and that is in the sense of the home that was done by how most people unprotected the innocence of being killed, women and children, public institutions that should provide support and help just being decimated. and we felt as a country and as a signal treat to a range of international uh, conventions. that is time we make conventions work for the good of ordinary people . and that we could not idly as a member states of the u. s. s. search by and watch this as though it's a full that we needed to step up. and the drawer to the world's attention. a better genocide is underway, you know, a view, and let the world decides through the international court of justice. whether it is merits in finding that the is genocide underway and whether they could

provide provisional measures to at least offer protection to the palestinian people essentially being a way of oppression. disposition, and home of the oppressed, we felt we could not sit by. i don't think anybody should be surprised at so who is supporting israel? these are countries that over the years have sustained israel's occupation of palestine and its illegal settlement on the land of palestinian people and the disposition. so i don't think we should be surprised that or what should worry us is that these are countries that hold on all of us to observe democracy, to respect international human rights role. to respect all the frameworks, said w,

a global institutions. so it has them in fact, who should be a holding a convention such as the convention on the punishment of the crime of genocide. so it's a pity that countries that often led to us about how we must observe democracy, international law, and other important instruments of the very ones that are now saying, do not use these. we are concerned that the dead. so that's a result of the how much the attack and we're concerned that the situation of hostages will continue to be held by how much time you run these to be released. but this must be accompanied by a genuine attempts to resolve the oppression of the people of color side. really emphasizing the need for a ceasefire. and also that you many, terry, in a must reach those people who need it. so really, i think what the movement is,

is south africa, assuming that these values of engagement of negotiation of respect for human rights are values that we should won't talk about. but values that we should make practical or are to the companies where you can get farther details of older stories we're following. i'll be right back at the top of the off with more stories . stay with us on march, the the, [000:00:00;00]

the hello and welcome to process where all things are considered. i'm peter level, for the lack of a better term. it is obvious. the west has decided to continue and or reconfigure a new cold war against russia. but this time, without so much idea all energy, is this new cold war, more dangerous and destabilizing than the 1st, the cross document new cold war, i'm joined by my guess, richard software in country. he is america's professor at the university of kent as well as the author of the last piece. how the wes failed to prevent the 2nd cold war? and in budapest we cross the george send me while we he is a pod counselor at the gaggle which can be found on youtube and locals. i don't think cross doc rhodes of effects. that means you can jump any time you want. and i always appreciated quite a bit of a slight change of pace and format here. george,

my partner at the gabble a pod cast is a agreed to co host this program with the professor. and as such as george, you can see it off 1st question. richard, i really enjoyed the, your book, which is the coolest of the piece. and i guess my 1st question would be, you know, that the, the, the onset to the question you was, who did what was the piece? because at the end of the cold war, there really should not be any conflicts. that's all dividing rusher and the west. the one the, the logical complex to another territorial complex, the one that we can all make complex. so what happened, how, how come we're in this situation? yeah, absolutely. it's one of the big mysteries of our time. how fast did we manage to squander what was clearly a historical opportunity? and when we took a piece, the sort of piece i have in mind is what kennedy and others would talk about. a

type of positive piece that is a piece focused on development on co creation, on allowing institutions working to work above old rows based on the united nations . and other words, to use that vast human potential of technological achievements of a ton of cost in the face. so for ecological enough, the developmental issues that was a moving forward, what i called a positive piece, instead of which as you suggest, a negative piece became established and of course intensified to the point of a halt. well today, so why? it's a 65000 google question, i keep going on about that and can i, i don't get too long answer, but i'm gonna have to because like i'll give you my latest thinking on this. how we got right. in short, i think i would argue that in the postwar years since 1945, we've seen 2 arms of the west develop. on the one side, you have folders,

