is still much concern which is how far does that extend? does it extend to the baltics? does it extend to central asia? or new york? >> i don't think there will beat something teaming up. i don't think so. you have a lot of authority in the united states for protecting people. coming back to responsibility to protect.

this is another issue. a responsibility to protect. and in africa and other places. and some countries, and a lot of examples. and end clear evidence about, and a reasonable measure, and to

authorize, the security council, and and multi conscious to other countries. >> which violation r-utah king about. >> innocent people, children. you know how many people? >> 3,000 or so?

>> destroyed houses, you think this is something else? >> i know we're in theoretical territory but this principle of russia -- >> how many people were used immediately to a nato? you cannot compare kosovo, unfortunately. >> let's take the initial violence that happened afterwards taken out of the equation, does russia at this point mean it would have a right to somehow intervene? not sure how you in -- intervene in the baltics to protect the rights of russians been in those countries? >> this morning i went to the

newspaper, pro-abortion gained direction, you don't need it. they gained elections, this is topic number one. those collections is what we are asking. the possibility to vote and decide their future. to respect their language for what is happening, in november. to separates separately, you will use planes were forced to stop them. and political solutions and political solutions. >> let's talk about sanctions in ukraine. i think sanctions are crucial.

right now the prospects for the russian economy, 0.5% growth, slap growth perspective, we have capital flights, investment from the outside. how far is russia willing to take to take its retaliatory measures? which seemed aimed at existing mechanisms in the beginning, existing by itself because there is distinction between vladimir putin's in a circle about how russia should deal with these sanctions? >> speaking of these assumptions, that is a measure according to the -- fear

radically. now they can be useful. we have large experience in places in the world. for example united states functions against cuba for many years. for where we are. and political regime also. we have to define for what reason. one of from my point of view -- don't know if we can say a good example. we have political, settlement. the issue of nuclear issues in iraq, political, political

community between big-name countries. with the support of the security council and our reason for the community to iran. the sanctions, in positive places, if everything goes well. to close this the issue. a very clear linkage between political settlement and foundation. new sanctions without clear political platform. you also have different interpretations of these functions. in the case of russia, the

pretext if russia plays of role in the ukrainian settlement, any professional knows perfectly well there is no easy settlement and not everything depends on russia and the ukrainians and not from russia and from russia. if you say for you may -- it would be a long process and a function for many of you. that is why this is the political side of the factions. from my point of view in this case, the application of sanctions demonstrates the political solution and political dialogue. economically speaking. it is not a dramatic situation.

in many other countries, the world economy is not so good and fair will be problems, sanctions with small countries, cuba will work in upcountry like russia with capacity and without it. it is where we bear for everyone sell i don't say that we don't suffer. we suffered from sanctions it is fleer. we suffer mainly in provincial areas in new technologies. it doesn't mean that. it will affect everybody. and also someone else.

>> let me ask you, how concerned you are, russia's nuclear capability that comes up a lot in the russian sources. starting with one expert who said it is not inconceivable to this expert that russia and the united states could be on the brink of war which seems really shocking at this stage, how worried are you that this situation is that bad when it comes to nuclear disarmament. >> i read the book of the memories of the marshall, he said 86 in headquarters. of the soviet army.

they analyze the possibilities for using nuclear-weapons if they come to a conclusion that it is possible to use nuclear weapons which is how they propose to gorbachev supporting the deal with nuclear-weapons and if it was impossible to use nuclear weapons in that period, in this time, it is also impossible. here and elsewhere that nuclear-weapons could be used. i don't see any possibility because nobody wants to be killed and if you use nuclear weapons you will receive a waiver. or consequence. >> let's turn towards progress toward nuclear disarmament. the imf treaty up for the session indicates it would appear that that is part of the relationship that stall as well. >> it is one of the important strategic interests of both

countries, need to install the dialogue on reduction of nuclear strategic weapons because if we really want stability and if we want to guarantee nonproliferation in the world, in countries, we need to work to -- we don't have a dialogue, we have less possibility, not only to develop the nuclear project but it is important for both countries, and stability. during the cold war, the issues aren't strategic weapons where one of these basically all of relations, and don't see any reason we don't speak about.

