knowledge marathon during the day we will return to this event more than once. on the fact of the shelling of the kursk region by ukraine, the head of the investigative committee instructed to initiate a criminal case. this was reported in the department under the impact of large-caliber weapons, the village of alekseevka was not injured, but three private houses were damaged and the school was reported to the authorities of the region by russian border guards, opened a response agony and quickly suppressed the shelling. ukrainian troops staged new shelling of the donbass this morning came under attack, and panteleymonovka donetsk fired dozens of large-caliber shells at them, and opened fire on the bluish ones from rocket systems in multiple rocket launchers . the shelling of the city of donetsk resumed under attack again, petrovsky district, it is very audible in the neighboring kirovsky district, but there, thank god, no, shell explosions, it is also

very restless in the forest. gorlovka is under attack again, very restless now, not far from the center - this is the kievsky district of the city. there now also the ukrainian artillery is working out, as a result of shelling. there is a residential infrastructure. ah, serious destruction. there are newly wounded , the joint coordination control center captures every moment, and now the purity of shelling at this moment is increasing very carefully, we are monitoring the situation and it’s really incomprehensible. in what part of the city can the explosion occur. it is already so unpredictable that air defense works if it were not for the live broadcast on our channel again. how convenient for you, because we will start with a lecture, and then we will ask our questions and questions let's guys from the podium, and then then we will join you, we will leave you on stage and a little later we will help with the questions of the armchair. it's just uncomfortable if they gave me such a bag. i would love to sit here

, dear friends. i am very pleased to be on this marathon again. i had the sincere pleasure to perform here in the spring and then in the autumn of last year. i believe that this is a great decision to recreate social science in a completely new format, and without any formalities format without formality - it is very important to understand such a tautology, but it is in it. it reflects a very deep meaning of the topic that i was asked to cover, which is related to multipolarity, as i understand it. in general, in one context or another, dmitry sergeevich peskov touched upon international problems and what russia is now facing in the international arena. but if to be a concrete relation of multipolarity, multipolarity is a

term that is quite well-established in international diplomatic terminology. and on the initiative on the russian side, this term was first used by one of my great predecessors, yevgeny maksimovich primakov, in the mid-nineties, when he headed our ministry, and then this one. the idea of ​​this term was viewed with skepticism, because only a few years had passed after the disappearance of the soviet union, the disappearance of the socialist camp, and the west announced that the end of history had come, meaning by this that from now on, western liberal ideology will dominate everywhere on our planet and in fact, among those tools that the west sought. in order for this goal to be consolidated in

practical deeds, the expansion of nato to the east, contrary to the promises that were given to us orally, by the most responsible leaders of the united states, contrary to the promises and commitments that were ultimately achieved on paper , became the nineties by the end of the nineties in our relations with nato, on the initiative of the same day, maksimovich primakov concluded a fundamental an act where it was clearly stated that we are not adversaries, and we will not, none of us will strengthen our security at the expense of the security of others. that is, as if equal and indivisible security was proclaimed as a goal and as a principle of all our work. then we have already consolidated the same principle, indivisible security. in a broader context, for all states of the

euro-atlantic region, at the summits of the organization for security cooperation in europe, there was a very specific formula set out, uh, security no country should be equal and indivisible. rather, each country has the right to choose its own alliances. but at the same time, not a single country has the right to strengthen its security at the expense of the security of others, and at the same time it is written that not a single organization in space. euro-atlantic has no right to claim to dominate security matters. it is obvious in all this vast geopolitical field. here , even, in my opinion, it makes no sense to focus on this especially, that our nato colleagues are under the leadership of the united states, which they subjugated. the west has now obviously

grossly violated this for everyone, both the obligation not to strengthen their security at the expense of others, and the obligation not to allow such or one organization. in this case, nato did not claim the leading positions, dictating its will to everyone else, and this is practically the result, and such, and the line of the west was the unrestrained expansion of the north atlantic alliance to the east. we've been warning all these years that it's good nothing good will come of it, which are being created in spite of once again underlined by the numerous promises of obligations, the threats to our security assumed by the west, they proposed back in 2009 that we wrote down within the framework of the osce as a political obligation not to strengthen our security at the expense of others

