to stand again and i quotes, i don't want him to be president for another to or to to him. so it may be now zalinski is time is up intriguing stuff. states when he bring this throughout. thank you, steve for rights for indeed the boss read to russia's today's dancing worlds, a part talking what had been the chief principle of western foreign policy for decades. they, you're either with us or against this philosophy. does it still hold fruit today in our countries in the global sell it with something that pressure it's all delve into the

hello and welcome to was a part of your event with us or against us. for decades. this has been the chief principle of west or foreign policy taken to its highest peach with the start of fresh restoration in ukraine due to his size and influence. india was among the most sought after players, cortex, enjoying the proverbial right side of history. but it's up to the to charge its own course has of paid off. well to discuss that i'm now joined by some cars around and just former deputy national security advisor and former ambassador to russian investor. it's a great one, a great pleasure to talk to thank you very much for your time. thank you so much for inviting me. it's a pleasure. thank you very much. now you wrote recently that over the past year or so, india has gone from being a balancing world power. it to be a leading power. what's the difference? it does a lot of difference. i think uh, the balancing is a negative connotation. leading as

a positive connotation. in the sense that it cannot create a self confidence in the country in your ability to take decisions on the merits and to advance and mastered interest, as well as to contribute to the global order in terms of it's based on stability. so uh, i think uh we are to transition phase in india laws the also an account of much greater political stability in india. and that had been a few decent examples where we have been able to actually take positions which have been difficult but which have resonated across the board. and you know, so it's a whole package. well, let's, let's try to unpack this package, because uh, as you know, with a great power comes great responsibility, including responsibility to inherit the wealth, as it is whether it's complex troubles and the responsibility to offer solutions for crisis of not your own making. what can india offer here if you go back to the

boston, but it is coming from as a colonial, as the quality of the british for 200 years. we had a long, we spent a long time trying to read discover upsets. and i think that moment does that. i and today we do not want to be on the cortez of any uh, fall, or any site or any alliance. i think there is a design in india to take these are found on us decisions. and that is basically driving the way the approach the world. and as you said, there are many things which we cannot control and may not be able to control because we have not yet a great power, unlike be established. great pause, but we do feel that we can actually contribute even if it's subject to, to uh, helping bring some issues to the for helping to reduce tension is and helping to contribute to let's say the global commons think we live in such an

interesting moment when the influence of great powers is diminishing and sometimes consciously. so i think russia trains, if it wants to project certain power, but it's very mindful about most projecting too much power. because again, it's, it could be a liability. and we also see many regional powers into including coming to the for and offering that own distinctive perspective. what is so special about a new dallas position? what's going to offer to the world that nobody else can offer it? you know, especially to be, we are the largest country in the world about population 1400000000 people. so what happens inside india and how into a government its own large population is a global good. because if you can manage to improve the lives of such a large humanity, then you are contributing in a sense to the global in quote number one, number 2 in there is an order to the legs ation 5000 years old. there was an

interruption because of envisions because of colonialism. but today that is that the revival of that sense of indian history, where we said that we have solutions to global issues. we have our own thoughts to pursue. historically, india has never been a part of any military alliance or political alliance. that is the fundamental difference between india and many of the other countries. so this comes with the total price, because as you said, that uh, alliances and countries which want you to be a part of them. and if you're not, then you're looked upon with the suspicion. but india has kind of as to what all these uh, black and white divisions of the word. and what they're saying is they may be developing. but we are democracies. so we have basically showing that you can be a democracy, even if you're a poor country, that's the 1st thing. secondly, the fact that you can balance your relationships,

whether it's with united states. so with europe over the russia, all the china to the few years ago is also an evidence of how you are able to conduct these multi dimensional relationships. now he mentioned democracy and that it is such a low that concept these days because uh, the west acts as if it has these that have the full corporate rights. you democratic ideas. and when you talk about democracy in india, there's something very practical material in it. as if for you, democracy is something that has to be believed out rather than preached as a high concept which is done by the west. today. can you talk more about this intersection of practicality or a sort of material democracy and how it translates into the actual lives of the people? you know, that's a excellent question. you know, a version of democracy is very native. it's very indian in the sense that uh,

it is rooted in our culture. it is essential to preserve the indian federation of 30 states, very different diverse cultures, languages, it's in the cities. so you need that same book where you can arrange these for john sort of follow often every few years since 1947, a full 5 and 75 years. except for a brief introduction of 2 or 3 of our record is that we've actually been able to hold these elections. we've been able to ensure piece for transport up all from one party to another, from one government to another, both and the lee. i'm in the states and this requires a lot of majority and a lot of conviction and commitment to the principles of democracy. because there is actually no other way in which india can live, except through allowing its people to watch the views and opinions. and, you know,