>> young people in russia, a disturbing thing, growing anti-americanism among younger russians, that generation. maybe there 20s where people in their 40s or 50s are more positive toward the united states did it sound like a disturbing trend. that read about it myself. my participants here, what is happening? why do you think this is growing? a anger, whatever it is against the united states? >> it would be better to ask someone younger than myself. sometimes i don't understand. i can tell you -- this is true.

basing that -- after september 11th, the secrecy of the unaided states was not so high as it was after september, real solidarity and sentiment of the support of the american people and very important and sometimes i ask myself how much in that period the changes, sometimes is point, don't understand the other side. some time some the impression among young people is the americans want to be supermen to teach everybody and young generations they don't like and have to explain not to impose

something. there's style of life and understanding and the curious situations many young people are in and all so they are thinking of their interests -- many of them now in the united states and other places in china or some other places because maybe it is the wrong perception about the american style of life. because we don't have enough exchanges, enough work and this is also the problem. >> is there one exchange ends by russian forces? >> unfortunately. >> you mention 9/11 which got me thinking about terrorism and isis, isil. where do you see any type of

cooperation with the united states and the rural community in fighting isis, the terrorist organization. >> we had long discussions with american populace about the evaluations and sometimes, we have to define several points where we have been populated with you. as usual, mentioning iraq or iraq, afghanistan, and more points and was i was seeing and the leaving, you cannot select, here i have interest or don't. here we can or we cannot

populate. where you have mutual inquiries and to date, you have a lot of american -- the main problem is the islamic republic of iraq. we shall easily restored the track and unity and that united area. this is not true. it is easy to install the track. in our population. it is necessary, on the political level to decide we

need each other on the political level. if you don't have such a decision on the political level you cannot populate or do anything, we need strategic understanding. the area of other slants and challenges including drugs, and we have the least, and we don't remember. we know what problems we have or what threats we have. it is not a state secret. we need to create a mechanisms and this is what we don't have. and a political decision.

we have elections here or in russia. and independently gain elections. >> you made a very interesting comment a few minutes ago when we were at lunge. the impression right now is things went south after ukraine but ukraine is basically the reason everything is falling apart but you actually said it was one in 8 series that had been coming for a while. can you explain what you mean by that? >> as i said to my good friend ambassador collins i think our common mistake was thinking the cold war was over and our problems were settled. after the cold war we never

seriously had serious negotiations about our strategic base, basing the lot of that after the cold war in the 20th century. weiner created real mechanisms', we created something for example the commission to all presentation commissions or waking groups but what mechanism, we never defiant it while saying yes, the united states and china, they maintain relations with a lot of economic interests, yet we cannot do that for different reasons. we have strategically had important areas where you don't have the united states -- with nuclear balance, the interest

over strategic nuclear issue. the struggle to terrorism and the important region for what is

creating such a strong half resolve their problem. helping them to resolve, a new kind of dialogue, we shall understand how to work in such a critical situation and the calculation would be in the middle east or other places but if we don't do that soon, the ukrainian crisis will be over time, the problem which will undermine our trust in our population. >> you mention china. a couple seconds on china. get to questions very soon but a china question. in the context of ukraine, you hear a lot of the west is pushing us toward asia, and the answer to western sanctions is china. that risk is what i and doing

from a number of russians forces and russian media. is there -- the united states talks about pivot to asia. a serious one or is this running to china to try to have an answer to the sanction with the dangers that china is a source of raw materials and the economy is better than that? >> i don't know your sources in moscow. i will tell you. in 2000. and he is on the concept of russian foreign policy and the concept to russian foreign policy in 2000, we said that we won't mount a liberal foreign policy, we want equal relations,

