what they were during the cold war era. we've also heard from the authorities here. they said that if there are any kind of sanctions imposed on russia by the u. s. government, they will be comparable to the u. s. severing ties with russia. so there is

a sense that there is this rhetoric being built and this narrative that is a being conducted against russia. all in the hopes of trying to pressure this country from backing down from their demands of nato. that is not to expand any further eastwards which russia believes to be a threat to their security. they've asked that they no longer accept new members into nato. they want to go back to the 997 membership numbers. and at that time, there were 14 countries less than what there is now in the 30 member alliance, and the russians say they can't continue to expand because it threatens their security. all right, thanks so much. joseph jabar that update here from the perspective from moscow. we've been following developments in the un security council, which is holding this me preventive diplomacy attentions on the ukrainian border with russia.