Original subtitles

If you are a normal diplomat, then no

artificial intellect will substitute for your natural intellect,

your natural intuition experience and knowledge, of course.

Erudition is different with AI, we've faced that

already.

As you know, so creative solutions can also

be found only by a human being with

experience, like I said, with the wisdom of

diplomats.

And such solutions today, creative solutions based on

robust principles, on the balance of interests, with

a view to, further on, to see that

there will be no more crises.

There is a plethora of those, a lot.

I will not cite all of them, but

all knows about Ukraine with regards to the

intrigue in Istanbul, as we are talking here.

But let's not forget about the tragedy of

Gaza and generally of the Palestine territories tragedy,

problems of other Middle East sites which were

created because of the wanton aggressive policies of

NATO countries, who are recourse to armed forces

without any pretext or ideas once they don't

like somebody somewhere.

Just to remember, Iraq was destroyed.

Then it was found out that it was

done in vain.

They didn't have any mass destruction weapons.

What can be done?

Tony Blair, in his memoirs, got frustrated.

That's all.

Libya was also destroyed in order to, so

to say, to get revenge, Qaddafi, for his

independent policy, and at the same time to

hide the well-known facts that he financed

one of the candidates to the presidency elections

in France.

And this candidate, subsequently becoming a president, didn't

want very much to reveal the facts of

him receiving funds from foreign states.

There is a great number of such facts.

All of that was done under high-flown

assertions on the need to protect human rights,

democracy, and many others.

On top of that, there are such bluntened

crises which are still in place.

I could also cite here Yemen, of course,

the problem with the Houthi movement.

Yes, there are situations which recall the arts

of negotiations.

Take Iran nuclear program for one.

The whole set of other problems which emerge

in the process of geopolitical transformation of the

world, in the process of geopolitical struggle, when

ambitions are crushing.

For example, what happens right now in Asia

and Pacific, which to acquire more clear-cut

anti-China policies, now they refer to it

in the West.

India returns to get an additional possibility to

again put at loggerheads our neighbors and friends

in China and India.

Recently, Putin recalled that that's about divine and

rule policies.

Of course, not talking about Asia and Pacific,

there are very important geopolitical spaces, one of

them Central Asia, of course, around which a

lot of diplomatic efforts are underway in the

format of Central Asia Plus One.

I believe it has exceeded dozens of countries

willing to become our friends and develop our

partnership relations.

Just take a look at South Asia and

around it, Southeast Asia, Southeast Asia, Western colleagues

in any other parts of the world here

again want to play a leading role.

They want to undermine the central role of

ASEAN, which has satisfied everybody for many decades

and was based on the formation of a

united space with the Asian countries and their

partners in dialogue, in politics, in military cooperation,

in defense.

And all of that was done on the

basis of rules which were invented, adopted by

ASEAN member states and all partners on dialogue.

We joined that format ceremoniously so they would

abide by those rules, by consensus and search

of common space.

And all of it by our Western colleagues

has been studied to put aside little by

little.

And some members of ASEAN, they want to

involve them in blatantly confrontational but not united

three, four countries formats and others.

And they're seriously asserting right now, the Secretary

of NATO General Secretary says that there should

be a right to defend ASEAN countries and

that they allegedly need to introduce their structures

in South Asia, in Taiwan Strait, South China

Sea and so on and so forth because

they say allegedly from out there currently the

direct military threats are emerging and originating for

NATO countries.

Well, that's a fantasy, just speaking softly here.

Not very decent, I would say.

No need to prove it.

But in this regard, of course, there are

other regional processes like I mentioned, Iranian nuclear

program, but then there are processes, again, between

all lateral states of the Persian Gulf, Iran,

and the Council of Cooperation of the Gulf,

which includes six Arab monarchies.

And between them, there are also processes underway

of normalizing their relationships.

We also hail that.

Therefore, just looking at our Eurasian continent where,

like I said, great civilizations continue to exist

there, Chinese, Indian, Ottoman right now reemerging, and

we hope that this resurrection will be harmonized

with other subregional trends with a view to

situate all of those century-long justified processes

would not contradict each other but would rather

be implemented in some sort of a cohabitation.

There are no other continents in the world

like Eurasia with so many civilizations living shoulder

to shoulder and preserving their identity and pertinence

in the modern times.

At the same time, Eurasia is the only

continent where one does have one continental structure.

In Africa, you have African Union, our big

friends there.

Yes, again, they have subregional formats, but above

them, there is a joint continental regional

community of Latin American and Caribbean states.

In Eurasia, there is none, nothing of the

kind.

In Eurasia, we feel the need for such

a uniting process, including the process of unification

with a view to situate that the interests

of many major great really powers and civilizations

be harmonized.

Up till now, such processes have been observed

only in the western part of Eurasia, and

all of them basically had an underpinning Euro

-Atlantic concept.

In action, NATO, of course, OSCE II, which

was set up as a Euro-Atlantic structure.

Also, European Union, strange as it might seem,

I will expand on that.

European Union was set up absolutely with other

purposes to unite efforts and to be relevant

for more efficient economic development of European countries

jointly at the time.

