towers would you rather agree with that assessment we know how or attached bolton was to the e.c.u. or you know removing any constraints in any area of legally binding nature from the us particularly in the area of arms control so. it's undeniable and i think he himself would recognise that that was the case we saw it firsthand we are hopeful that whoever would be in charge of this further on. would adopt a view that we should at least we russia and the us buy time to consider what can or should come after the demise of i.n.f. treaty after the us departure from. the on the iran. is said it flatly and openly that they expect changes to the better well we can look at it with positive expectations as well but we have no certainty no guarantee

and let's the u.s. for itself and let's see 1st and foremost what will happen in reality in practice because practice matters and not just you know considerations statements expectations whatever did you discuss iran with mr rickard you know clearly u.s. russia relations may have an impact on like produce impact on the whole world in other countries how you think like global cetacean could be a factor. more sending of our at least like this status quo or quite negative status quo for u.s. russia relations well this is a very interesting question because well number one we do not underestimate the importance of u.s. relationship to other countries. meanwhile we do think that in some areas this stance of us russian dialogue not just matters but is of crucial importance of

central importance. to a broader situation series one example we have seen over the years how letting. understanding and frankly speaking very different objectives which we and the us pursued there. make the whole situation more difficult and not easier on the other hand we see how effective and efficient our deck conflicting arrangement with the us particular on syria has been all along and we frankly on our part want to spread this experience to other areas like the area where nato and russia stay close to one another and the word days cohesion is needed we need to improve our understanding on the intentions so we are in there of military doctrines and so

on so forth there are areas beyond middle east in the world where russian u.s. dialogue is indispensable one afghanistan is another example i would say denuclearization of the korean peninsula is the 3rd one and this is not an exhaustive list so. with all the modesty we with all the humbleness we may have we recognize that much depends on how we move forward in our dialogue and relationship with washington in broader sense of this word he mentioned syria and i would rather angry that this is the call that the conflicting. math of russia. rather successful by took so much time and the price syria cost like. a man's incredible so do you feel like america is healthy need or you rather. like move in different direction

build the u.s. foreign policy is a very selfish one it is focused on the u. s. own interests i think for 100 percent well be with a little bit of an understanding or what their allies of formal allies believe or do not believe the rest is about how to promote the us interests how to defend the us values irrespective of what others say and this is very clearly the case under the trumpet ministration so i would say that it took so long to establish that understanding on dec inflicting in syria with the us because the us was interested to avoid situations where. their troops their people could be put in danger there for a spot in jeopardy because of misunderstandings on the part of russia and for that

case also on the part of the syrian government so we take it at face value we do not underestimate the effectiveness of this but we do not think there is much over neger or desire on the part of the us to come forward to you know stretch handle whatever to the approaches or ideas which we promote it is specially in the area of political settlement and you mentioned iran and you said that you would rather not expect changes to bolton's departure it is just one person and there is a broader policy why do you think the united states of america continues its pressure to put pressure on teheran and what should happen so that they stopped that. it's unexplainable if you talk logically on this on one hand the u.s. government claims that it has no intention to arrive at

a regime change in tehran on the other hand they say they pretend that this mushroom pressure policy which is officially announced for and propagated for . would ultimately bring a change of behavior of iran but it doesn't work the way they believe i mean if you want to get into a better place with iran you need to negotiate you need to arrive at a deal to use a favorite word of president trump but deal means not just to take but also to give with give and take and do with this with this to give we see how huge difficulties in today's washington and it is across the board not just iran but everyone everyone including russia they should know in the u.s. that russia in no way will sacrifice its national security interests just because

the u.s. once a different arrangement here and there so otherwise it would be you know treason on our part it cannot be allowed so either we will negotiate and arrive at a deal or whatever format or character that free will where our interests are observed and the compromise is real or there will be no deal i think is very relevant for the case of iran as well so mr deputy foreign minister you also mentioned the i.m.f. to 18 ogust it aint emitted range nuclear forces treaty unfortunately came to it and is there any chance of a to be airing need reviewed this treaty is gone if we have something in. instead of it sometime in the future it would be a different treaty or a different arrangement i'm not sure this current administration is ever able to consider to conceive