to do so legally, a binding document proposed by the european treaty. security to us , uh, politely, but so uh, condescendingly answered that this will not work, because legal guarantees security. the west is ready to give only to those who are a member of nato, thereby, as it were, even more inciting a neutral state, but also hinting that let's come to us and then everything will be fine with you. so here our approach in 2009 was ignored in the same way as the version of the treaty we proposed was ignored, and in november last year, the president, speaking at expanded boards in our ministry, but put forward. sativa the conclusion of a treaty between russia and the united states and russia nato, which would clearly stipulate that security will be guaranteed for all countries of this region,

including ukraine and other countries that are not part of any military-political bloc and that these blocs will not expand, but will be formulated as a reliable guarantee that will not create a sense of danger for anyone or threats. it was also quite arrogant. rejected. in the meantime, ukraine was physically drawn into nato, publicly stated that there were no obstacles for ukraine to be in nato , that this was not russia's business. to place strike weapons on ukrainian territory, british colleagues have already built a naval base on the sea of ​​azov and much more has been done to, in the words of our president, turn ukraine into anti-russians. well , that's all, against the backdrop of the technical processes that followed

the coup d'état of the fourteenth year, when they came to power, frank radicals and neo-nazis who demanded the abolition of the status of the russian language in ukraine, who demanded that russians be thrown out of crimea, sent a detachment of militants. storm the building of the crimean supreme council well, all this served the fact that people in the east and in the crimea especially expressed their opinion and rejected the instigators of the anti-state coup and decided in referendums that they would live by their own rules, according to their values, and then the war began and in february of the fifteenth year it was stopped by the so-called minsk agreements, which assumed only a special status for the east of ukraine within the framework of respect for the territorial integrity of this country and the fact that the eight long years and previous current

presidents. ukraine categorically publicly and officially refused to comply with these agreements, continued to use force against the donbass and the west, which guaranteed these minsk agreements and voted for them in the un security council, did not encourage kiev to fulfill, then what everyone signed, but encouraged it in every possible way not to join direct dialogue with donetsk and luhansk well, the result. you know, we no longer had any other choice, the president said several times in this, except for aunt the republic and stand up for them stand up for them, and donbass to protect the russian culture of the russian language of the russian media, which in recent years. they were simply banned in ukraine and legislatively in the same ukraine fixed the

promotion of neo-nazi e, theories and practices. therefore, of course, this is multilateralism, it is multipolarity. she demanded consideration of the interests of all. here i briefly outlined how we see the development of the situation in europe, of course, the nato countries led by the united states, not window polarities. they don't even want to think. that's interesting in our contacts with the americans, especially when they propose wordings in the final documents of some conferences at the un negotiations and write down that we all undertake to respect human rights, respect the rule of law, respect democratic centers of value. of course, we do not argue against this, because all this is contained in universally approved documents, including

the universal declaration of human rights of the forty-eighth year, and we are precisely committed to ensuring that these are universally applicable and universally supported agreements have remained at the heart of our common work to promote respect for human rights, and we do not want modern neo-liberal values ​​to be added to these absolutely uh, defensible and unquestioned values. uh, the demands to respect everything that cannot be now, and cannot be supported , everything that contradicts our cultural ethical religious values, but the democracy of human rights the rule of law, who can be against this, but as soon as i coordinate these documents with such expressions. we suggest to western countries, by the way, let's emphasize that the rule of law

and democratic values ​​also need to be consolidated within the framework of international relations, neither within the country, but in the international arena they tell us, well, you know, let's not do this for now and refuse to confirm their its commitment to democracy in world affairs. this directly contradicts the very principle, uh, which is enshrined in the un charter and which by and large is, uh, the forerunner of multipolarity principle, according to which, as written in the un charter, is based on respect for the sovereign equality of the state, our western partners do not respect sovereign realities. they do not want multipolarity. they proclaimed a unipolar world. in one of the latest examples , united states treasury secretary ms. yelom

tut recently said that it is necessary to contain china, which is gaining too much influence in the world economy in the global financial world trade, so we need to reform, and the world the trade organization should be reformed by the international monetary fund and the world bank should be reformed in such a way as to ensure unipolarity. she directly said the unipolarity of these trade and currencies on the financial systems. and it is necessary to explain to china that a bipolar world is not needed in the west either, they directly say that it is time to reform all these institutions, because these institutions were created by the west, were created on the basis of those mechanisms that, first of all, the americans to everyone else, but offered and forced to accept and exactly. these mechanisms of these rules in world trade and in the