It's easier to do that jointly, and expediting

economic development would help tackling social problems which

are felt in excess right now.

Over the past years, the European Union, too,

has been turned into Euro-Atlantic structure.

Since all they are doing there is coordinated

with Euro-Atlantic alliance, and they have, I

guess, signed a treaty between NATO and the

European Union, whereby European Union provides their opportunities,

including territory, including transport infrastructure, and whatever is

necessary, might be necessary for NATO in case

they would want to have more troops and

hardware to be transferred closer to the borders

of our country.

That's not a question that could be discussed.

It's clear.

And as regards the rest of the Eurasian

continent, there was an initiative, very helpful initiative

of the first president of Kazakhstan to create

an assembly on the measures of trust in

Asia.

This initiative was vigorously forwarded.

Now, within the frameworks of this meeting, the

presidency, after so many years of Kazakhstan's presidency,

has been transferred in structure to Azerbaijan.

And the process is underway to transform this

assembly into an organization.

This, too, an expression of this trend of

unification.

And we hail that, too.

We welcome that.

But at the very end of the day,

we should talk about something we have in

Latin America and Africa, that is, to move

the ball towards pan-continental structure.

Maybe you don't need to call it organization.

We could call it pan-continental process.

It's important that it be transparent, open, without

exclusion for all Eurasian countries, not only the

European part of the continent, that is, not

only Asian part of the continent, but rather

for all countries and entities who have a

clear-cut Eurasian context.

That's not an easy process.

But you always have to start somewhere.

Such things always start with reflection.

And we are thankful to our Belarusian friends

who, five years ago, Alexander Yeroshchenko, President of

Belarus, initiated an annual conference on Eurasian security.

There were two of those conferences.

The third is coming, coming autumn.

The conference will be annual.

And Russia, jointly with Belarus, in the context

of such discussions, proposes to start developing the

Eurasian Charter of Multipolarity and Variety in the

21st century.

We invite all the countries located in Eurasia,

including the western part of Eurasia, then our

colleagues from that space, the western part of

the continent, will be ready to discuss, not

just talking SQ down the nose, as they've

done it of late, without being blatant, which

they have been doing with regards to Russia

and other countries regularly, but when they will

be ready to talk on the basis of

those principles which they signed, joining the United

Nations organizations.

The main principle is sovereignty, equality of states,

that is.

All other principles of the Charter are absolutely

adequate, pertinent, but the problem is that the

West either doesn't abide by them at all,

like with regards to the sovereignty and equality

of states, or talks like God willing.

When it's cozy for them, they will sniff

out some principles, forgetting about others.

Charter-taking, with regards to Kosovo, they said

that's about self-determination of the Kosovo people.

With regards to Crimea, they said that's a

violation of territorial integrity.

Why it's not self-determination, which was the

case with Kosovo?

Now, with regards to Ukraine, all of them

talking as one in one voice in the

West, even some not-Western countries, too.

And the Secretary General of the UN is

here to say, with whom I talked several

times, he continued to say we are both

a settlement of the crisis on the basis

of the UN Charter and territorial integrity of

Ukraine.

Well, you, Secretary General, you should know the

Charter in its entity, its totality, and with

the principle which works for Kosovo, which was

acknowledged, recognized as absolutely contemporary, applicable by the

International Court of the UN, who stated that

separate parts of the state do not require

necessarily agreement of central authorities of the state.

But forgetting the principle of self-determination, the

Secretary General should not do that.

He can't do that, especially that he represents

a country which was a metropolis once.

And the process of decolonization, liberation from a

metropolis is based on the international legal principles

of self-determination of peoples.

The General Assembly of the UN in the

1970s stated that yes, everybody should respect territorial

integrity of state, but those states whose governments

abide by the principle of self-determination of

peoples and thanks to that represent all the

population living on the relevant corresponding territories and

metropolises in the middle of last century.

Did they represent peoples of the African continent?

No, they didn't.

Certainly not.

The peoples decided since everything coincides here, there

is a right for self-determination of rights,

people of fairness is there, and those colonial

peoples' authorities didn't satisfy that, they stopped to

be like that.

Who can say that the authorities which came

in the 1914 coup d'état in Ukraine

represented people?

Did they represent Crimea, Donbass or people confessing

Russian culture by centuries whose predecessors laid down

those factories, states, ports, cities and who currently

are blamed as not being ingenious people in

these territories.

They banned Russian language in those territories.

Where you have just one voice from Western

camp, the West when they review any situation

in the world, whatever, in UN when they

speak or simply in other events, whatever country

they take, China, Russia, India, incidentally Venezuela, Iraq,

any country, the rights of the people are

necessarily there in their teachings, preachings of the

West constantly, preaching to others.

Starting from 2014, I'm just curious, just look

in Internet, surf out there, whatever you can.

Can you find at least one assertion, at

least one statement by Western leaders with a

critique of the situation with the human rights

in Ukraine?

Perhaps, yes, our friends in Hungary, consequently supporting

the rights of the Hungarian minority in Ukraine.