relatively positive elements, focused on the west, but nevertheless benign and elements of development. this is up the so called liberal international order based on democracy, human rights, multilateralism, the united states, up to 1945 embedded. it's a government a, it's dominance in a multitude institutions including a bubble, the united nations, and the next little the up to 1999 was then effectively globalized. and we had this, you know, globalization which has delivered huge public goods. so that's the one side of the west, which is, you know, it's got its own downsides, but it's called is upsides as well. however, a 2nd waste took shape often 1945. this is what i now guys call the political west. this is the militaristic west, this is the one that was condemned by a eisenhower and his farewell speech. the military industrial complex,

what some people called the tumor night state focused on fighting communism. basically. so 13 democracy is if they turned out to be pushed out to the o leaving quick question now critical of united states with all those crews in guatemala, of, if you have, must have that can be on and so on. this is that political west, so we have these 2 systems at work. and so in 1989 we all believe guy certainly did that, that political west could be pushed back. that security state, the minute tourism. and of course, it's one of his experiences was nato. so that was the moment. unfortunately, the exact opposite happened. that political west, consolidated, and extended. and of course under the identity of the end of history claimed to be one of what it let's all pick up on that point here. i think one of the biggest problems and i don't think and i don't even think academia didn't talk, talks about it enough. certainly not in media is that there,

there are conflicting interpretations on how the cold war came to an end. now on my side of the pond, the perception is that under go to a child, the soviet union opted out of the cold war. and i suggested in alternative with the west doesn't see that never did see that and called the victory. and that's one of the reasons why we have this historical mismatch and, and with this mismatches added with a lot of military force, a lot of rhetoric and a, and a, and a, and many cases of cases where you can't control outcomes. so it's really, we could even add on the historical differences between the 2 sides. yes, and if, but i've been doing the voices in united states who accepted that argument of course. but on the whole eastern side of the main stream, the so called globe the establishment, the national security establishment,

such as i never thought that to you. in other words, they claimed the victory. what was that was totally spurious when gorbachev put an end to the codle and above all, it was he and of course, all those are the people who develop the new political thinking in the soviet union . they believed that international system established in 1945, the un system could finally come into its own. so governor of never capitulated to the political west, to the west in general, to washington or anything like that. no, they say, let's let the system work. so we can little develop in piece together. so i'm fort but unfortunately ended up with a cold, well being continued by other means. i feel like if i could just follow up on that, is this the mistreat, which is why didn't need to then define itself in opposition to russia? why did it exclude rusher from its security framework? i'm of this, the been just absent minded this. i mean there exists that the always see that was the chopper of powers. in 1990,

everyone talked about the in the visibility of security. everyone talked about the new year of co operation. so what happens is that why they need to then say, well, we will bring in all of these states, many of whom have a kind of a historic grievance against russia. but we wouldn't bring in russia. and despite the fact that russia wanted to be a part of some kind of a mutually beneficial security system, they continued to say no to russia. and this is something person important has said repeatedly that i, i set this up to suggest that many times the grocer should be within nato and was always read. but why didn't they define itself in opposition to russia? of hey and it wasn't just put to it was a girl because i need both sealants in the 199 case. they will say that so. and of course, most of the russian establishment, including many liberals, because quite clearly a,

a defense system expanding which the exclusion of the main force against which it had been established in the 1st price course coming to lead to united a numerous difficulties intentions. so it was quite clear that we had an intensifying security dilemma. your question, why did they accept this logic? they yeah, and you said 6, clearly i said there was as a small this book by we have no pets, no place for that show. endless attempts in nearly 1992 is to establish a different type of security architecture, you know, with some institutional innovation, bumping up the confidence and security and co creation yoga all failed because all of them would descend to washington. so you could say easily enough. the aim was to maintain washington's dominance over its allies and globally. and that if that logic, of course, that was the next step and if they've been 90 way as a had to be live with international load. but as i said there's,