because russia, we need the relations with asian countries and this way we started to engage, asia specific organizations and those we are trying to create to construct our relations with the european union. you cannot read foreign policy, here you have business people changing right to left immediately in foreign policy. you cannot change if you sell will oil and gas to europe, change direction immediately to china or asian countries and if somebody thinks so, a big mistake because if you don't have those relations, it will be

more difficult. that is why you need a good provision and negotiation this way. i am sure this is in the interest of russia. >> we could open it to questions. we have a half an hour, a little bit more for questions and we have some microphones, at least i think we do. yes, sir. you were the first to raise your hand and if you would identify yourself and actually ask a question. >> yes. i work with the i r. my question follows up on what you were meeting to which was a new phenomenon in the world. the bricks development, brazil, russia, china etc.. they conference this summer, there is going to be a meeting

next week between the prime ministers of china and russia, 30 of the trade agreements, big ones on energy, rail, etc.. two questions on that. what do you think about the bricks development as the development approach to get the world out of this crisis and would you suggest a proposal to the government that the united states be invited to join bricks and leave the dying i am f system? >> you want to know? >> yes. we will open up to questions from the audience. >> i think the 25th century is

the century of conversation. i am sure you know the history, we studied russia, china during that period when we invited india, we want russia to have mobilization between india and china and we start on the level of ministers of foreign affairs. after this, the level was higher and the general assembly of the united nations. it is clear when you start the violence, you start to speak about different areas, and after this we started to speak about possible economic calculations may be in the region of the far

east and siberia and other countries seeing the possibility for restructuring, and if not formal organization, issues of contests for common interests in different areas, about the united states i don't think so because britain trees will be conceived as developing countries and the united states in developed countries is why i don't think it is good company for than. maybe the will be in sometime different opinions but let us see what they can to and assure you is that this is not as some people say here against the american way.

against -- this is not through -- this country for different reasons they have common interests. with some countries, more possibility, for example we have a border with common interests with india and south africa. i don't know. there will not be similar levels. the other thing i will tell you in my personal opinion, more organizations, maybe because we haven't in formal view of the u. n system. >> did to be members of the

security council, india, south africa, and they don't see, and and where, guilt and ready to go in parallel, and reforms at you and see. >> i have to apologize. and can't be up and it is into the customs union, and get. and set us straight. ..

it was mistake of some people in moscow saying your small brother. we are not small brother. their people brothers, all equal. that's why it's impossible. first of all, if you feel -- it's all political. what i was trying to explain to

european union when i was -- that's why we have such an idea, what we need to establish relations is custom union. and then everything will be clear. i repeat, it's economic. that you ask why gene custom union. and i can ask you why you need common market in european union. it's clear that time is integration and the disintegration to all countries want to get more markets, more space for their economy. that's why also why russia who is on one side kazakhstan, on the other side belarusian. why russia cannot have custom union. this is normal tendency in economic development of modern world. nothing happens. and to understand this you have to work to populate that

structure and then you will know exactly about which we are speaking. >> so back to questions. [inaudible] >> wait for the mic of them, please. and identify yourself first. >> i'm jeff, a retired epa scientist. what is russia's cooperation with china over solving the north korean situation? >> well, we have same final intention to have korean peninsula without nuclear weapons. we calculate on bilateral level and in the framework of countries working together. it's clear that unfortunately

that our cooperation is really clear in this area. we want to reach, we're working, trying to do what we can. it's not easy. it's not easy to speak with north korean leaders. i had experienced with previous two leaders. with the last one i never had any contact but it's not easy. but it think it was good we created group of six. it's very important to work with this group. because only working with six, we speak with one voice. it's not enough to china separate, we need to be voice of united states or south korea, japan, all countries interested in this area. and i think it is possible because there some kind of positive mood not to block that