a legally binding treaty in the area of national security or the united states concluded and then presented before the senate for it if occasion for the consent and advice that's kind of a not from another world from another universe but that my belcher and sieves we have proposed one this is in the us role played or moratorium undertaken by president putin as early as february of this year not to deploy any of the i.n.f. ranged capabilities that are under development in russia now until and unless the us does so and you were in the world well with the caveat that those capabilities are ground based because i never was all about ground based systems so if the us reciprocate together with its nato allies together with its asian allies i think we would have a very different situation from the current you know unaddressed and gun control

drift to more uncertainty in this very crucial area but this would be just the beginning the us once a legally binding arrangement involving not just russia but probably also for them hopefully also china that would cover the whole ground of nuclear weapons well if this is the desire of the us i believe the u.s. should pursue this we were told by the chinese that it's not in their interest we recognize that every country has its own security interests and we believe that the best way forward would be to prioritize in a manner that would allow 1st to keep to preserve what is. remaining arms control and security architecture in place intact to buy same time through the eventual extension of the existing start and during this period to see if anything

else in the chief or better or different whatever is possible viable conceivable that's the approach which is quite reasonable in our view and this is the official position of russia. the chinese laura let them speak for themselves the cheney's are not particularly interested in gage in this and we recognize and respect their position of we are in contact with beijing on these different levels and by the way i will just advertise for a very interesting 2 pieces of documents concluded in recent years between moscow and beijing at the top level through the signatures of president putin and president see where issues of arms control and particularly the new understanding of the strategic stability where so many factors are put together and are very

closely intertwined are reflected upon and we call everyone the specialists the experts those who are interested in the foreign policy and of course our counterparts in the us to study this it's a very revealing and it it's a learning reading i would see. but if she warned you posted by you and i do would be sure that there was more in those jeans nudist beach and you see me. true she. doesn't know about that and when you. can use i mean guys without infringing balls . a lot of you will see sawing your info as if parts of the 2 kids each other both are the most called. discipline but as a little strange as

a fire chief. event but out. here in chief. cabinet 5 days doing this is. in english maybe a 1000 people who simply knew she would include in. the world is driven by shaped by the curse of those with. no dares thinks. we dare to ask.

the us one stace treaty with china included do they feel like there is something very important happening between you 2 this is because they see. china more and more as geo strategic competitor of the us china and russia were put into the category of adversities of the u.s. in so many doctrinal documents of the recent period that there is no doubt that the u.s. intends to constrain china and russia to deter china and russia to try to figure out how to pressurise china and russia we in moscow understand this perfectly and have not i have no doubt that people in beijing equally see what is going on

so this is a game which is not that tricky for us that the u.s. is playing currently ok that's very good that we understand one other say trying to you also mentioned another very important agreement regarding global security i would say the new start treaty will expire in february 2021 more will happen next. i am hopeful that we still would be able to extend the treaty beyond that you know benchmark the. remember november 3rd next year the next presidential election in the us is due it means that sometime closer to the end of january 2021. the next president of the united states will be inaugurated. it is not possible i would say

very you know straightforwardly to expect any new administration of the u.s. to take a decision of that magnitude between the inauguration of the president in january and february 5 we should act now before the u.s. is fully immersed into the next presidential campaign besides we do have our own procedures to be observed unfold in russia in our case we can not just do it like this to extend this treaty it would require a formal presidential decision that is preceded in any case it is preceded by a number of steps to follow both at state new mother lower chamber of the parliament and at the federation council. of the. of

our parliament the upper chamber of our parliament so in best case scenario it's still. you know a procedure that would require months well weeks at best so we should deduct this from this deal we should see what can be done in a very short time remaining and we call upon the us not to stay idle to you know come to their minds and figure out how to deal with this you know with older pragmatic season which is so. you know central to the year's approaches to you know doing business in the broader sense i think is just an explainable why in this particular case they do not resort to what in our view is the easiest way to go forward. you mentioned. many times the word.