there's 2 phases and the negative price of course was the security side and the people, but perhaps looking too much on the $1.00 side, the benign side, like a jew bins, jar does. where you kind of see the 2 things at the same time i that face? well, i mean i've always or 2 faces. so exactly. it was a bland of course. they did 2 attempts to mitigate it with a home that joined counsel of 1997. the nato, russia council of $20.00 to $2.00, but they will have the attempts that will just sticking pasta on the gaping wound. well in, but richard, i mean, a kind of goes back. i mean, i, in my introduction, you know, reconfiguring the cold war rush ahead. assume that had come to an end and during the 1st cold war, i think it's easy to say it was about ideology. it's not about ideology anymore. so what is it about? why is russ who the enemy, you know, again, that's a, it's

a one of those great mysteries because even worse than that, you also want to, to join the west. but it wanted to join that loop international west, not the political west. so it was this constant confusion between what phase of the west would it try to enter a and this double face is double bottom to the west. ultimately led to the appear to ation above. so uh yeah, it certainly wanted to join it. and the richard of your 2nd, it's a double face, i'm sorry, i'm going to reinterpret it using mine. would that sounds like skin, so for any it to me as well, it's that it does have, it's a double face switch. you could say is all the power systems the couch themselves in terms of civilizing mission, like 19 century, a benefit period and as a while at the same time having a male faced in that development glove. so, and of course us, it was done and it makes all repugnance of course,

of balance because we never quite know which type this is going to be presenting itself the benign face of a, our power based face. of course today we know that they both look glove as being field enough and is just the may oh 1st. but at which of course on both sides and savvy the gloves off. i mean the battle is joined. but did you say, what's it all about? it's not, i do have a jeep. is it? then you could say, is it cultural civilizational values? is it simply the fact ofa, you know, defense of us, again, many dominance, they cannot allow any alternative. and of course this and that applies to china and then the other guys in power has been politically depend, if they do not accept you as dominant us pick them any well. and then richard, the level of, of approaching the break here. so i guess, i guess it's kind of fair to say that we've gone back to 19 century great power politics the cold war was,

there's some kind of interlude it was one huge difference that we have an international system based on the united nations established in 1945 and this whole body of international law, which is becoming ever more, we're going to be fine. but example, today we, the international court of justice is in session and dealing with a case lawrence by south africa against israel's. uh well, i'm gonna have to jump in here. i think the others difference is that there are nuclear weapons right now that's a big into our, a gentleman. i'm going to jump in here. we're going to go to a short break. and after that short break, we'll continue our discussion on the new cold war. stay with our team. the welcome back. across stock were all things are considered on peter lavelle to remind you we're discussing the new cold war

the . okay, george. the baton is in your hand. go ahead as well. what question that does a rise? any good it 1st on what i'm beat it was saying in, in the 1st part of the program, which is that, well, the soviet union did not regard that. it had the loss of the cold war. it just basically said that the cold was over, we're not interested in finding it anymore. but for the west, it looked very different. they so russia as much weakened and so therefore you, you have to raise the question. um, particularly if you are a russian, was it those the fatal decisions that uh, the soviet union to a, from the as 1989 to 1991. when they presume they just simply dissolved the also pack. they signed off on a united germany within nato. that ink cartridge, the west, the think the we have a very weak adversary, and this is

a historical opportunity to take advantage of this very weak adversary. and it really, the perception didn't change too many, many, many years later. but during that time, thing in the west, the one advantage of a week in russia after another and it was just withdrawal from the abm treaty bombing, you this lobby. and you know, you've been just name them, but the was the will, the week of the russia suddenly a saw. so do you think that contributed to a this is the new, the new co wars. that's all it is. yes. so at the end of the code, well we could use that number of symbolic dates. we could talk about 1999 at the end of the coldwell with all of that positive piece agenda on the on the table. then we can talk about another signal, okay, 1991. that is integration of the soviet union. and of course a continuous state gotcha. emerging out effect, but it much rico on wind tunnel economic collapse and social this integration which