Yes, you can find such statements on their

behalf.

But those who believe they are leaders of

the free world, for example, France, Britain, Germany,

well, leaving alone Baltic states, Poland, never ever

did that.

European bureaucracy, von der Leyen, Ursula and others

with her, they, when we appeal to implementation

of UN principles, including a principle demanding a

respect for human rights, irrespective of race, gender,

confession, religion, language, religion and language in Ukraine,

precisely is by law prohibited.

By law, we say, well, just have an

effect on your clients.

Well, when they are to wait and can't

hear anything anymore.

Ursula von der Leyen, Karl Karlos and other

figures say, well, Ukraine defends European values.

That's all.

That's it.

That means that Europe supports Nazis.

Nazis in Ukraine flourish.

They are in law, they have holidays dedicated

to collaborationists who fought at the side of

the Hitlerian Germany.

Why I'm giving this detail to you right

here on this floor?

Incidentally, many people made fuss in Europe, especially

with regards to the meeting in Istanbul.

I will wrap up with what I started

here.

Initially, Zelensky made some assertions that he demands

that Putin be there personally.

Well, such a, you know, humble person, pathetic

person, he himself and who, you know, are

moving him around from above.

Then his people above him told him, don't

be this silly, they said.

We need talks there.

Incidentally, the West, three or four days recently,

has pushed aside somewhat this idea of truce.

And we have explained in detail.

When Macron was asked, he gave some interview

about three days ago, he was asked, well,

he says, yes, we need talks, meetings, but

what we need to do, he said, we

need to do everything possible so that truce

be at the heel.

But for talks, Ukraine should approach from the

position of force, he says.

That's an elementary answer.

That's the honest admission why they need this

truce.

So that Ukraine be, you know, again, flamed

with these arms, with the position of force.

So Macron is saying there that that's not

the talk of the day.

Americans supported the proposal of our President.

Give talks a chance.

Nobody guarantees that everything will be okie-dokie,

without problems.

No, on the contrary, there will be necessary

problems, like what happened three years ago to

Istanbul when they basically had initiated those documents

to be signed.

Then the Brits banned to the Kiev regime

to continue this process, which could finalize with

settlement.

Incidentally, the Brits, again, they are leading Zelensky,

like in the jungle, as tutors would do

in world politics.

Some councilor to prime minister of Britain on

national security somewhat has been dispatched to Zelensky

so that he would say something in excess

and should bury his reputation finally, again, together

with the reputation of his trainers.

Now, when they say something needs to be

done promptly, since Americans want to reach results

quickly, they have a lot of business on

their table, not only Ukraine.

They need the simplest result, to announce, that

is.

That's not necessarily because the war is in

progress, not because Ukraine is pressurized by whoever,

the US, China, Brazil, Africa, or some other

country or group of countries, but simply because

of the fact that we have the UN

Charter there, which states the rights of human

beings, including language, religion, simply because of the

fact that there is a whole series of

conventions on the national minority rules and rights,

where Ukraine is part of, like, under auspices

of the UN or Council of Europe.

And besides, there is a Constitution, believe it

or not, where it states the obligation of

states to respect the rights of Russians, they

have enshrined Russian and other national minorities, and

then they cite in education, in mass media,

everywhere.

Now, why not, right now, by the Western

curators of Kiev regime, to impose, to advise

them, to announce on ban of all those

laws, which violate, breach conventions, UN Charter, and

the Constitution of Ukraine, for that matter, then

you would have a simple result.

It costs nothing, either to Europeans or Americans.

America has always been putting forward this motto

of the human rights.

So let's bring back normality to this regime.

So this will be implementation of the documents

they have signed, for that matter.

Once you are believed to.

So I have spoken more than I had

planned initially.

So now perhaps we could talk to our

interlocutors.

Ladies and gentlemen, Your Excellency, the Diplomatic Club

is a site for a dialogue, for that

matter, interactive format, and we have people with

mics, so please hold your questions, ask your

questions if you have any.

Good morning, dear colleagues.

My name is Denis, I represent the Public

Association of Patriotic Tourism.

I am very glad that the Diplomatic Academy

of Foreign Ambassadors has resumed its operation.

Thank you very much for this.

My question is as follows.

We talked a lot today about the effect

of soft power through the lens of tourism.

So my question is, patriotic tourism is the

history of our country.

It's about current days too.

So I'd like to find out from you

and Mr. Foreign Affairs, perhaps, do you have

any projects to attract new visitors of our

main museums?

Since our Western colleagues tell us that they

have been victors in World War II, but,

in fact, we won.

We were the pioneering state in outer space.

The Atom Museum, that's a beautiful, innovative museum.

So we would like very much that our

partners, foreign partners, would understand, would be clear

that it's precisely Russia who are a technical

and a cultural driver for the whole world.

Through the presence of our modern museums, like

Atom Museum, Space and Aviation Museum, we would

like to see that the whole world knows

about us as a driver to the bright

future of our world.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Well, you know, I believe any ambassador is

objectively interested in the fact that citizens of

his country and leaders of his country would

know his or her country, would know more

about the history of state where they are

accredited.

