how would you comment on this also? you know, the typically, 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 and 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. of course that i need to do you think they are ready to inflict the strategic defeat on russia, scott, but as a claim, see, how can they talk about it when they must realize the immediate consequences of such a move looks like even the most of these are the times we live in when people do not think much about the consequences, stoney and prime minister kind of callous is now likely to take you off somewhere

else. place she to said last week, that rush, it must be defeated to prevent boulevard 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 quick lane. 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 and are trying their best and preventing negative scenario for them as much as possible. and some such states schema of spectacle slowly and under what conditions converse should really use tactical nuclear weapons. we'll hear that if they go 90 to the super something we'll definitely have to be down to 0. but the west gibson slaymen. the situation with 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 suitcases. easy. this 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. and the other 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 be assumed a got such a set of what that what does it like to what can western countries now, how has everything that is happening now especially to 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, 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. it seems to me and i hope i'm not deluding myself that we are more or less in control of the situation to i repeat, we are working hard as before. russia plays a very prominent role in the activities of the international organizations in vienna. and everyone recognizes this, so it has become a bit more difficult, but we are managing it all. i think that the audience will be interested in such understand and then little bits, what has changed in the house. so there's usually some things have changed a little bit. and which way we, 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 us statements that have nothing to do with the mandate of

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 in 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, cooling the terrifying stuff. something marine refers to the recently launched russian nuclear submarine. not hunger sound good. how do you think these demonstration on the russian military on navy power influences 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 facts that such a demonstration is useful and necessary is 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, 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 most those up i did. yes. because in the west, it is often, in fact, it didn't 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 initially. 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 pretty let's move on to this notorious, you've trained peace. some indeed with the issue of nuclear security was discuss, what do you think of it this event to which of course, russia was not invited. yup. this to me. i will give it 10 now for a solid and since that is far sitting and discussing issues of peace without the

participation of one of the 2 parties to the conflict is nonsense, absolute nonsense. it is a p r, stunt. 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? a 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 documents the issue. and the day after the summit ended, iraq and jordan withdrew with their support with one of the following suit a couple days later. so 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 bothering so many delegations for she didn't. it is a trivial documents of very little political significance. you can ask for the

discussion of nuclear issues at this meeting 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 of the explained to the decision in an entry you will be printing mass media. you're saying that the i a a performs very serious technical tasks and stays away from political matters far from the agencies mandate. i think this is the right to position. i feel i've never been absent it's, i was just about to bring up this because the situation at this approval, she nuclear power plant, 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 let me know. we're going to review the genius to, you know, our relationships with mister grossey looks quite constructive. should the end of business like to me, of course, in our opinions, assessments and approaches do differ from time to time assume which is normal this

. anyway, grossey believes that the agents that you should maintain relations with both ukraine and rush company, especially with russians, which is a major nuclear power as a country with a powerful nuclear energy industry. we clicked and we had a country that builds numerous power plants abroad. we communicate regularly, mister grossey has regular meetings with alex say, lee hatch over the head of ross after, besides the missing girl, she has missed twice with the president of russia. the last meeting took place on march 6th installed. 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 mr. grow, so you have a spirit of business cooperation and in my opinion it is working out in general, get to go through that with the others and guardlick. i can't. the problem was don't those 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 sometimes leave much to be desired. more recently, including thanks to our ongoing work. certain misrepresentations has been gradually corrected 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 planetary, i will tell 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. brown see ends me for

the last time on may 28th and colleen and grad. so we're the director general met with the russian entered group delegation as the outcome of that discussion. so both sides confirmed publicly just in front of the press, the common opinion that it would be premature to restart was that progenitor 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, the consequences could be terrible. so we're not going to rush the relaunch on the power button. we wouldn't be able to leave, it even looks nobody man them with eggs in the same time as well. so. so you pray and trying to deprive russia of its membership on the board of govern. this in the international atomic energy agency, 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 and take some exotic stems that are either under feasible or completely unjustified

. and you will see this and a number of international organizations, including the i a, a board of governors. so the cranes 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 pointed to the board of governors on a permanent basis every year. and the only criteria for pointing a country there is that a countries level of nuclear energy development is sufficient. this, it looks to me, 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 posed 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 and clear. and so what if you could in keeps pushing the issue or brings it to

a fault of yours and the western countries themselves, they will vote in favor of rush out, but not until then the ukrainians back down there. and they had an excellent chance of getting themselves into a very stupid situation with dish and things. so there's a stubbornness, lack of common sense system and unnecessary expertise. do you feel comfortable? so what are your thoughts as to what looks like you cringe and ask you sometimes dis things without running them by washington fast, we're the only, oh, we better pass the washington and keep about that lead probably to coordinate most things, but there are situations when the tail starts to wag the dollar interesting 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, cubes level of understanding of the current situation is not sufficient to make reasonable conclusions. they almost pushed themselves into a trap, the infrastructure. and imagine if all these 34 member countries of the governing

council to except ukraine group and voted in favor of russia against the ukrainian approach. it would have been an embarrassment of epic proportions and ukrainians had almost created themselves. curtis, to your 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 that you had on the side of the i a recently adopted an on to you ran into resolution, see it on kenya, talking to us to little bit more about this discussion wide safety, i a, a choose to go this way. let me just go to sleep to put an issue. well, i can tell you that the board of governors is composed in such a way that by sheer arithmetic institution majority belongs to the western countries and all western countries to corners from washington, dc, paris, london, and berlin. once the order is given, leave following without thinking much about the consequences. this is just the way it is. because in this case century 3 major european powers for germany brands. and