bringing governments, 12 governments, but you do not preach, we do not export democracy to other countries. what we tell them is this has been an example of a large country which is able to live like this, a very diverse country. and we think it's a great way to live now the system of governance and how it's applied in international decision making. because in international decision making, you also tried to take into account various factors rather than plead pledging allegiance to just one. i think all of that was put to the test with the start of the alteration russian operation in ukraine. and i know that you recognize that the conflict has been bring for many years prior to that. but uh, early last year in there was put under a lot of pressure to join the western camp. and it didn't. why didn't

was that i would agree with you was a difficult time for indian foreign policy. and we took a step back to try and understand what was the trigger to the conflict. uh and um, that is how we approached of uh the how we formulated uh a policy. uh yes, there was pressure to take a 2nd position. but to explain to everyone that uh, we are not in favor of the conflict. we want a peaceful solution. but we also want that the security concerns and the, you know, a comprehensive approach to what led to the conflict is necessary because at the end of the day, as far as we can understand that sitting in your daily a, europe has to live a x piece with itself, i mean that actually was the whole outcome of the end of the cord was

and the dissolution of the soviet union in 1991. i think taking that position that india took also required a degree of self respect believing that you yourself can make decisions about what's good and what's bad, and how to balance all the negatives and all the positives. do you think the choices that were made at that time in your daily, are they going to be contained to the ukrainian crisis, or do you see them influencing the indian stance internationally beyond what's happening in the ukraine? do you, seeing the consequence of the ukrainian decision making will be more lasting than the con, the concert itself? no, you know, the approach that india is actually funded lee enough consistent with the kind of approach india has taken since 1947. i mean, if you remember, during the cornwall in data, refused to be a part of any alliance. and of course it does not popular with either of the 2

sites. so if we could do that at that time, in the 1st quarter of all this time at all, it was easier because india is likely more, uh, has greater capacity. it's richard countries, relatively speaking. it has more capability, more experience about the international politics at that time, you were young, just newly independent. so it was easier at this time. but yes, the consequences really go beyond ukraine. i mean, in the sense that they constitute a certain approach to the international, a balance of follow which is unique. which great powers i'm not familiar with. because as i said they like to see the word in blocks in comes, india does not. and this position that india took on ukraine will actually constitute the kind of positions endeavor to take on many, many issues. it's not a question or trying to balance anything. it's a question of taking decisions which are in your self interest,

which advanced into a special interest, but also contribute to global piece of stability. so it's a mix of books and it, these, and this is not an easy box to choose because the easiest part is to say, okay, you know, i'll adopt, uh, i, i, you know, beyond one corner of the room and the other corner. but i'm sorry you said that it wasn't the easy, but at the same time the, the opposite decision would have, would have come with certain costs and continue your partnership with russia. a for the india, a lot of economic opportunities. i mean, you're receiving russian oil and gas, it affordable process. it allows your industry to grow. and for some reason, um, encourage your politics if somehow shameful to you know, think about your own immediate concerns. do you think perhaps india can also show an example to other nations that it's actually ok to mind your own national

interest in a comprehensive way. that doesn't mean that you're selling out of your and i don't know you'll collect to sold to the devil that it's actually prudent to be mindful of how your own people leave and also, you know, looking at the broad picture international. yeah, absolutely. i mean everyone is doing it in fact ord major pol isn't great because i'm looking at the national interest. i mean, the united states won't be united states that has the, they are the defenders of humanity is such that they're actually protecting universal interest in ukraine. what they would do for we've got this done that was largely on account of their domestic pressures. it was a consequence of their own national interest, the way they perceived it. so every country is doing is the, is actually pursuing policies which are related to your national interest. so you mentioned on the question of oil. yes. a lot of questions that last from india a by a west on strategic experts,

western governments. and we told them that we're not telling anyone to buy a russian when you're telling people to buy the cheapest times. and if that happens to be russian, that's fine because the companies are digging commercial decisions. and after all, for 50 years, you gotta be. and so we're doing the same thing. so it's not as if india of us being opportunistic. we can deal with just, you know, playing the market and then companies, uh, what are the sourcing. and of course we need the cheap energy because 85 percent of our energy is and bought it. okay, well i, i have to be a fortunate instict. i've seen nothing wrong with that. that at the moment we have to take a short break, but we will be back in just a few moments state you and the