We can see many representatives of diplomatic corps

here, as far as I know.

They understand only too well the importance of

this work.

On top of that, it's very interesting for

a normal human being to get acquainted with

the history of foreign countries.

It's also important that this knowledge be used.

History repeats itself, not necessarily as a farce.

Sometimes it's a lesson which you can derive

and use in current times.

That's one thing.

The other thing is as follows.

Well, I'm hard-put to give some ideas

right offhand.

If you have some ideas how to organise

for the ambassadors special events, special tours, we

do have a practice in place.

Well, we don't suggest that it should be

collective tours of museums.

But tours around the country, yes, we organise

that several times per year.

We announce a new tour, and those ambassadors

interested will organise a group for several days.

They will meet with the leaders of the

region.

They will visit enterprises which are the bulk

of the economy of certain subjects of the

Federation.

And necessarily they will see the beauty of

the sights.

Since patriotism, I hope, I hope, patriotism, patriotic

tourism is not just about necessarily so, yes,

integral part of it being there, but it's

not about monuments having to do, like, certainly

the main symbol of patriotism today, that's the

victory of the Great Patriotic War.

Patriotism is about history, simply history of your

people, which is given embodiment in various architectural

monuments, in art and in nature.

Almost one year ago we, together with Mr

Nikitin, we had a meeting of BRICS, Minister

of Foreign Affairs.

What they saw in Nizhny Novgorod, I will

never forget.

I haven't been there for quite a long

time before.

So I was inspired how it's been transformed

with great care.

It becomes modern, but does lose its historic

flavour, its spirit, which goes through nature, cathedrals

and many other sites in this part of

Russia.

Therefore, we are wholly supportive of this idea.

If you have any prompts on how we

could better promote diplomatic corps on the basis

of your experience, please share with us.

Thank you.

Okay, another question there.

Take the mic, please.

Thank you very much.

One more thing, I'm sorry.

Prior to this meeting, I was told that

Nizhny Novgorod wealth will be added with the

collection, part of which Mr Dudakov is showing,

thanks to him.

And indeed, this will be another magnet.

Yes, please.

Thank you very much, Sergey Viktorovich.

My name is Maria Ramos, Ambassador of Bolivia.

Thank you very much for your remarks, your

vision, very important.

It was interesting to listen to you regarding

what's going on in the world right now.

You have mentioned in the beginning of your

remarks, you have mentioned the artificial intellect, AI.

Of course, there are so many questions on

the table.

In this regard, I'd like to suggest, perhaps

within the framework of this club, to discuss

this issue.

Because I believe it's not only a question

of illiteracy there, of artificial intellect.

It's a question of a clash of the

vision of my generation with the vision of

younger generations.

Do you understand me?

I hope you hear me.

So it would be interesting if some experts

could discuss this matter.

Because I share your vision regarding diplomacy, the

express and artificial intellect.

Thank you.

Well, you know, me too, I just am

puzzled.

Yes, time flies, and modern generation, kids, young

generation, have a different perspective.

Many things to them which were fantastic to

us in their times.

To them, it's like porridge in the morning.

Day-to-day routine, you know?

Well, I'm talking about generational gap and creation

of new images of life.

Who knows?

Perhaps when modern kids who are now in

kindergarten, they have iPhones, smartphones in their hands

all the way, and whatever.

And also at home, they play with these

things.

But we use the Russian proverb sometimes.

When old people meet together and talk about

younger generation, they say, oh, yes.

Before, grass was greener, and the water was

wetter.

Now, 50 years later, the present day, kids

will say, oh, yes, our days, the intellect

was artificial.

And now what happens now?

Nothing interesting.

So this is very important.

Very important subject.

I will tell you one thing.

In our ministry, we do have a department

dealing with information security, cyber security.

But that's narrower than the subject matter of

artificial intellect.

We want to reform this department right now.

We have planned within a month or month

and a half to have a special review

collegium meeting.

My staff is now working on it.

That's necessary to take into account.

It touches upon such very cornerstone matters as

the matter of security and the question of

development of a state.

It's no accident that I think a couple

of years ago, President Obama said that he

who is the lead of moving the ball

here with AI in practical spheres, he will

be the leader of the world.

So I think there will be several countries

of such nature.

And we need to use it in diplomacy,

of course.

Since you were early, when you need to

run along the corridors, when I started my

career, you had to run along the corridors.

And the typist worked on it.

Thanks God, there will be no mistakes.

Then you have to use some white color.

I don't remember even the name of it.

So it's corrected.

Type it again.

I have to admit we've been living a

typist and with AI, I have to be

honest with you.

But the process was very lengthy and tiresome.

Now you see it.

And this speed right now in the search

of what you need, you have to value

that.

And this process should be further modernized when

you get what you want.

Facts, I mean facts of the history, background,

something new.

When the Ukrainian crisis evolves very often, we

have to recall, to remind the French, the

Brits and Germans who simply lie, really lie.

Very recently, Macron, one month ago, for example,

simply stated that Putin refused to abide by

the provisions of the Minsk agreement.

