Well, that this is a fake.
They're trying to fuel the Russian threat.
The threat I think you're referring to is a Russian
invasion of Poland,
Latvia. Expansionist behavior is Can you imagine a scenario where
you sent Russian troops to Poland
only in one case if Poland attacks Russia,
Why? Because we have no interest in Poland,
Latvia, or anywhere else. Why would we do that?
We simply don't have any interest.
It's just threat mongering.
From the outside, it seems like this could
devolve or evolve into something that brings the entire world
into conflict and could
initiate some a nuclear launch.
And so why don't you just call Biden and say,
let's work this out,
What's there to work out?
It's very simple. I repeat,
we have contacts through various agencies.
I will tell you what we are saying on this
matter and what we are conveying to the US leadership.
If you really want to stop fighting,
you need to stop supplying weapons.
It will be over within a few weeks.
That's it. And then we can agree on some terms.
Before you do that, stop
what's easier? Why would I call him?
What should I talk to him about?
Or beg him for what?
And what message did you get past?
You're going to deliver such and such weapons to Ukraine?
Oh, I'm afraid. I'm afraid.
Please don't. What is there to talk about?
I just have to ask.
You've said clearly that NATO expansion eastward is a violation
of the promise you all were made in 1990.
It's what messages
do you think NATO was worried about this becoming a
global war or a nuclear conflict?
At least that's what they're talking about.
And they're trying to intimidate their own population with an
imaginary Russian threat.
This is an obvious fact.
And thinking people, not Philistines,
but thinking people, analysts, those who are engaged in real
politics,
just smart people, understand perfectly well that this is a
fake.
They're trying to fuel the Russian threat.
The threat I think you're referring to is a Russian
invasion of Poland,
Latvia. Expansionist behavior is Can you imagine a scenario where
you send Russian troops to Poland
only in one case? If Poland attacks Russia,
Why? Because we have no interest in Poland,
Latvia or anywhere else. Why would we do that?
We simply don't have any interest.
It's just threat mongering,
one of our senior United States senators from the state
of New York,
Chuck Schumer, said yesterday. I believe that we have to
continue to fund the Ukrainian effort
or U.S. soldiers, citizens could wind up fighting there.
How do you assess that?
Well, if somebody has the desire to send regular troops,
that would certainly bring humanity to the brink of very
serious global conflict.
This is obvious.
Do the United States need this?
What for
thousands of miles away from your national territory?
Don't you have anything better to do?
You have issues on the border,
issues with migration, issues with the national debt,
more than $33 trillion.
You have nothing better to do.
So you should fight in Ukraine.
Wouldn't it be better to negotiate with Russia?
Make an agreement already understanding the situation that is developing
today,
realizing that Russia will fight for its interest to the
end,
and realizing this actually return to common sense.
Start respecting our country and its interests and look for
certain solutions.
It seems to me that this is much smarter and
more rational.
The question is, do they want it or
not? Further on, President of Ukraine issued A decree prohibiting
negotiations with us.
Let him cancel that decree
and that's it. We have never refused negotiations.
Indeed, we hear all the time.
Is Russia ready? Yes, we have not refused.
It was then who publicly refused.
Well, let him cancel his decree and enter into negotiations.
We have never refused.
And the fact that they obeyed the demand or persuasion
of Mr.
Johnson, the former Prime Minister of Great Britain,
seems ridiculous and very sad to me.
Because, as Mr. Arakamiya put it,
we could have stopped those hostilities with war a year
and a half ago already.
But the British persuaded us and we refused this.
Where is Mr. Johnson now?
And the war continues. So
I just want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding what
you're saying.
I don't think that I am.
I think you're saying you want a negotiated settlement to
what's happening in Ukraine,
right?
And we made it, prepared the huge document in Istanbul
that was initialed by the head of the Ukrainian delegation.
He had fixed his signature to some of the provisions,
not to all of it.
He put his signature and then he himself said
we were ready to sign it and the war would
have been over long ago.
18 months ago, however, Prime Minister Johnson came,
talked us out of it,
and we missed a chance.
Well, now let them think how to reverse the situation.
We're not against it. It would be funny if it
were not so sad,
this endless mobilization in Ukraine,
the hysteria, the domestic problems,
sooner or later it will result in agreement.
You know, this probably sounds strange given the current situation,
but the relations between the two peoples will be rebuilt
anyway.
It will take a lot of time,
but they will heal. I
just got to ask you one last question,
and that's about someone who's very famous in the United
States,
probably not here. Evan Gershkovitz,
who's the Wall Street Journal reporter.
We have done so many gestures of goodwill out of
decency that I think we have run out of them.
No, we have never seen anyone reciprocate to us in
a similar manner.
However, in theory we can say that we do not
rule out that we can do that
if our partners take reciprocal steps.
I do not rule out that the person you refer
to,
Mr. Gershkovitz, may return to his motherland
by the end of the day.
It does not make any sense to keep him in
prison in Russia.
We want the US special services to think about how
they can contribute to achieving the goals our special services
are pursuing.
We are ready to talk.
Moreover, the talks are on their way
and there have been many successful examples of these talks
crowned with success.
Probably this is going to be crowned with success as
well,
but we have to come to an agreement.