Speaker 1 (00:00):
Do not slip as that

Speaker 2 (00:01):
12 years ago, you gave an interview to the wall street journal, a very reputable newspaper. And you said that you considered Russia, a European country. Do you still feel that way?

Speaker 1 (00:13):
Geograph

Speaker 3 (00:15):
Well, geographically with the same country, without a doubt, Russia has been and will continue you to be a European country just as it is an Asian country in terms of its geography and history. Russia is a European country. Also we're European in terms of our cultural identity. Cause a good part of our population represents the European civilization, which is closely linked to the Christian civilization. But we also have a lot of people that belong to the Muslim faith as well as to Russia's other major religions, Buddhism and Judaism.

Speaker 2 (00:46):
Obviously we're not talking about geography here today. Many Russians, including the country's top officials. If you listen to what they are saying, feel that we are setting ourselves up against Europe as its opposite

Speaker 1 (01:01):
Top.

Speaker 3 (01:02):
No it's them who are setting themselves up against us, trying to distinguish themselves from us. They don't have a monopoly on European. This, the European civilization develops steadily all across the continent. Sure. We are not in that sense. Successes to the Roman empire and like a number of other European countries that belong to the Germanic language group. We have our own history, but our history is just as European as theirs. So when they say to us that we are no longer considered European, that sounds ridiculous, frankly. That's all I have to say about our identity. That's no reason to make any judgment. You asked me a question and I told you that we are even more European than they are. That's

Speaker 1 (01:39):
All

Speaker 4 (01:43):
The scale of anti Russian sentiment in this situation is staggering. It's like whole Europe, even the countries we believed were our friends and partners are United in their DUP for our country. And it's manifested at every level. Now Europeans always claim. They were so tolerant and committed to the principles of democracy. Say such terrible things about Russian Russians, about our leaders. Not to mention in Biden. I don't think we've ever heard an rhetoric like that from a top official of his caliber. On the other hand, if we take Poland, maybe Biden is not so bad after all. And if I may ask a question about Poland, if we could move on for a moment from discussing the main issue, what's your assessment war's position in this situation? Cuz it feels like Poland is not on his parent to play a key role here, but also have the Wolf and the Western parts of Ukraine is some kind of protector. I understand that this is two questions in one. So may I ask you both?

Speaker 1 (02:31):
The

Speaker 3 (02:32):
Rhetoric is definitely very sharp. It's no doubt defined by current events and all the political forces in Europe, but trying to use this situation to their advantage and achieve their own goals in terms of domestic policy, every country has so something to deal with, be it elections or a crisis or the need to create a coalition. And so they need a target or an enemy in this case, Russia is the designated enemy. So I'm not surprised by the rhetoric. You're right though. When you say that sometimes it defies comprehension or as they say goes beyond good and evil at an everyday level. We also see this resu phobic rhetoric manifesting. Although I would say it differs case by case. It also has to do with new communication methods, such as social media platforms, because the patterns that were less common before can now take root instantly.

Speaker 3 (03:17):
Resto phobic rhetoric is not thing new though. Recently I quoted a Russian poet who talked about how the west ganged up on Russia 150 years ago and did everything in their power to turn us into outcast and pariahs. He noted that this witch hunt lasted for 30 years. I can't help, but see certain similarities between those times and modern Russia. Russia in its current form is just over 30 years old. And for those 30 years we've been blamed for everything, especially in the last 20 years or so. They've said we've picked up everything from the USS R including its ideology, even though that's not true. And they criticize us for this and that. So the rot phobic rhetoric we are seeing from the west now is nothing new. From time to time, we hear absolutely astonishing remarks, but we are polite and we never get personal.

Speaker 3 (04:02):
No one points out that there are some people who exhibit clear signs of dementia or old age son humility. No one talks about grandpas who lose their balance while climbing the stairs to board a plane or forget which way their office is and go straight into the bushes. No one points this out because we are polite and refrain from mentioning these things. But all that bores down to ethics and good manners as the Poland, I did have to speak on the subject recently because of the role Poland is trying to take on. Now, Poland has been trying to win back hundreds of years rather than decades of its fail attempts to restore its former glory. And if it can't do that, then at least to remind the world, the fact that Poland used to be a very serious power, both in Europe and globally, almost an empire in the making today.