explainable. leggett is always equatable it isn't explainable i mean in something sometimes it's even the inconceivable what is going on speaking about john bolton's departure from the white house again what qualities you would like the next national security advisor to have and what will be the biggest challenges to face for him mr o'brien. he assembles now his own team i would say that. it's not about a one man show in any way it depends on how much. over continued see the new team will ensure. hopefully the negative can see new jersey which in my view is almost unavoidable in case of

russia. will still be. you know in some reasonable period of time edge us that to an extent that the people in the west wing of the white house are able at least to listen to what we are telling them and to consider our logic and our proposition not to be in the reject of mood all along just because it comes from russia i mean you would think that i exaggerate that's not the case last year when russia introduced a draft u.n. sick will not security council un general assembly resolution on the need to preserve than f.c.t. nothing was in that draft resolution that referred to the specific russian position no claims that the us is breaching something nothing in terms of defending the

russian position all of rejection of u.s. accusations on the wrongdoing with the missile mind am 7 to 9 it was a straightforward text which was neutral in terms of you know blaming anyone or putting you know whatever. labels on anyone it was a call message to the international community to concentrate efforts to preserve the treaty and invite more score and washington to you know in the best extra effort into this so it's so obvious for a knee person who is not to any considerations of a political character unrelated to what is there in terms of contents still the us

not just rejected this but also instigated the el eyes of the united states and like minded nations to vote against this text i think it's very unfair and it shows how low the quality of the policy which should be in some way a cartesian policy view one to be serious about something how low this policy stands now you mentioned. assembly 74 session of the un general assembly is opening these days in new york we know that russia's foreign minister said it all of off will be heading russian delegation what questions what issue is he planning to bring up during his address and face to face meetings i think challenges to multilateralism efforts to destroy multiple areas which is emerging. efforts to introduce. rules

based word order instead of a very understandable and solid fundamental international law as a framework for international relations will be at the center of minister's speech. besides i'm sure given the magnitude of the problems in many places. of the world given the gravity of crisis says. you know whatever you mentioned you have a crisis situation me gratian climates regional conflicts terrorism you name it so all these will be. addressed both when minister speaks but also at many other events he will attend multilateral events russia presides for the moment in september at the un security council so he will lead the meetings at this level it means to be

a level well being at the chairs position and also brics for instance would be. you know another opportunity at the me c.e.o. level to take stock on the current events he has also many by laterals in his schedule middle east iran syria. you know situation in the persian gulf all these are obvious things that he will look into and deal with so it would be a very busy week for him for 2 or more important face to face meetings. all of them are important. not a single one the is not important you know one country one worries one say that this is you know remnant of so-called this failure in the system i say this is the only possible mechanism and the only possible bases to arrange

for the international relationship in modern times how come if societies where one person one war is being you know. universally accepted ones or probably most universal almost universally accepted once how come that in international relationship one can avoid similar approach we need multi let not just multilateralism but more democratic rules in international relationships speaking about again you until you are soundly the president of venezuela nicholas my daughter is not going to shop at the un general assembly but instead he sent in his vice president with a letter signed by millions of venezuelans who oppose yeah while that's incredible and they do not want to have u.s. sanctions and i guess this is what this letter is about like to stop the u.s.

sanctions so will it mal to us it's hard for. the executive vice president of the. rodriguez who will lead their delegations there and i'm sure we will hear not just on this very powerful forceful. appeal on the part of the new swell and to those who like the u.s. or governments of the so-called lima group. reject what is obvious and that is the legitimate government of president. once. you know an improvement over situation it doesn't reject said dialogue with the opposition most recently we saw very serious efforts to engage an opposition which is interested in dialogue through conclusion or in their

arrangement with them. beyond this president maduro as much as i understand does not reject continuation of a dialogue with the. opposition. within the region mediation russia supports all these what we do not support is an endless melody about all options still on the table which is the sugarcoating of a threat to use force. the use of force or threat of force are. inadmissible according to international law sold those who continues to be produced this type of threats even in a covered version of those they are in material breach with the very central fundamental prince of one of the principles of international law. we heard that the people will be

a new york and they intend to create troubles there i mean it's just a disgrace towards the united nations as a universal organisation we will tell for ledley and openly to everyone to whom we speak that those games should not be played there.

ron and this is where the bank is solvent and folks are concerned about their money so they. withdraw the money so here you have one of the foundation blocks of the global derivatives market the repo market. it's being bailed out every day by 75000000000.

little.

and very well might continue watching us instead. i didn't.

feel. this. breaking news. broke the law in his communications with you. today i'm announcing the house of representatives moving forward with an official inquiry. violating its international commitments after the u.s. failed.