positive move. >> yes. there's a man -- yes. with your arm right there, in the blue shirt. >> thank you for taking time to talk to us. my name is john pierce, an a student at george washington university. you mentioned earlier in the context of the former yugoslav conflict the people on the west were telling you what you're telling people in the west today in regards to ukraine. why you think what you were saying in 1994 doesn't apply in 2014? >> well, i compared with yugoslavia with only one reason, trying to give example that the

violation cannot be accepted in one case and not excepted in the other case. if we don't have the continuity we don't have the same rules of game for everybody. there will be violation. now about the agreement of 1994, which was agreed between the countries. it was to give a guarantee of the country, of their security. and i think that today nobody wants to undermine the security of ukraine. it was, if you remember, it was the relations with nuclear weapons. it means if ukraine had nuclear

weapons, maybe this crisis would be more dangerous for europe and for everyone, and ukraine without nuclear weapons. because when you have a responsible politician, nuclear weapons enhance of a responsible politician is very dangerous. that's why think this is political speculation of some ukrainian politician saying maybe we will create again nuclear weapon and then we will be stronger. they need political settlement and political solution. russia is ready to help. but my opinion is, i agree about -- i think russia alone cannot help ukraine. and i will tell you why. because we have some high level of mistrust which we know about, anything what russia may do will be presented in other countries as something against the people of ukraine. and russia also doesn't trust west countries, thinking that

everything, what western country are doing in ukraine is against russian interests. that's why over the conflict, sitting together as we are doing with the case of iran or with the case of south korea, nuclear program. you will sit together and we prepare roadmap for ukraine. how to settle political stability, economic issues, constitutional reforms, all of the issues which we need. and it will help ukraine to implement such a roadmap. then we can first of all help ukraine, you know? and second, help us to restore some kind of trust. >> their these question down here, second row. >> thank you. i'm holding this book. i am reading it and in the

forward, henry kissinger said there's a red opportunity for the two countries, u.s. and russia, to develop the new international order. but when i read this again, and i didn't see anything happening that way, and so how much do you think that the world is developing a way are you predicting or dr. kissinger predicting? if anything in the international order? and as some scholars said, there's a russia-china exit. how do you comment on that? thank you. >> well, some people say about russia-china, some people about policies -- american attorneys, i don't know. i can assure you, first of all, that unfortunately the information -- international community didn't do its job to

create principles of foundations of new world order. that's why we have disorder. second, what we know that there will be no -- we know we failed. we know there will be no third power world. i don't like multipolar world but i was one of -- we never developed, what does that mean multi-powered? what powers are we speaking? the conversation between them. unfortunately we only now understand how the problems we have among us, what world we have to live.

international organizations including u.n., international law, not only you may blame russia but i can point of the countries. all of us, international community in general participate in this destructive exercises are that's why i think we have now, the work is happening in the region. we need to stop the next year maybe it will be good year when we will celebrate 70 years after the victory in second world war where we were allied. and after that we created you in system. we have the same challenges, the same danger for all of us, and we need to unite our forces to

great new world order to how we do it? i don't know. it's clear we need principles. we need respect. we need to respect international law. this is a century. only together, we cannot -- look, during the cold war it was easier to impose in the middle east. it was possible the united states and soviet union that could stop the war, only by speaking by phone. today, who will listen to? nobody's listening to nobody. that's why it's necessary to great totally new system. where everybody will participate, well respected the order and we will work together. it's not easy i understand. you will think maybe that i am something in the of the world.