across to nowadays is a big debate about all of the 19 ninety's, but yes, it was much weakened because then we also have a middle level yeah. 1990 the yeah. eastern europe, which of course, these former soviet states and of course are so for most of your book, states had their own views. and for them, the weakening of the dresser of the soviet union wasn't what was over too new to for them to you again that freedom which of course was much to be welcome to allow the states but unfortunately they then embedded coldwell thinking into basically state space now emancipated states, which of course then allied to those who say you go for this week, let's go for that too. as it was and never allowed russia to get much as a few inches of challenger advocate power, as, as peter suggested at a battalion. but uh yeah, so that we also then must go was and began to be present at once. it began to

assert itself that it would not be a legacy power, like united kingdom fiance. and of course the defeated powers of germany and japan . and that came as a bit of a shock to the, to washington for sure. well, where the new, that's exactly the point richard. i mean, if, if we're working on the assumption and i think george and i agree with you, is that there is a new cold war, new cold war thinking, and russia is the target. so we shouldn't be surprised that in rush, cuz reacting to being targeted in a new cold war. okay, so it, it is a, and that is the preamble to the conflict that we have now in, in ukraine you with right before, right. you said we have security demands and they were ignored because those security demands were a reaction to the new cold war coming from the west. as indeed they must have found itself where they numerous the limits you could say. and of course it was highly provoked, but of course then the question becomes,

does it have to do i? so the publication didn't have a what was this scope boom from the news? and that's where these huge debates take place today. that yes, we do say that the west mismanage the piece that we ended up in a cold peace for many, many years. but of course then we have these other actors emerging, as i said, the 1990 year. the 1990 act, as you claim is one of them, if you like, the overland boulder, your publics, all of these with bits of grievances, they could be managed. but unfortunately, within these countries, they were, if you're not incorrect, they weren't coverage to be no good by the us embassy taken care of and so on to prevent genuine deep and during being shipped between must come kit will know the famous statement back speak near future and see that with your claim dresser is a said power, in other words, if it to us dominance without it, it remains the 2nd yanked power. so these are, these are, you know,

we now know with 35 years experience that fundamental misunderstandings and indeed strategic perceptions which so different. i'm glad onto this conflict today. enjoy, so. yeah. so richard, i mean, why then, do you think that the nato and the united states continue to ignore the red lines? i mean, for years and years, russia had been issuing warning officer warning, but it's not good to go on accepting this a nato expansion indefinitely. i mean, we remember what happened in 2008 and, you know, they repeatedly acknowledged them and was simply on underestimation of a rush as capability. um, why would they think that russia would just simply accept anything that was rammed down the throats? uh, you know, the just think that is forever 1990 and the russia simply is due to week to be able to defy us. yeah. just like they to elaborate what you say. it isn't. i mean they

total output is obviously one of the key elements. but it was those large of biological security are 2 payments. in particular visa fee, you can add, which there is so even with ne, tired, large one is a covers a multitude of sins if you're like in different formats, including now for example, the u. k. ukrainian defense alignment, but you're absolutely right. they today wasn't just washington. it's a political west, suffered from sugars and the belief that the they were on the right side of history . which meant that they were unable to manage the actual genuine history with which they were faced. in other words, tire duck, sickly, often 198991. those so to effect illusions, which you could argue dominated in the soviet union. historicism the belief that we know the direction of history and if we could push it along, the path escaped to the forgot to and the soviet union. but it came into the back door into the political west. and of course, once you have

a politics based on the losing and 2 types of illusions in new york on one that united states was going to hit was dominant power, which you miss. and show that no one else can challenge it. and of course, the liberal humanitarian illusion that now the world is god for democracy, and it's our job to push it along to game change and the circle color revolutions. we may well, well obviously i certainly do want to see the world more democratic, multi and bull. yeah. economically developed, but there's that isn't the exact way to go about it in my view. you know, richard, what um i asked rhetorically. and my introduction is this new cold war, more dangerous than the 1st one. and, you know, one of the differences between the original cold war and the way you've conceptualized that is that during the original a cold war, the us and the soviet union very rarely avoided direct confrontation, seems to be different in the new cold war with this proxy war and ukraine is that one of the differences and that's

