with the first deputy permanent representative of russia at the un in new york by dmitry polyansky dmitry alekseevich hello , let's start today's meeting, probably, have something to say? what were they discussing? why did this question arise? today's meeting, in fact, became, uh, another blatant manifestation of double standards, uh, of our former western partners, since they raised the issue of plans to deploy, uh, russian tactical nuclear weapons on the territory of belarus, which was announced, but at the same time, naturally, they tried not to replace these actions with aggressive, uh, which undertaking has been undertaking and has been undertaking the nato bloc for many years. uh, including the deployment of us nuclear weapons on the territory of a number of european states. today we did not let them silence this topic. uh, they said that this factor plays a decisive role. as regards the security of the european continent, and we have always been called upon, the united states to withdraw its nuclear weapons, but western colleagues , of course, interpret everything that happens in their favor, that i

dmitry polyansky, first deputy permanent representative of russia to the un in new york, and we also discussed the us provocation in the black sea. dmitry alekseevich hello, the security council held this week on the topic of russophobia. uh, as a politician, what do you say? how did it go and what are the results for us it was very important this particular topic. uh, discuss it at the sb site, because we discussed it in no way, the question of the internal situation in ukraine, but as a factor that impedes the achievement of long-term peace and settlement in ukraine in the region as a whole. this is how we presented it, as a threat to international peace and security, these facts are blatant russophobia. first of all, in ukraine they often remain outside the brackets. uh, the attention of our former western partners, who, if they talk about ukraine, then exclusively, and in ideal expressions in ideal tones. uh, like some kind of white, fluffy country, uh, in which democracy of human rights flourishes, naturally against the backdrop of a terrible authoritarian. so, in order to knock down this narrative for them, it was important for us to hold this meeting, and we had very good ones. uh, speakers and kirill vyshinsky and dmitryev. they all, so to speak, the ins and outs of russophobia and gave a lot of facts to the members of the security council. uh, the members of the security council were represented, uh, western at a low level, they tried to make this is a certain dimash, but in the end it all did not work in their favor, because in general they could not conduct a dialogue with us on an equal footing, and in some cases they even sounded justifying images. uh, well, for their part, they invited timati snyder, a well-known promoter of the interests of the ukrainian regime in the west, dmitry snyder, a historian who promotes all these ukrainian myths and inventions of recent years e ancient ukrainian which also tried to outgrow everything, so to speak, but to shift from sick head to a healthy one, saying that your brusophobia. this is a product of our policy, but he, of course, did not take it into account. and what we noticed is that russophobia in ukraine, uh, began long before the special military opera

dmitry polyansky do we have a connection? in touch new york now to establish contact with the united nations with dmitry polyansky, because it is clear that absolutely remarkable voting and good news is composed. hello. dmitry alekseevichonly the traditional partners of russia and china voted for. well , it’s bad for brazil that our western enemies failed the resolution and the investigation of the international and independent ones. well, no one had any illusions, if, to be honest, i know the alignment in the security council that they will support the text. to them, of course, this investigation is absolutely not their only task is to wrap it up, so to speak. e from the investigation of anyone to hide the ends in the water. that's what they all abstained too to show that no one dared to vote against it too would be loud. they decided. so that's the numerical advantage. it's just to wrap up this issue with sambezen, but it's also important that the countries said, uh, following the results of the vote, and there were a lot of calls to ensure the transparency of the investigation and speed it up from i think that in our colleagues uh in denmark sweden and germany will now have to working harder and harder will keep us

transferred to new york dmitry polyansky on direct line of the deputy representative of the russian federation in the organization of the united nations dmitry alekseevich hellopean union about the fact that we, in principle, voice their unwillingness to work on the investigation of the explosion at the terrorist attacks. but how do they formulate it, how to relate to it, and if the prospects are understood? who exploded. hello olga, in the documents we have attached all the correspondence. we deliberately waited. eh, we have a complete collection of e-mail correspondence with the danes and the swedes. uh, with the germans, it became a kind of reaction to the letter of these states, distributed earlier in the security council, stating that they allegedly keep russia informed of the ongoing investigation. and this argument is used by experts from some countries of the security council, now we are talking about it. as you know, the expert negotiations on the draft resolution that we introduced launches an independent investigation under the auspices of and these experts say there is no need for any investigation of the ionian, because there are normal national