You know, even what happened too many years

ago, when his predecessor admitted he didn't want

to do anything about it, now they turn

it around.

Well, getting those facts handy, refreshing your knowledge,

just clicking the button without any need to

like to serve the files, thousands of pages,

that's very helpful.

But then, having got that facture, find that,

your head's work starts.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

We have more questions.

Please take the mic.

Thank you very much for this privilege to

be here with you.

My name is Louis Francois, Cameron Embassy.

I know the contribution of Russia in the

world affairs, sports, culture, science.

I simply am hard put to understand why

this hate, Russophobia of the U.S. to

Russia.

We can witness Russophobia.

It's a symptom of hate.

But what do you think is the reason

of such behavior, such conduct?

We understand.

We are Africans here.

And they look at us as some race

below them.

You look like them, like Westerners.

You have contributed a lot to science, culture.

So why such hate to you on their

part?

I'd like to be clear about it.

Well, you know, there are many judgments on

this score.

Me too.

I have recalled some historic examples.

When, let's say, Napoleon, the great emperor of

France, gathered virtually the entire Europe in his

army to attack Russia, to attack Russian empire.

What it resulted in, everybody knows.

After the First World War, as they say,

Germany was insulted, it was humiliated, they say.

So they sought, you know, some revenge in

their minds.

Whatever happened, what matters here is what resulted.

Again, the result was similar to Napoleon.

Again, they gathered virtually the entire Europe under

the colors of the Third Reich and attacked

the Soviet Union.

Everybody did so.

French did, the French did, they participated in

the siege of Leningrad.

Not only Germans, virtually all leading European countries

were there.

They simply, you know, put hands in the

air, they considered Hitler and joined his army.

In France, yes, there were great people in

France.

Recently, I remember them, Charles de Gaulle, for

one, who headed the resistance in France.

Recently, we remember the great Normandie Nebel regiment.

All of that has to be appreciated.

Those were the people who, on the contrary

of the policies of the leaders of the

country, joined that resistance movement.

It was them who upheld the national pride

of France.

Having said that, currently we can witness practically

the same thing happening when the administration of

Biden too united the entire Europe and added

to that amalgamation some satellites in Asia like

Japan, South Korea, those countries whom they regard

as their most obedient servants in terms of

their will.

Again, they geared all those states against Russia

primarily through financing of the region, supplying it

with most modern weaponry, including those to strike

inside Russian territory.

And all of that is happening under the

Nazi slogan because of the fact that most

experienced, as they say, combat units of Ukraine

are Nazi battalions, Azov, Aidar, who currently are

raising their hands and of whom Zelensky is

very much scared.

They openly have labels of Nazi nature, Nazi

flags, tattoos, those movements with fire in night

to honor Shushevich at night.

Those were traitors who killed Ukrainians, Russians, and

others.

So when we say denazification, we refer to

this.

And why that is happening?

Why the West is so restless in trying

to give us on the battlefield a so

-called strategic defeat?

Perhaps they don't like the fact that Russia

is independent.

Currently, they are divided in their views, Europe

and U.S.A. The Trump administration, too,

would like to make America great, number one,

whatever.

Any administration in U.S. would hold and

put the ball forward in this direction.

But the current administration, at least they have

returned to normalcy.

Whatever contradictions you might have, politicians and diplomats

especially should talk to each other.

They must do that.

Even if they have absolutely opposing views during

the Cold War, there was always a dialogue

in place.

But Biden simply cut it off, and the

whole Europe was obedient to them.

And was just taking the lead.

They cut all relations, not diplomatic, but practical

relations.

I was flicker busted one year ago when

there were new ideas discussed one more time,

and that was under Biden administration, I remember.

And there were some events in the European

Union organized, just summits of sorts, meetings of

foreign ministers.

And they adopted some texts on Ukraine.

I don't remember exactly what was there, but

I simply asked my staff members.

And I might say as well that early

in those years, first and foremost, we had

summits twice per year, EU-Russian.

And regularly, each six months, we had meetings

with European Union ambassadors.

The same with African ambassadors.

Shortly we'll have meeting with Latin America, Asian

ambassadors, CIS.

So we invited to this meeting with the

Minister of Foreign Affairs, all those European Union

ambassadors, and representatives of the European Council for

a special meeting to talk about Ukraine, to

ask whatever questions they might entertain there.

And collectively, they refused.

Not because of the fact that I'm so

proud or take insult easily.

No.

When you work in any country, and when

the Minister of Foreign Affairs invites you a

free, willing talk, then you are not an

ambassador if you don't follow the suit.

Well, I know a few words how you

can characterize such a person.

I will not use them.

Anyway, that's a shame.

That's a great shame for any diplomat to

do so.

Therefore, as of now, we don't communicate with

them.

They don't communicate with us.

Sometimes when the need is urgent on specific

matters, they do.

Just coming back to your question.

It's going to be a long research of

historians to answer these questions.

In our Russian history, there were quite a

few wars which, overwhelmingly, were not started by

us, but all those wars which were waged

from the Orient.