the welcome back to world to parts with on car cetera, in just former deputy national security and advisor ad form, investigate your russian investigator, uh, before the break we were talking about the ukrainian crisis. and i, i wanna delve into its origin is a little bit because uh, you wrote that uh,

windows following the shadow boxing between the western russia since the mid to thousands. the conflicts in ukraine was a textbook example of war being the pursuit of political objectives. by other means . first of all, i want to ask you why just think the boxing went on in the shadows for so long for several decades. and why interesting it burst into the open. yeah. you know what i've told a lot about this, and you know, the fact is that i think issues tre, stevens, back to let us say, even president fulton speech at the munich security conference in 2007, a in the context of need to expansionism, to the east, i think at that time he because from 2000, the 1st few years of his presidency was a time when the restaurant became a member of the g 7. that was good engagement. it was a dialogue box. now, with natal, things were going well divided was that these,

we saw the fruits of the collapse of the soviet union or let's at the end of the quarter war in front of us. but, and in those initial years, we also saw a need to expansion is i'm taking place and the russian leadership trying to convey to the europeans on the americans that look, this is a problem for us because it is going to complicate the restaurant security environment and i think that from then totally events and ukraine in $21314.00 and the med on. and everything of that actually seems to have been let us see the tenant of the rich and from then on roads from 2014, you know, you had all the agreements, the minutes go cards and everything has nothing really. but you've also argued that

the conflict and ukraine has once again posed the question of whether the east and the west can co exist. the question we saw was sold at the end of the cold war. and you also wrote the contradictions we believed had been settled by the end of the cold war. have resurfaced once again, all you're sure that they are the same old contradictions because of the kind of the cold war during the cold war. the west was very careful about not expanding its military infrastructure to the east. there was very icy called, but the stringent advocate between the adversary's on how to deal with one another and how not to create dangerous provocative situations for one another. all of that seems to have changed, i mean, really dealing with the old contradictions, old grievances, or totally new ones. yeah, i mean that's, that's a good point. but i think uh,

in this time around the instruments. so the tools are fun to see are different in the sense that they're not the classical, it start ideological. firstly, it's not a traditional military water conflict. at that time. it was more of a hybrid nature of the contestation and mutual suspicion. and all of this actually made the whole issue much more complex as you're suggesting and different from the 1st quarter of war. because uh that that was more organized. if one can use that word, that this was more uh, unpredictable, uh, most up to date in it wasn't really in evidence. and this kind of, you know, went from one stage to another, a v phone, the political inability to find solutions. and the whole thing seemed to come to rest with you. okay. not any other part of let's say the russian border. of course

we had georgia and other, the old chemist on the same uh, sort of saying that the west assumes the power to control or impose its own solutions regardless of the, you know, situation on the ground or what the adversaries of the west uh, thinking about yeah, i mean uh, you know, it's, i think it's a failure off of the european security architecture. i mean, some people argue that they actually was no architecture at that time, but i think there was a certain form and a certain consensus on how the eastern west can live together. i mean, there was a lot of integration happening between russia and europe, whether it was energy or trade or investment. you know, things are happening, which everyone wanted to see me. and everyone was happy with. can i ask extra ask

about this? because uh, as far as preparing for this interview, this comparison between india and yours, i found it very curious because, like india, europe has enjoyed decades so far, reliable beneficial trade with russia. europe has a major stake in the preserving security on the continent. and yet with the boot, both prior to the breakout of the filings and ukraine and says that it has taken a very passive position that suited all the decision making to washington. how to explain it. why do you think your position was more like india is, you know, minding, you know, finding its own story is way not necessarily joining with russia, but finding its own middle ground. instead, you seem to have a just evaporated from the scene. you know, um, europe is living uh in different sub regions of going up. i mean, initially my impression is that the order you are so close funds. germany, italy,

span netherlands. i mean, they actually were in the forefront of european security european foreign policy. but in the last few years, we found, let's say, the baltics, eastern europeans, poland, and some other countries which had become much more assertive. and so within europe, i think there is, there are differences on what europe in policy towards russia or even china should be the, the johnson, black digger, lions actually had become more relaxed. if you remember during president trump stime, he basically told you, go to fans, you have to pitch in more your to for, you know, raise your defense budget. you take care of yourselves. but i think it over the last few years and fonts and germany actually with the coal getting doesn't a sense of the minutes go 3 months and they've been scored to and they actually played a key role. there was good communication between the leaderships,