Speaker 3 (04:43):
The country's elite is represented by the law and justice party and they have been on a pro-American and aggressively anti-US path for the last 10 years. I can recall a different time when Poland and Russia actively tried to restore their relationship, especially in the wake of the tragic death of the Polish president. And it looked quite ball because there were no impossible obstacles between us, but once the opposition party, I just mentioned rose to power. The country's vector changed dramatically. It became wildly ROIC. I cannot call it anything but political ility since there's nothing more to it, they're trying to consolidate the voters that are very anti Russian. And it's no secret that Poland has quite a number, such people as there are historical reasons for that. So they're trying to take advantage of that and put their finger in Ukraine's affairs, especially since Poland is now hosting a fairly large number of refugees from Ukraine and Poland is trying to use that for its own benefit.

Speaker 3 (05:35):
They're adopting some measures that do not only aim to support the refugees cause naturally only one can want to help them out, but also to find yet another way to punish Russia, they're proposing some new schemes, even amending the constitution in order to be able to confiscate Russia's property yesterday, they expelled a large number of Russian diplomats. I don't really understand what they're trying to achieve with all that, because if Russia were to expel a matching number of diplomats, Poland would have to close down its entire embassy. Is that good? At the end of the day, it's up to each software in state to decide whether to maintain diplomatic relations or not. This kind of policy is utterly destructive. I'd like to recap that Polish authorities are simply trying to prove that utmost loyalty to the United States and get or points for it by way of financial and economic support, as well as to get more political support domestically, this is all sad and it's not going to end well quite naturally, they can expect a symmetrical reaction to their actions or countermeasures dictated by international law. We will simply end up in a situation where we stop talking to each other completely. Is it good for Poland? I don't know. It's Poland's decision at the end of the day.

Speaker 1 (06:43):
Of

Speaker 2 (06:43):
Course we are not of the general staff and I am not a representative of the ministry of defense, but I will tell you honestly, that my friends and acquaintances constantly ask how long the offense will ask. But as I said, we are not on friends and Skype and Banque, but the security. So the Russian Federation is here. Can I ask you what you personally think about the course of the operation and how much it actually meets the goals that were announced?

Speaker 3 (07:08):
The operation took place primarily because the goals that the Russian state set for itself were not achieved through diplomacy. The president said this at the start, the course of the operation, the plans for its implementing determined by the Supreme commander in chief, according to the constitution, it is the president. The president gave his assessments. The operation is progressing. According to plan, the plan was prepared and approved by the Supreme commander. Therefore, I will not give any additional assessments. Now. It seems to me that this is completely exhaustive assessment that was given by the president, but it is obvious that the operation will continue until the goal set by the president of the country are achieved. These goals concern the future of Ukraine. The state, as of Ukraine is a neutral state, a state that does not pursue an anti Russian policy, a state that is not militarized and a state that should be our normal neighbor, therefore until the results of the demilitarization and deification of Ukraine are achieved. The operation must continue as it was conceived by the president of the country, as it was decided,

Speaker 4 (08:04):
The us has taken similar actions on the multiple of occasions in the past and in the regions that are in no way. Part of the immediate interest, these countries are not their neighbors or a threat to the us, Tela, Iraq, Afghanistan, but the us has military action has never resulted in such a of consolidated response from the west. No one responded to a bombed wedding party in Afghanistan, but shutting down European clothes shops in the us, there were no other repercussions either. Why, why are we witnessing such a powerful response to Russia's moves that you say are fully justified in terms of our security?

Speaker 5 (08:37):
Well,

Speaker 3 (08:37):
Now this is not going to sound as an insight, but clearly the us believes it is a nation outside, international law, above everything else, following the collapse of the USSR and an end to the bipolar world order based on the standoff between NATO and the Warsaw pact, the us saw itself as the winner and the sole beneficiary of the Soviet union's demise. While in reality, the Soviet union broke up, not because of NATO's activities, but for internal reasons. And that's why they behave accordingly. They believe they cannot be brought to justice, but they have the right to judge everyone. They are the ultimate decision makers. They have the right to do whatever they want. There are a number of drivers by behind this behavior. First of all, economically the us is a very strong country. Secondly, it issues the main reserve currency with vengeance, continuing to pile up its domestic debt.

Speaker 3 (09:24):
In fact, it is the whole world that is the USS creditor. The entire world could be struggling, plunged into crisis while the Americans are printing dollars. That is why they now feel completely unpunished in this respect as well. Exactly for that reason, the us has actions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam a few decades ago have never come under any legal scrutiny by the international community. However, at the time of the Vietnam war, the Soviet union was still alive pushing for quite heavy debates as a mul lateral platforms. However, at the time of the Vietnam war, the Soviet union was still alive pushing for quite heavy debates. At multi later platforms, the Soviet union, as you know, was helping Vietnam back then the us pursued its policy for a long time. We all remember the way it ended. Mind you Vietnam is thousands of kilometers away from the us.