world financial, the people's republic of china, following these rules, beat the west, beat the united states and, in fact, came out on top positions in quality, and the economy of the world. but now they don’t like it, because uh, this is globalization, which the west presented as multipolarity, which in fact was just uh, creating conditions for everyone else uh, work on uh, invented by the west on the basis and with this, everything seems to be ready would be a live and world trade organization. we entered there and wanted it. the international monetary fund, the world bank, all worked on these conditions, but as soon as on these conditions, according to the western rules of the game, countries began to appear that function better in these areas. these are the very

centers that will form a multipolar world. this is china and india's other major powers. immediately the west decided to rewrite the conditions. it's like we say, uh, move the gate in the middle of a football match. something like this, but, nevertheless, the objective trend does not disappear anywhere. she is only the trend is getting stronger is to strengthen the very multipolarity, since new centers are objectively appearing, new centers of economic growth of financial power have already appeared. with this, of course, comes the political influence china india brazil south africa is the brix countries, by the way, which are in the group of 20, where the seven and brix are represented and other countries that are still closer to the brix. uh, this is such a format

where the west is forced to talk, and with the new centers of world growth, there is no doubt that in the end life will win, and artificial attempts to restrain. ah, the development of the historical process. they can take some time for several years, but they really achieve their goal, and now the convulsive west even said to the carriage and is trying to restrain these processes with its reaction to the actions of the russian federation in defense of its legitimate interests, but life will take its a and i have here no, there will be no doubt that the world will be multipolar, large, self-respecting countries will put up with the role that the west wants to assign to them, the role of obedient there are no extras in history so that such a

colonial regime, uh, holds on. e, no matter how long and e, can be preserved as sustainable, therefore, in historical terms from the point of view of world politics. uh, our cause is right. thank you very much. let's ask questions. where is sergey viktorovich viktorovich, please take a chair then? unfortunately it didn't change color. how did you want something that was comfortable, like the guys, and it will be more convenient to communicate, or do you want? standing? well let's be so good then. we just come to you let's join and help with questions. yes, i know, you have the first one, sergey viktorovich, i have a question. i often hear when people talk about foreign policy that there is hard power, soft power and smart power. can you explain what these words mean and are there any specific examples? for examples in world history,

hundreds of volumes will suffice, but i will talk about the times in which we live hard power - this is the use of military force to solve international problems and are famous for this, first of all, and even a competitor it is pointless to compete, the united states and its allies. moreover, the united states considers itself in the right. and how do they call themselves exceptional nations. even obama and before him spoke in such terms about themselves, they consider themselves entitled to determine for themselves where and what they can do , regardless of whether this and the desire corresponds to the obligations under the charter of the united nations a. it says countries abstain. here is the interference of each other's internal affairs and from the use of force. or from using the threat of force

except in cases provided for by the charter, and in the case of such two individual or collective self-defense, as here, in particular, we act to protect the inhabitants of donbass by recognizing their independence and in response to their legitimate requests. uh, to protect them here is a permanent and investigation into the parted attack by the ukrainian armed forces and national battalions and the second case when force can be used in accordance with international law. this is by decision of the un security council the united states, even if take the last 20 years, since the late nineties, without any solution to this security, they bombed yugoslavia only because they wanted to protect, and the rights that belgrade allegedly violated

, the rights of the kosovo albanian population were bombed in 2.5 months, residential areas, aiming they hit on railway bridges, then passenger trains were bombed at a television center, by the way, absolutely publicly and without embarrassment hit on the road, but the chinese embassy. there were several victims. among the employees of this embassies, then to the united states. it seemed that in iraq, far from them, in 2003, someone was making some kind of powders, uh, and there is a suspicion that this is a biological or chemical weapon. then it turned out that it was all a lie, but under the pretext of eliminating the threat, a war was unleashed on the territory of iraq and was gladly destroyed, and as a state, it has not yet restored its territorial integrity. no weapons

of mass destruction were found there by the side that lived, yes, in such a strict and authoritarian, if if you want a centralized regime, it turned out to be thrown back in its development for many years, then there was lily, where it also seemed that the dictator gaddafi, under whom no one had problems, neither with prices, nor with the standard of living, nor with the opportunity to go to education and get abroad. it seemed that yes. there they live satisfyingly, but they are not democratic; they bombed libya, which in general is even now even compared to iraq. these are disasters. we, uh, are trying to help restore unity, but not to receive. they wanted to do the same with syria. everything it's happening, and in a region a thousand, ten thousand miles from the united states, but they think they're entitled. to get in where they please, just as