That's the Tatar-Mongol yoke, most renowned.

Well, somehow, we could, on a human level,

somehow agree, and ultimately we agreed.

The same follows, should I say, regarding Russian

-Turkish wars.

Just to think about it, from the Orient,

there were quite a few bloodshed wars there.

But ultimately, we achieved mutually respectful balance.

But from the left side, guys are not

quiet.

And again, very recently, they have reaffirmed, I

read somewhere, it seems to be true.

They say since they felt that there is

a disunity showing between the U.S. and

Europe, and not only because of Ukraine, not

at all, but simply because of the fact

that the Trump administration, first and foremost, wants

to push aside all the impediments for mutually

advantageous cooperation with Russia.

We are not against it.

If it is indeed mutually advantageous and honest,

the President recently at a meeting with Business

Russia explained on what terms those who left

Russian market could return.

We will not do it for the betterment

of the Russian business, of course.

But we are ready to do that anyhow.

And Trump said that he is ready for

a normal mutually advantageous economic and finance interaction,

logistics and more, with any country.

Now they had a very successful, apparently, very

successful visit to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab

Emirates on his part.

On top of that, the Trump administration, they

tell us themselves, they say we have different

programs, Iranian nuclear program, natural relations between Arabs

and Israel, and, of course, the Chinese People's

Republic, by all documents, the U.S. says

that's their main challenge, challenge to the goal

they pursue in Washington.

Their number one purpose is that nobody should

be stronger than them anywhere, financially, economically, militarily,

whatever.

Therefore, European affairs, you know, are somewhat getting

in the shade.

And there is an apparent desire, and on

the part of the Trump administration, they have

publicly stated, they say, you have proposed, you

don't like it, okay, let's Europe deal with

that.

We have other business to take care of,

they say.

But there are many facts that give us

evidence of the fact that neither Berlin, Paris,

or Brussels, especially London, neither of them want

to get any peace in Ukraine.

They think that if U.S. is somewhat

getting aside from active involvement, that will also

be a complaint.

Then Europe, they think, should take care of

themselves, and Macron has come up with the

idea of European army with nuclear warheads be

put in a common basket under such circumstances.

As before, I think, according to our information,

they are still talking directly.

They say, no, you should not stop mobilizing

Europe against Russia.

In this regard, Ukraine is an invaluable instrument

for them.

Well, there are many mercenaries and non-mercenaries.

In fact, under the face of mercenaries, they

have instructors who are active military duty servicemen

in NATO states.

And right now, they want to introduce those

stabilization forces in that country.

Well, you know, we have explained so many

times that this is going to be absolutely

unacceptable for Russia.

But they still continue to put the ball

forward.

Well, they are asking for it.

You know, Macron, the day before yesterday, on

TTF1 television channel, he said, we cannot afford

a direct clash with Russia, we don't want

World War III.

Therefore, to the line of engagement, we will

not go.

But on the territory of Ukraine, a little

bit further, we will go.

That will, they say, restrain Russia, because they

say Russia wants to attack Europe.

And that's the President talking.

Not the President of some novelty country, but

the President of a country with many centuries

of history, tradition, culture.

So, that's a problem, you know.

Thus, we have a saying in Russia, it's

not possible to understand it with one's brains.

There was a hand in the fourth row.

Please pass the microphone.

Sergey Viktorovich, thank you for your participation in

such a direct dialogue.

I have a desire.

The first speaker, regarding you, you have your

own voice in the room.

So, who do you introduce yourself?

I represent the Russian Union of the Tourist

Industry.

Tourism is part of my life.

We're working intensely with the legislative and executive

branch.

And as an initiative goes, I can see

that there is a demand on the part

of African countries, friendly countries, in the sphere

of tourism.

If diplomats were driven to the regions, that

would give them a possibility to think in

depth.

And maybe we could systematically do that, to

have this cross-fertilization.

And maybe we could set up a coordination

council on tourism under the government, including diplomats.

You should probably join the diplomats' board.

You know, you have started with such a

simple question, just regarding the tours of diplomats

in Russia.

Now you have to lobby your interests with

the government.

Well, you know, first, the countries have a

demand.

They want to see how tourism works in

Russia, and to start to interact B2B.

I lectured in the university last year for

the BRICS representatives.

I know this question inside out.

And today I've heard from my colleague about

such a request.

And I've heard that some work is underway.

Maybe we could make it more systematic on

the agenda.

Well, we have a Ministry of Economic Development

involved in tourism.

We are not involved directly in tourism.

We ensure an optimal pathway, as much as

we can do for the working conditions for

diplomats in our country.

We are interested that they know more about

the Russian Federation.

That's about our terms of reference.

Yeah, I understand.

But when they travel to the region, won't

they have to tell you that we need

to set up a Ministry of Tourism?

No, not exactly.

So that they would learn more about the

potential of those regions.

And to diplomats, that might be a door

for their business.

Well, you know, business of diplomats is not

a very correct connotation.

Thank you.

Could you give the floor to him?

Well, we are to provide for the possibilities

for their tours.