Speaker 3 (10:10):
Now it's a fact, few people remember even in this country, cause it was a long time ago, but my Vietnam friends said the us intervention in Vietnam throughout much of the 1960s killed over 1 million Vietnamese. Just think about it over a million, take a look at the map and see for yourself where the us is and where Vietnam is still. The us went in and over a million people died as a result, even then it was never widely condemned. Although we had the Warsaw packed and Soviet union in place and after the Soviet union disappeared from the world map, along with the Warsaw pack, the us got absolutely out of control. They think they can do whatever they want. Yugoslavia. As a case in point we saw utter disregard for international law use of the armed forces and weapons by a number of countries, including depleted uranium ammunition.

Speaker 3 (10:56):
Was there uproar? No, they realized they could go ahead, concocted a justification and got away with it today. Some European leaders admit, well, yes, maybe they overreacted a little, but it does not go beyond that. Again, the us behaves this way around the world because they think there is no longer any competition, but they're wrong. Life does not stand still prompting new development in international relations and new countries emerging the strong powerhouses. It means new centers of gravity and international relations are being shaped. Take the people's Republic of China, India, and the Russian Federation. The UN world is over us is no longer the master of planet earth.

Speaker 2 (11:36):
You must be aware that some Russians packed their belongings and left the country immediately. After the special operation started in the Don bass. Do you think they will return or is it a one way ticket?

Speaker 3 (11:48):
How should I know?

Speaker 2 (11:50):
What can you say to those people who decided to leave Russia?

Speaker 3 (11:57):
Every man is the architect of his own fortune. It's their right to make such decisions. Some people have left for the time being, as I understand others have left for good fearing that the current situation may affect their lives in the future. It's their decision. I won't comment or criticize these people. It's obvious for me personally, that a significant part of these people will return to Russia. Eventually this military operation affects everyone's psychological state. You see people keep thinking about it. I believe this may have been one of the reasons for some people, but that's it. I believe what is more important for the country is for example, the way programmers treat current events, these businesses are international. Now they've ended up being cut off from everything payment systems, banking, operations, major foreign customers for them consequences are really harsh. And I can understand their motives, why they're trying to find a better place under the sun.

Speaker 3 (12:45):
The government has prepared a number of proposals to this end and the president has already signed a decree. Let's hope they'll succeed in mitigating the negative consequences for it. These specialists, and keep them in the country. Let's hope that most of them will stay in Russia. This is a real problem. And I'm really sorry for these people on a personal level because they are in a dire situation. And although it wasn't us to introduce these limitations, what we still have to think about how to make things better for these people. I can't give a moral and ethical assessment of these people's actions because I don't know their motivation. The motivation can be different in each particular case, as they say, don't judge and you will not be judged, let them return if they wish to. And if some of these people choose not to return, as I said, it's their personal choice.

Speaker 3 (13:27):
And some of them don't deserve our sympathy, but there's a great difference between those who simply left and those who expressively disapprove, the government's official position of the decision to carry out a military operation or even take the other side. I proceed from the belief that under routine circumstances is absolutely normal to criticize the decisions made by the government, even by the Supreme authorities. It's okay not to like something to disagree and to think that certain decisions will lead to negative consequences. It's normal, but not in the current situation. You see, if you go down this road, you can finally hit rock bottom and be like the BOLs Shavis and Len the wish defeat on their own country in world war I, and this is not just imoral thing to do. It is treason. And these people have put themselves in this position. No one will ever want to shake their hands. There are people like this, not many though. And once again, I'm not speaking about those who left the country for some simple reason, it's their personal choice. As I said, you have to draw a line between immigration, whatever the reason and treason, these things are not the same.

Speaker 4 (14:26):
And do you think that those who have remained in Russian society in Russia as a whole now support the operation in Ukraine? Ukraine

Speaker 6 (14:33):
Is just,

Speaker 3 (14:34):
Of course they do. And this is, is not my opinion. All the data is made public and no matter what our spiteful critics say or right, this support is obvious. According to the latest surveys, three quarters of the country's population support the operation being conducted. If we talk about the rating of the highest official, that is the present of our country than this rating is even higher. This in fact is the support. I'm not talking about a demonstration, this kind of unity. Like for example, we had recently in Lunik you see this is worth a lot. And it shows how people perceive the problems that our country is facing. I will say it again. You may be dissatisfied with certain decisions of the authorities. It is normal to criticize authorities. This is part of democracy, but it's such a difficult situation. This's impossible pursuit an anti-state line because this is betrayal.