you can see that for some reason, decided that it was necessary to send a strong message to t. ron and the timing was really bad. who is the 2nd country barely finish morning, the depth some of their presidents and foreign minister. so the vote didn't know was plan through the door over. it showed that the resolution was adopted by 20 voters also. but during and previous votes and the farmer 2020 to $26.00 nations voted in favor of the resolution was as opposed to only 20. this time, also in 2020 to 5 nations, abstain tennessee while this here officially a total of 12 countries did. so russia and china voted against the resolution 12 times sufficient. why? because the resolution is meaningless. diploma is this is a typical example of megaphone diplomacy. if it is not reopened, publishing and this resolution built a serious blow to the relationship between the i a and iran, or by the sheer fact of being there. and we've been, regardless of what's the content and you, our approach is completely different. we are betting unreal diplomacy. this is

a more promising track to follow him, but we have failed to prevent the resolution from being adopted to the tender run has already responded to this resolution by taking a number of steps to ramp up its peaceful nuclear programs and see if this is what the european powers wanted, then we can congratulate them on their success for a cox, so they can most of that as it is. and how can this disagreement between the i a, a in the runs to be resolved, i have, or as long as the west to insist on not talking to a wrong. roughly speaking, everything will continue. and the same thing is 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. wilton and iran as a country that does not respond well to detach. therefore, this line of action is doomed to end up in failure. the vienna talks on the nuclear deal and 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, get to iran and china and russia worse and remain ready to continue talks net, if 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 like the west against the rhonda would be cleared in a matter of months and 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 it through getting on the other hand, they're accusing a wrong model. since what's 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 their system going to 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 consequence of this is that the resulting uncertainty is wrong. with uncontrolled escalation, we have a very explosive situation on our hands. now, we just go, let's say we were one. and 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 pretty so much of 90 percent on jail book. almost everything was really good news. 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 idea all degree 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 irrational infected by launching a massive campaign against iran us it's pushed a wrong to step up its nuclear program and well ahead of its own file. you see the responsibility lies entirely with washington this they did it on there or is it completely absurd? situation, that is the reality issue was to sure what pass for the 1st smith. it's been 6. yeah. since you west withdrew from the nuclear deal with the wrong and let's say yeah, well the house has changed that, i mean, is the west and exclusive. so the way from resolving these issues between america

and the saying it to, you know, i don't think some 5 ministration has much to boast of mileage in terms of international policy. and they don't have any major treatments, decision whether similar deal was at least one particular area where the americans had a chance to make a positive work through under bite. and they began negotiating the nuclear deal and they weren't quite actively involved in those negotiations. and i would say that the american was play to it rather constructive role. that 1st the art tough negotiators, which is just as the range of 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 republican party, i don't know what happened there. because for a while there was hope that the negotiations would resume after the mid term congress elections in the us in december 2022. but no, they didn't. and, and response to reporters question whether the nuclear deal was and is biting

centers. 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 is a serious strategic miscalculation the same can be said about europe since at one point europe to distance itself from trump. and his policy is he has, it has ended up being in the same boat with the americans, which is close to current stage as opposed to some new and in other thoughts. now it has, uh and finally, let's talk about russia. so cold isolation, i see another boy, there was a narrative in the west, and that's last night to attend. and russia isolated because no one wants anything to do with them a score, cuz most of the people are actually saying about that to us here in the do the believe that rush race to truly isolated on this with this, or do you, 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, which is more 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, there are about 50 countries that have a strong anti russian position. so, and sometimes they must drop to 60 votes, but no more than that to the rest of the world has very little desire to participate in these. and 2 russian campaigns. many countries distance themselves from such a course which is also reflected in the multitude 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, unusual that receive brought supports, especially in areas such as drug control. so our approach to this issue has been supported by more than 40 countries of vehicles. see how much the deliberate debate

is, and i'm curious about what the russian has to offer in terms of jump 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 is the 2nd. you have to take care of human rights to the rights of drug addicts are unimportant task, though not the main one. and finally, well organized 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 a belief 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 tooth. is it what get packaged is infected syringes, hello and check 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. maybe a dozen of them so far are actually violating the legally binding you in drug conventions and legalizing cannabis and marijuana. 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 want to find out i need done. they see that there have been into us that and let me go. we just have 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. 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 the should, it 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 seen our goal, our, i'm 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. 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 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 $34.00 is lumnick countries. can this be called isolation? 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. be slow for bi, was this became and talking about multiply receipt of i. so your colleagues and you see it, do they believe that the world is a rate of change and the dynamics of building relationships between different countries? i'm good friends now, could i was, when do they think it's some kind of fairy tale that the kremlin to sit down and look at these while in reality as we sat and they're isolated and no one wants to do with the emotions the which is a good is 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 accurately weekly, in my opinion, is the trend towards dismantling the american had germany is all these 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, smoking, 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 is 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 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 things you know, it's for them to accept it. do you need to accept it as a reality? is life itself the forcing them to do this?

thank you very much. it was me. hey, when get most of the time and there's representative of the russian federation to international organizations in the amount of stuff as always, it's very interesting to talk with you. thank you. thank you. the the the,

the, the

the as the mileage and the success of the model to show you some of them who do you think are very somewhere in the military, new culberson you move from the think which some of this the little gods is ringing and but i see something here because i saw most of the items to somebody to bring you must pick with was always stuff. i did the meals that the gold on the you know, the agenda, blue column. so kind of show. but as soon as i'm sure you so you don't have to 100 you're dealing with the purchase level

the hey everybody on bins one in for rick sanchez in here. the stories were covering today. # the wicked things down, or julie massage was free after 12 years and eggs i owe 5 years in solitary confinement. american muscles are implicated in the depths of innocent lives in russia and argument attempt to overthrow the government in bolivia. it's been a wild week of ripping stories and we're recapping it all right here. this is direct impact the

.