And the Governor will organise the necessary tours.

And it's his purpose to show his region.

From this perspective, there is no lack of

resources in the right diplomatic academy.

Thank you.

Thank you for your expert assessment.

This year is not about the 80th anniversary

of victory, but also the 80th anniversary of

the United Nations, of this large organisation.

It's a large jubilee.

I know you worked for many years in

the representation of the Russian Federation and the

UN.

Under the current circumstances, what would be your

wishes to jubilee?

Well, to survive, I would say, to survive.

Recently, there was a scandal in place when

they gave recent statistics, the Secretariat of the

UN, on contributions.

The budget being, I say, 3.5 billion

for the year of the UN entirely.

The debt, unpaid outstanding contributions, almost more than

a half of that amount.

And Guterres was asked, or maybe one of

his staff members, officially, what will you do?

Will the UN not be shut down?

He said, no, no, it will not.

Well, we will have, probably, a time to

be more economical in our budget.

And they have a room to do that,

of course.

When, I remember, there was Guterres Galle, the

Secretary General at the time, and he invited

one of the heads of state for a

meeting.

They just entered in their cavalcade, of course,

to the building of the General Assembly and

other intergovernmental bodies.

There is a skyscraper where a secretariat is

located on 80 floors, and the head of

state, who was for the first time at

their premises, and the Secretary General says, yes,

that's the building of the secretariat, he says.

And he asked this head of state, how

many people work here in this secretariat?

And the answer was, really working, almost half

of them.

That's a life story.

And in bureaucracy, there is a room to

economize, of course, to spare some budget.

Especially, we just talked about AI.

That could save a lot of money, artificial

intelligence.

But certainly, you cannot undermine the possibility, and

that would not be right.

The main debtor is the U.S. They

have more than $1 billion.

On top of that, there are debts on

peacekeeping operations.

That's a separate budget they have.

Russia is at the third position on debts,

in regular budget, and in the budget for

special peacekeeping operations.

Not because we are not a decent group,

but because of the fact that some sanctions,

which are very bad and prohibit us to

make contributions to the budget.

For the third time of these three years,

I have mentioned that to Guterres.

He says, what can I do?

That's a sad story.

When the Secretary General cannot achieve, cannot do

anything, when a certain country, especially a hosting

country, who should promote all around the normal

functioning of the UN, should block.

Block transfers from one sovereign state of its

contribution, which, by law, are necessary to be

made, to be paid.

Well, together with my friend, Antonio Guterres, we

have several problems being discussed.

For example, when Obama, at the end of

the year 2016, almost nine years ago, many

years ago, when he captured some diplomatic buildings,

we addressed the committee, which they have on

relations with the host country, and we presented

facts there.

There were also claims to Americans and hosting

countries that they are supposed to ensure proper

function of all states.

They limited travels beyond New York for our

diplomats.

And inside New York, too, they sort of

wanted to say, no, no, it's just this

route, left or right, paid for it, penalized.

So we stood all day for discussion of

the committee of relations with the host country,

and they accepted this recommendation to the Secretary

General to undertake the necessary steps, including for

arbitrary rule.

And for the ninth year, they don't want

to address this matter.

Even he has this direct instruction of the

committee.

So I have quite a few questions to

tackle there with them.

Once again, one of the simplest things, that's

the tragedy in Bucha, in the environs of

Kiev, which the West has used as one

of the factors to walk out of the

agreement between Russia and Ukraine in April 2002,

and they used that as a pretext for

the new package of sanctions.

Up till now, nobody knows what the results

of the review have been.

Many times, publicly stated, we have asked the

Human Rights Committee of the UN.

We have asked.

They have a special committee on Ukraine.

We have officially asked them, give us, please,

any information, whatever, and complete silence on their

part.

We know they have such data, but categorically

it's prohibited to them to share this information,

which means they get instructions from the governments,

several governments, not from the collective bodies of

the UN, that is.

And last but not least, several times publicly

in the Security Council of the UN, at

the presence of all delegations, I addressed Secretary

General, who was also in the room.

Can you at least help us to get

the list of persons whose bodies were shown

by the BBC correspondents who incidentally found themselves

in this environment of Kyiv at the time?

And nobody knows anything about those bodies since

then.

On top of that, when I visited last

time, last two times in New York, I

had press briefings there, and I told them,

Dear colleagues, journalists usually want to do some

muckracking to get to the roots of the

problem.

But here, it's all on the surface.

Can I get the names of those perished

people who were very cautiously put on the

road there?

No response at all.

Well, it gives you an idea.

Of course it does.

Now, Malaysian Boeing.

Malaysian Boeing, for one.

Just at the verge of the arrival of

the Prime Minister of Malaysia to visit with

us yesterday, Abdullah Ibrahim, the International Organization of

Civil Aviation, ICAO, they have issued a document

on the outcomes of the investigation of the

Malaysian Boeing with regards to the catastrophe in

July 2014.

The members of the Council of Governors, at

least the majority of them, didn't see that

document.

So the leadership of this structure issued a

report, made it public before, prior, to acquaintance

with them of the governing council of that

organization.