Speaker 3 (15:18):
And unfortunately, such things have happened in the history of our country and in relatively recent period of history, when people went to abroad and began to criticize their state, you know, there is also a cultural code by the way, which is common across almost all countries. You can criticize anything inside your country, but if you've gone abroad, then it's not right to scold your country. You can criticize the authorities of your country, but not in a situation of war or an operation that is underway. Cause there are people who are fighting with weapons in their hands for your country, for your future, for our fatherland. And that's you oppose yourself to these people who risk their heads in lay down their lives for it. Well, this is how I feel about it.

Speaker 4 (15:56):
And if we talk about entrepreneurs about big businessmen, do they have support made the military offensive, taken into account? The fact that now a huge number of measures have been taken against them. The houses, vehicles, yours never and else have been taken from them. How do you feel about this taken into account? The fact that the west used to say that private properties should be honored and in general, is it normal to block accounts and populate houses with the refugees? This will be unpleasant to anyone

Speaker 1 (16:23):
Business.

Speaker 3 (16:24):
If we talk about business, this is also part of our society, including big business. They are, as they say guilty, without any guilt, let's ask ourselves a in general, at least someone from this big business is to some extent, capable of influencing a small fraction, one IOT O on the position of the country's leadership. I can tell you right away, no, no way, because we have different tasks. Anyone who manages the state, first of all, focuses on the interests of the whole country on the interest of the people of Russia. One who manages own business. This is a very important task. Only does this. Therefore, the calculations that by limiting Russian business, they will somehow influence the authorities are absolutely meaningless. They're simply stupid. They're also trying to influence the sectors of the economy that are behind this big business. And these are hundreds of thousands, millions of people.

Speaker 3 (17:11):
In fact, with these sanctions, the Western world is trying to influence this citizens of our country to hurt them. And of course, try to incite them to turn against the course of the state's leadership against the course of the president in the hope that in the end, it will result in some kind of trouble, some problems with the authorities. But it seems to me that these people who generate these decisions absolutely do not understand our mentality. They do not understand the attitude, the Russian people in the broader sense to the word. They do not understand the incentives that when such pressure is applied and this pressure is not on large entrepreneurs, not on big business. This is pressure on anyone and everyone. Society is consolidated. Even those who are hard done by in some way, or believe that they will receive little support or some wrong decisions were made in this situation say, well, yes, yes. They probably made a mistake in something, but in general, in this situation, I will stand for the state. This sit seems to me, they're absolutely unable to understand just that they were unable to understand 70 years ago and 100 years ago, and during various kinds of armed campaigns that were carried out, including against our country, these kind of restrictions and deprivations, they only unite people consolidate people, but to not divide them. And this is their main miscalculation. This is the weak spot of these stupid sanctions.

Speaker 4 (18:26):
Let's recall that the council of Europe tried to impose restrictions on Russia for many years. You said recently that there is not much holding us back now, particularly on the issue of the death penalty. Russia has renounced capital punishment by exceeding to a number of the council of Europe's conventions. Since this is an important issue for our nation. Here's my question. How probable is a return to the death penalty? Does Russia need it?

Speaker 3 (18:50):
This is a very complex issue. It depends on the worldview in general, it's a philosophical and moral dilemma. There are divergent views on the death penalty and it is natural. It's always been the case. There is one thing I know for sure the Russian constitutional court was definitely swayed in some of the rulings by the country's participation in the council of Europe's conventions. These convent are no longer binding for us. Nevertheless, there are legal guidelines provided by the constitutional court on the issue. And this is completely sovereign decision, not a direct outcome of our membership in the council of Europe. This is an obvious implicit connection though. Today, there are no restrictions in this regard. However, it is still a very thorny issue. There is not only a legal side to it, but also a moral one. Even the basic sources of religions provide opposing answers to this question.

Speaker 3 (19:36):
The religious view on this issue is one of the basic arguments surrounding debate on the death penalty in any country, Europe abandoned capital punishment at some point. So did we and like the us China and a number of other countries, they still keep it as punishment for those who've committed, particularly grave crime. First of all, murder again today, international provisions are no longer binding, but there are domestic legal provisions set out by the constitutional court. They reflect the current crime rate. If it does not get outta control, I believe this legal posture could remain the same, but legal postures are not eternal. Either a shift in our society could force a revision of the legal posture. The dece of the constitutional court are not sacred wri. They may change. We've seen it throughout Russia's history. The Soviet union abolished the death penalty after the war, but it did not last long. And the death penalty was restored pretty fast. This was due to a spike in violent crimes, including murders. I dunno how it will pan out going forward.