i don't see any other possibility to avoid the more difficult period. if we don't stop this spent a question from matthew who happens to be the head of the kennan institute. >> so you already introduced me, thank you. there's an opinion that oftentimes the reason why we can't get started on this approach to a new system, to new type of dialogue, to putting our trust in a new set of rules is fear, deep, latent insecurity. my question is, when it comes to the countries, particularly on russia's periphery, and we know from the latest crisis in ukraine but others, those are often the locus of the biggest

problem for russia's relations with the west. why do you think that there is so much fear of russia, and is that fear justified? >> soviet period when somebody same their opinion, very high level. i don't know your opinion, very high level or not, but maybe there is opinion. i will tell you. 90s russia was struggling to survive. it was, we never had economic capacity to great problem for anybody. but in \90{l1}s{l0}\'90{l1}s{l}) nato started process of enlargement to it was not fear.

it was speculation about fear. what fear had czech republic or hungary or poland, what fear? it was the intention -- other countries, coming to countries. for those, the same issue. all those countries, what fear they had. now they're members of nato, okay. fear, what fear? russian is a stupid country. i think mainly they are trying to let us see, i said about results of the election a lot via. i think they had reasonable people. they wanted to gain, create this

inflation of russian threat. russian threat, what? i will tell you. in latvia, you know perfectly well, 30% of the population without nationality. i worked with european union. i was speaking with your. please, do you think this is acceptable? what is the reason? why they don't have nationality? because they are not from latvia, but this is not their problem. day, although not, they are living there because they are russians only. and i said, we don't want to impose them, our conditions. please, impose the only. the rules of counsel of europe, the rule of the oecd and nothing else, then there's no problem.

that's why this is what we have to discuss normally. there will be no threat. it's easy to say this is the threat of russia. threat, what? we have a lot of territory, i can assure you. why we need more? we don't know what to do with siberia. we have only six or 7 million people and we don't know how to develop that region. we need dialect. we need to sit together and then you see that everything is possible. >> there's a woman back to -- yes. >> thank you. retired american diplomat. mr. minister, you said that, if i did you correctly, that without a sort of strategic framework, an agreement on political principles, there's not much point in talking about small issues because these don't

really relate to dialogue. but apropos that and also your last comments, do you think it's really possible for us to agree on a set of principles? i think there are so many differences in the way we do the world. and what we think is permissible or not permissible to start with nato, whether it's a threat to russia or not. and isn't it sometimes better to start with a small issue? i remember in the soviet period we spent a lot of time thinking about what are the small issues we can discuss, because we will never agree on the big ones. >> if i say no, it means we have to say that our generation, if that were possible in 75, the

cold war period, and it was possible to have 10 principles, 10 important principles of civility in europe, why we cannot do it now? what is the reason? at that moment we have total interoperability between our systems. we have to military political blocs preparing the nuclear strike against each other. and during cold war we signed helsinki agreement at highest level. with 10 principles. that's what i think if somebody says today, it's more difficult than it was at that moment, this is only through work and only through cover and capacity of people i'm sure it is possible. i'm sure it is possible. the other example which i can give you is that after the work

in yugoslavia, then nato bombed yugoslavia. in two years we agreed between russia and nato, creation of nato and russian country. if you read the statement, it was verified by all nato countries and by russia. and we agreed in principle also how to cooperate between nato and russia. unfortunately, we failed with that calculation later, but we agreed in principle. that's what it is possible. we may think it is not, how to implement this. this is everyday job. >> question down in the front. >> thank you. iran from afghanistan and here

i'm at rome sealed foundation. my question is, minister, how do you assess the security situation in the region? when the nato combat operation ends the end of this year. while we clearly say that taliban are not completely dismantled, we have isis/eisele and what results he khorasan group. how d.c. the region will cooperate with all these security concerns? thank you. >> well, a topic of our meeting with russia and u.s. is -- stomach i think it we have -- it will be important to the stability of the region.

because for different reasons, for different reasons it's important for the united states but not less for russia, particularly. and we cooperated quite well during different periods. it was during the period of taliban and after september 11, and that's why we helped nato and american troops to receive transit of weapons through russian territory because it's in our interest, even without dialect we are helping american troops in afghanistan. we see the demonstration of instead, the real situation about we have to cooperate. unfortunately, as i said before you cannot select one point to say here, the cooperation is okay. here we cannot cooperate. as normal people, i trust you.