Nothing has been taken into account from the

perspective of our view of it, which we

mentioned on several occasions.

They didn't take into account that Ukraine refused,

which they had to do, refused to close

the airspace.

Everybody knows they did do that, did close

the airspace.

But Ukraine refused also to answer many requests

to provide the radar data, which has been

omitted completely.

We, on our part, even initial radar data

provided to them.

The U.S. refused to provide the satellite

data.

Even challenging us, charging us in the course

of investigation, they underlined that the blame of

the Russian side is proven by the data

which they have from their satellite.

But in the investigation report, final report, they

state that U.S. has claimed they do

have data which support their claim of Russian

blame.

They don't represent those data, but we believe

them, they say.

They have, you know, made inquiry of 13

or maybe 15 testimonies.

Only one of them was given review just

in attendance.

The others, nobody saw them.

It was just testimony given anonymous, like Schwarzenegger

in his favorite role said, you have just

to trust him.

Nothing trusted.

There is a whole lot of other mismatches

which in no way are explained on their

part.

Thus, the UN Secretariat, of course, should I

say, is privatized.

When the leading positions, you know, there are

more than 100 positions of deputies of Secretary

General.

At the bottom, they are devoted to some

sectoral, tertiary, secondary subjects, which perhaps are important,

of course, but don't give a possibility to

directly control structures of Secretariat.

But then there are positions which give such

a priority that Secretary General, decision makers, citizen

of Portugal, there are his deputies, deputy of

Secretary General, representative of the African continent this

time.

Yes, she does have certain functions, but it's

not about direct governance.

And the Secretary General of the United Nations,

the deputy on political affairs, very important position.

That's U.S., deputy on peacekeeping operations.

France, deputy on humanitarian operations.

Virtually, again, that's about money, that's about, you

know, rescuers, humanitarian aid.

That's Britain.

Deputy on security matters of the whole U

.N. system and its projects on the ground.

That's Canada.

Well, there is a deputy on terrorism, combating,

that's Russian Federation.

And that's a very specific field.

Social economic issues, that's Chinese people's republic, also

an important position.

But again, that's limited to non-political aspects

of decision-making in U.N. Therefore, a

couple years ago, we have come out with

the idea of reconsidering criteria of this formation

of secretariat.

So not only that economic potential be taken

into account and decisive, as it happens right

now.

If you talk about GDP, yes, then the

West still will have predominance here.

But to consider that the formation of secretariat

be based on the rule which is enshrined

in the secretariat, sovereign equality of state, so

that only personal qualities, meritocratia be used, like

in Europe, so that they have some percentage.

But whether you know or not, can or

cannot, want or want not, be the criteria.

Again.

Well, thank you.

Let's have a last question here.

Please.

Elena Kudryavtseva, expert publishing house.

Right now, our delegation is on the way

to Istanbul talks.

Maybe they are already out there.

What main points, what main reference points do

they have for their mission?

Ukraine has organised another show around this meeting.

And people are afraid that they could walk

out of these talks.

And what results in Moscow would be satisfied

if they happen?

Well, I have already stated in the very

beginning of our remarks, our President has on

several occasions mentioned this.

I don't need to repeat.

Last June, talking in the MFA, he put

forward our position, which boils down to the

need of not a truce to be concluded,

so that, again, Ukraine be flushed with weapons

and be prompted to continue this war, but

to ensure a long-term, durable settlement on

a fair basis, representing and reflecting the interests

of all parties involved.

To do that, you need to do away

with the core reasons of this conflict.

We warned for many years that these core

reasons should not be set in place, meaning

what the group of putschists did when they

violently seized power in Kiev, setting threats to

Russia's security, that is, involving all the territory

of Ukraine, NATO infrastructures.

And NATO wanted that very much.

And what putschists also did, that's extermination of

Russian culture, Russian language, this or that way

related Russia to Ukraine.

Basically, that's it.

And the second part of this answer, I

would also include denazification, what they have been

doing out there, this regime of Zelensky in

Ukraine in regards to anything Russian.

That's a pure Nazi.

And demilitarization.

Like I said, among the core reasons were

the plans of NATO to use the territory

of Ukraine for bases, to set up bases

on Ukrainian territory, naval bases in Crimea, for

one.

Prior to this coup d'etat, and those

coup d'etats which needed and wanted to

do that in Azov, all that was in

plans.

So the question what military potentials Ukraine might

have, it's not just an idle question.

And no foreign military presence is to be

discussed here.

As regards the past tense, well, diplomacy is

not about guessing.

It's about doing something.

To do something, one needs to do it

professionally.

Professionally, that implies not like Zelensky does it

with a mic running around saying, Putin, please

come here personally to meet with me.

No.

To be more realistic.

Thank you, colleagues.

Thank you very much.

We will meet again within the framework of

this format.

Since it's a diplomatic club, let's ask representatives

of the diplomatic corps to say you have

an advantage here, an advantage, you know, on

this diplomatic level.

You should also participate because our people are

probably getting it up.

Thank you for your questions.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.