Speaker 2 (20:34):
Mr. Mede, do you think a lot about the pressure that Russian nationals now have to deal with abroad? Often they face real danger. I saw a video online showing what happened to the Russian embassy in Ireland. I lived there for a bit as a kid, my father was posted there and it was covered in spray paint and a driver crashed his car into the gates. It's just unimaginable. Something like this could happen to any Russian national abroad. Meanwhile, the UN says that a ceasefire in Ukraine would bring the levels of Russ phobia down. What's your take on that position? And does this connection make sense?

Speaker 3 (21:09):
I wouldn't call it the UN position. The UN is an international organization comprised of more than 200 nation states. If we are talking about what the UN officials said, well, that may be so let me openly say that. Recently, the UN governing bodies, these secretary general guitarists as well have made several statements that I would call questionable from point of view of international law. UN should be above conflicts instead of taking sides. Of course, the levels of phobia these days are through the roof. As we've already discussed, these are manifested in the form of attacks on Russian people and pressure exerted on our diplomatic missions. What is there to say on the subject? If we take diplomatic missions, the responsibility lies with the country where the diplomatic mission is located. This is the host country's task. As soon as the host country becomes indifferent to the fate of an embassy, diplomatic ties are usually either suspended or severed.

Speaker 3 (21:57):
So the incident in Dublin that you mentioned is fully Island's responsibility. They just have to take proper steps in response. It happens to ordinary people to, I see it and read about it. It's clear from the online social media content, where they criticize Russia a lot, I guess it's to do the current events. Some genuinely feel that way. Some are doing it for the hyper because everyone else does it. It's their own personal choice. Sooner or later, the tide will subside. That's how it works, but the memories will remain. We will remember it too, including the Russian people who got stuck abroad while on vacational or on a business trip will be etched in everyone's memory. They say they don't want Russians there. And it's only natural that our people who happen to be abroad at the time will remember that. I doubt that they will think higher of Europeans now than they used to.

Speaker 3 (22:41):
What about the hospitality tolerance and neutrality that you spoke of all of it evaporated instantly, which means it never existed in the first place in means there was no culture and no values. It was just a facade. And now it's all the filth has come to the surface, which we see in the behavior of every person, spewing Russia, phobic ideas. We will remember it too. We won't forget anyone who did it in their official capacity or just in personal interactions. These days, everything is recorded. We all have a digital footprint. That's something everyone should remember. We, and they write nasty things about Russia, our policies, or our people who are being engraved in our people's collective memory forever. And I'm not exaggerating here.

Speaker 4 (23:17):
Let's talk about something else. You mentioned it. Specialists who have been gravely affected and who will get assistance, but I want to ask you about our athletes. What's happening to them is unprecedented. They're not allowed to compete who they're forced to do. So under a neutral flat they're pressured into sign in petitions and making statements. We all know that in some sports and athletes career fleeting, what Russia ends up on the sidelines of international sports competition is very important. It's crucial for athletes to go up against talent to opponents. Now it seems that the doping scandal was just a trial run.

Speaker 3 (23:48):
First, let me say that. Of course it's tough on our athletes. Same as our it specialists, but for the latter, the challenges started fairly recently when our friends started trying to restrict us in every way and erect an iron curtain. When it comes to finances and law for athletes, the situation has been die since 2014. You're right. Our athletes train hard and they're not allowed to compete if they are. They have to basically compete anonymously, no Russian flag, no Russian Anthem. They're forced to distance themselves from their country saying that they only represent themselves. This is cynical and imoral, and don't even get me started on the IOC decision regarding our Paralympic team. It's simply incomprehensible it's monster and disgraceful. So our main goal is to support power athletes, to make sure they feel involved in social life, on par with everyone else, but they get told no, your government is awful.

Speaker 3 (24:35):
And so we don't care about you. That goes against any moral code. I think that the IOC behaved in the worst way possible here. Yes, it all started eight years ago with the doting scandal. We admitted that we had a doping problem in our country. We are at fault here, but saying that Russia, I mean, Russian coaches and athletes were the only ones to use. Doping is outrageous and cynical. Other countries did it too, but it's Russia that everyone turned on. The objective that our friends from the Anglo Saxon world predominantly set was to push Russia out of international competitive sports. What for again, that was to stir resentment within Russia and insight people to do something about it. So our athletes have been suffering since 2014. We'll continue to support them in every way and to organize as many competitions domestically as we can. We seek to defend their rights in all organizations, even though that's a huge challenge. These days, these decisions were, were made by specific people in the IOC, the EU, the us and the UK, which is not part of the EU anymore. It's clear that certain people are behind these decisions and those deprived of competitive sports will channel their bitterness in their direction.