a huge difference. coldwell has come home to roost and it's homeland, you know, because in the 1st cold pool it goes basically fault in the so called fluid world. today, paradox simply the 3rd world, apart from southwest agent goes or color start, and some other places. it's relatively stable, whereas it's your which is the dynamic trend, which of course we have at the beginning effect. we're seeing a huge nato exercise coming up in the next few months. we'll, we'll monkey the military as a. well, it would take one accident once to a real quick, you know, who knows what's gonna happen. another thing, but why this war is more dangerous? in the old one, it was gonna come from a superficial companies and versus capitalism. we knew what was what this time it's much more pernicious and much more pervasive. it's a cultural get perception, for example, at universities. and if you start questioning and the sort of things which i've been doing you, you know,

you are liable to be condemned. can i just mention today the uh, my good friend slot uh, richard mcgraw. so from university of talked to adjust dentist, just heard that he has been detained by the estonian secret intelligence intelligence service, who allegedly, you know, doing work to undermine you. estonian security. i secretly working with a russian intelligence. i forget just absolute nonsense. i've known slot for many years, one of the finest academics in most professional academics. it has been my privilege to know, and today he's detained in jail in estonia. so that is a sort of, well i guess from part of the new coal drawers, you know, yeah it's, it's against the bad thing. okay, that's and it's come home. okay, i'm sorry, george, i'm out of turn. go ahead. it is. but following on more to what you just said, which is very, very interesting, which is that the difference between the cold war and what we have today, which is a, you know, now the 3rd world is relatively stable. and the,

the center of the conflict is you are a and that does make things very, very dangerous, because that really directly affects russian security. so that's why i wonder, how do you see this war in ukraine resolving? and so, because even let's say from russia is going to be the best case scenario they, they drive out the ukrainian forces from the dumbass way. they uh, take a house um and how cool um the still the 80 percent of your brain. that's going to be left over nato is going to want to scoop it up. so how, how does this play out? what you're on the weekend? it's very dangerous. so i compensation a yes. and a lot of our discussion so far. there's been the be the missing guest, is it? well, i've got to see your opinion from the european powers acting as a responsible leaders. in the old days, you know, the colon satcher and me too. and we're all active at the time of the full of the

bed and we'll wait today is the leadership. there's none except those which just are cheerleaders to the political west. so where you came, goes i, i, you know, i, it's a few level conflict one as you suggest within you can itself some sort of deal. we have to try to establish a european gun mention, because ultimately you have to take control of its own security. and of course, as the global element with the united states involved. and of course, you go to ask of a 4th level, which is multilateral institutions, united nations, hopefully perhaps with a goal for china bowl, brazil, and an india some of a disposable states in the so called global stuff. so in other words, the solution of the opinion conflict cannot be in ukraine itself. it has to be part of a much larger settlement. so that's an international confidence. but of course, that needs goodwill. and i must say to us then, goodwill is evil in less. well,

it's the fact. it's very interesting. is it? uh, 2024. it seems to resemble 1945 when europe was pa straight and it was outside powers that decided things. it's amazing. history doesn't repeat, but it certainly echoes as all the time we have. i want to thank my guess what kind of barry and in budapest, and thanks to our viewers for watching us here at our dc. and next time, remember across the, the, [000:00:00;00]

the, [000:00:00;00] the underwriting and military economy is report that they killed and then attack near the pakistani board as shortly after you, ronstadt is struck a terrorist group within practice on the territory. the 1st on maples here. we need to stop supporting the killing of slows. if this does not stop, then we slots will need noise. product with brother. i think we will you nice and we level west in europe to the ground. a member of europe in parliament ones that lovick people will unite as he pushes for the craniums conflict to n. something he says,