of those countries, for the russian leadership side of it, it was only communication. it wasn't translated into the actual policy. i mean, when they came to the test of putting those agreements into practice, again, it was not worth the paper that it was. so it was the, it was a, as i said it was, i think the diplomatic figure it was affiliated with political will. and it was all heading in the wrong direction. and that's what happened last year when you went from this kind of a, let's a, he didn't, the conflict on to a station to an open, traditional conflict. and uh, and europe was more relaxed in the sense that you know, that the defense budgets will, they will not really putting in that much money into their defense structures or institutions. so all of this has changed now. i mean, i would say both sides have become moment devised and the new to trans atlantic alliance, def i, despite all the donor differences, is,

is more robust yet that our voices in your up today, which do not see i to why with the, with the washington on how to live with joshua on how to, how to reorder the european architecture, as i'm sure you know, at the beginning of this conflict, the indian foreign minister jason car made headlines when she was pressed on. india stands on the cranium conflict. she said that you're a pass to grow out of the mindset that the herbs problems are the ones problem. and the world's problems are not your problems. how much time do you give to europe, to realize that it actually has problems because up until this point, and they seem to be under the impression that they're in this big fight against the archetype of evil. but one, do you think this practicality of reality? you know, the shortage of money, the shortage of resources, the shortened, the ability to develop a that own industry. when do you think it's bill dawn on the refuses to change the

course of action and to make them more rooted in a, in their own interest. you know what i unfortunately, i'm not very optimistic because i take of use of harden on both sides. i think that is probably it's true to say a certain degree of collapse off dialogue that is happening in europe is also suffering badly, as you said, because of energy inflation almost low or 0 dropped a much less consumption because consumer demand. uh and uh, and you know, social problems related to migration from your plan from africa. so they are and facing multiple challenges, how long they will take, i really don't. well, i think, i hope you all can accept the fact that there is no other way except to find

some modest ravendie with russia. and similarly, russia also has to step out and make moves because you don't look to hold what it is watching. what's going on and the heart of what it is also softening and getting infected, whether it's for energy, fertilizer, anything else? so the sticks a high. i just at the moment today, there is not much costs what optimism? because that mode is not good, but we can just hold on, keep our fingers crossed, that uh, you know, the boxing fee conditions, wind down, that reader turn to the dialogue, the table and both sides show some degree of political been the find a solution. can i ask you are somebody who knows this country or very well and i, i want to be fair to the receiving side as well because you written that was

unlikely to give back the church or is that it has seized by now. but how far do you think uh, it would be willing to go and how far it's wise to go, because it's pretty obvious that you know, part of your printing forever will remain close style to russia. so in this very delicate balance bits in, uh, lets say political objectives and political responsibilities. why would you draw the line, like as a, as somebody who knows this country well, yeah, i, you know, this with a lot of loss of life. lots of infrastructure on both sides. lot of blood has been spent. i mean for what i mean, the question is, at the end of the day, i don't see a situation with russia when a withdrawal. and you know, this is somehow, it will say good bye to all the kind of advances and they have made. but

when you sit on the table and negotiate with your adversity over the other side, as you know, both sides have to compromise. and if you want to solution, now, this business of territory is one issue. the question of guarantees enjoining the security of the other and getting back to peaceful coexistence with another issue. how much are you able to treat for peace that are demands on both sides, which are obviously maximum list. i mean, the ukraine on the other pins and needles is not an inch of your dream. the russians are saying we have serious concerns. so i see a difficult negotiation, i hit some kind of anonymous dice or a fact, but this would be a difficult sucker to square it. very challenge traditional notions of sovereignty, of that adult and integrity of the rule of law. i don't know how it's going to

happen. it's not going to be easy. but unless you are the fries, the conflict for you continue this for several years in a kind of a low grade. you know, situation. so i don't know which, which we go all invested or we have to living there. thank you very much for sharing your thoughts with us. thank you so much for having. wonderful. thank you. and thank you for watching hope to syria. again, it was a part of the, [000:00:00;00] the, the,

the, [000:00:00;00] the is ready bombing rates with use a large housing comes like to rubble in southern dasa as the area and deals multiple choice extends, latrice broke down on friday. i left with a pool to say is medical facilities are in the direct line of science. there is a fee it amongst that if you g z and also the hospital, the loss of hospital will be the new uh ship, a hospital, the dressing images from central gone to where