they are now demanding that nato not only expand, but take on global responsibility already in the indian ocean. in the pacific. they are clearly trying to get closer to the people's republic of china, this is brute force, brute force. if you want soft power - this is diplomacy - this is, uh, media opportunities. this is not a government organization. and this is. oh, of course, the creation any kind of associations on historical , cultural, other topics, and in a number of cases, soft power can be no less effective. e in terms of achieving geopolitical goals. take the infamous color revolutions that the united states has staged in the middle east and in georgia and ukraine since 2004 , when uh insisted uh the us through

non-governmental structures to hold a third round of elections, because in the second round, like and according to the constitution, only two were won by a candidate who did not suit the americans so that there are many opportunities to do soft power, no less. uh, more dangerous than direct military force, but, of course, we are in favor of solving problems in peaceful ways. we also have opportunities. i don't want to call it opportunities to fit into soft power opportunities. we have the opportunity to defend our values, our ideas, our approaches to the world community. we have something to say, we are absolutely not shy. we just have the answers to those false concepts. and the theses that promotes the tool of western soft power and a great example is that now the kiev regime,

uh, is talking about what is happening in their country, that the country is not russophobic, and all laws are prohibited there, like me already, and that the country is neither his nazi, although the facts are on the face, and we promote them, and it seems to me that such meetings are like this. well, if you want - it is to a certain extent. e formation of the possibilities of our soft power. well , i don’t really like this term, but the possibility of bringing information to people that makes them think for themselves to evaluate and accept for themselves decision. this is where our strength lies in the fact that our people do not become zombies, but strive to process information within themselves creatively and independently determine it. thank you , sergey viktorovich, i propose that the

guys sitting in the seat join our dialogue. here in the hall i see a large number of hands and again i ask our volunteers to help us with the questions of the guys who ask questions. rise, please, and imagine your question. hello, my name is daniil tuchkov, i want to thank you for your lecture and willingness to answer to questions. like a student hero. watching the international situation with particular trepidation, and not so long ago, the ambassador of ukraine to germany called the german chancellor offended by liver sausage, for which he was not even expelled, and moreover, germany continues to provide ukraine with comprehensive support, sending weapons there, uh, offering financial assistance in this regard, such a question sergey viktorovich is it really possible for kiev to get away with everything? and if so, why? thank you yes, you can get away with it, it's absolutely absolutely you correctly described the relationship the west has taken a course towards its clients in ukraine.

nobody needs ukraine for that. ukraine is a consumable in a hybrid total war against the russian federation, now this no longer causes any doubts. it's announced publicly the eu's top diplomat says that in this war victory must be won on the battlefield, and british americans presidents prime ministers say we have no right to let russia win russia must be defeated. that is, the name of the war is declared and by no means between ukraine and russia between the west and russia ukraine, as you know, has already become such a common expression for preparing to fight to the last ukrainian very, very aptly, ukraine is an expendable material for the fight against the russian federation

, therefore any lykov line, as we say, uh, therefore, neo-nazism there it blooms and they turn a blind eye to it. uh, western curators, moreover, they are involved in the training of neo-nazi units and in the fact that these insatiable units were clearly imprisoned for anti-russian actions, therefore there and ban have already banned the russian language, starting from the fifth grade, in my opinion, they banned all russian and even ukrainian media in russian, which defended the views of the opposition parties. well, and much more, even in everyday life, the russian language. it is not forbidden, and all these long years, when this lawlessness took place, we could not reach out to nato, to the european union, to the united states, to the osce, to the council of europe , drawing their attention to the fact that this is contrary

to all the conventions on which the human rights right of human activity of the international community. well, in germany, of course, after the current government came to power. e germany has lost the last signs of independence, in general, there are so many in the european union now, probably, president macron. he is also trying to somehow talk about the strategic autonomy of the european union, i am sure that this will not allow them, and the european union is already more and more merging with the north atlantic alliance. they don't hide it. now finland sweden well, the president spoke about this yesterday, uh, we we don't see any. necessities for finland sweden cares about its security, therefore, uh, we see in their decision, which was probably actively lobbied by washington. and, uh,

nato itself sees this as just such a geopolitical move, again in the context of containing the russian federation in the context of implementing nato's plan to extend its actions to the arctic regions. and by the way, here is the finnish finnish president and, uh, the finnish finnish ambassadors are everywhere, they say finland does not see any threats from the russian federation therefore, joining nato is simply due to a change in the security situation in europe by logic. there is nothing here if you do not see threats from the russian federation and the security situation, as nato claims, is changing because russia is aggressive.