i cannot trust you, today and tomorrow i don't trust you. that's what i think the future of afghanistan will depend on how international cooperation. china, all regional countries. we have that, you remember, the group of eight. working very closely, with iran also to work. we have to cooperate. and if we cooperate we can avoid negative consequences. if not, they will begin, you know what they will be after that. >> gentlemen fear, and then there's one in the back. let's start with this gentleman here in the middle. right there, yes. >> thank you. i am from belarus.

i was delighted to hear your call to respect independence of the former soviet union countries. at the same time since the end of the cold war, russia says that the right for privilege interest in these countries, former soviet union. can you please specify what exactly does this thing privileged interest? and could it be the reason why ukrainian crisis has started that russia wanted to employ this, some kind of veto power over decisions on national development for ukraine? thank you. >> look, i am a professional diplomat, 14 years in my experience, and i know how to read papers and i know how to read papers. kidney one statement, i was minister for four years and then i was three years secretary at

the security council. give me one statement, my statement, speaking about some privileged interest of russia in that country. if you give me i will answer you, but you cannot give me. this is, you really must -- let us use statements, documents, and then i will answer you. we don't have any privileged interest in these countries. we have to respect -- personally, i was presenting the so-called bigger treaty among russian and ukraine, thing that we are equal players of international, inc. international arena. only equal on the basis of equal rights. we can construct a new kind of relations. and i think that belorussia, we are trying to give such example.

that's why i think that if you ask me in theory we don't have any privileged interest. we have national interest, which is true, the two different. national interest because we have common border. it's clear that we had more interest there than many european countries or even the united states. because we have a common history, we have the, recent history. we are, economic interest. we have common security interest. we have common humanitarian interest because many families there. that's what we've national interest, and we recognize it. but national interest and privileged interest, this is big difference. as we say -- [inaudible] spent that's what explains why russia is worried about nato on

the border. you were saying it's not a privileged interest in those countries, but you're worried about your own strategic, dinner, defense interest in that region along the border, is that correct? >> look, we started to speak with nato come and i will speak with four secretary generals of nato, with one i didn't speak, but trying to understand what is the policy of nato? what is the policy? if i don't understand your policy, i cannot believe you because i suspect i mistrust you. because if you don't explain what is the reason, i told you before. this is not political organization.

we are up against the european union. this is economic development. each country decides which system they want to be and. but nato is not political organization. it's military organization. and this military organization, it means that you want to assure your security. and if you have enlargement, it means security is coming from russia. and political documents, russia now is not, russia is not any for me the. but enlargement is coming to russian borders. where is the logical peace of this decision? that's why we created russia nato council precisely not to stop enlargement because it was clear that it was not our possibility to stop the

enlargement, but we wanted to create new mechanisms trying to say come let us speak together. what was the russia nato? all countries and national capacity. it was not nato countries in russia but it was countries, each country in national capacity sitting around a table discussing common problems and trying to find common solutions. but, unfortunately, we failed. >> we have about eight, nine minutes to go. let's give the gentleman in the back who has been waiting patiently and then moved to the front. >> i am with the council for community of democracies. mr. minister, in your remarks you said we should study the lessons of ukraine. the president of ukraine, poroshenko, has studied those problems come and he thinks the solution is to correct a situation which is politically

corrupt. that kind of reform, is it the basis for a partnership between russia and the united states in advancing it, or to return to the previous question, do the russians here's a set reforms? >> what is russian -- >> i'm not quite sure i understand, either of us understands the question. reform in ukraine that poroshenko is talking about, reform in ukraine? >> yes. >> and the question is that would be the basis for some type of cooperation? if you want to -- >> eyed, i didn't -- med i don't know the details of the settlement. but you spoke about corruption. yes or no? >> yes spent about o