or are some discussion that works for everyone is needed so that we can find sincerity. serenity and above all, peace the, i don't know what else to give you. the current relationship between france and the former colonies isn't that later became overseas territories is still a relationship where one is important that to the other, we need to restore balance negotiations on the basis of reciprocity and the ability to listen to each other are necessary to this is something that doesn't exist today, so they don't listen to us because they impose certain things on us, which harms our lands and our development of what the french government is doing now is a bad way to solve the problem. looks beautiful. so let's do stay with

r t international ibex on rosa parks on, on her desk, discuss putting the state visit to china and we're history is heading from here. the, [000:00:00;00] the, the welcome to was a part, especially reading all your rate and the russian president is making his 1st official visit to china as the world's view. contestation between these 2 nations and the west gifts evermore canals with all sides having passed their points of no

return. where's history heading now? well, to discuss that, i'm now joined by so that'll a piano editor in chief of a restaurant in foreign affairs magazines, and research director of develop the discussion club. so account of it's always a great pleasure for me to talk to thank you very much for your time. thank you very much. then for me now the choice of china as the destination out for blinding and put in the visit after renewing his term is not really surprising. and the other thing there is some point in 6, and i've given the nature of the historical moment. how is the russian chinese relationship now different from, let's say, 6 years ago. the 1st of all the visit is not a surprise. says you right to the said a and this is uh which is response to last year's visit of uh, germans isn't been to to, to moscow. and that was his 1st visit after the official integration as the head of

state. so put you in the base, the return as for a relationship of compared to 6 years ago, 6 years ago russia had much more diversified picture of international partners. now for all those reasons, this picture has been strength or, and shrinking the allies to crystallize. um, no, no, not necessarily crystalized. because 6 years ago it was a much, much broader scope of, uh, international partners. uh, how much to see are they where, visa russia, that's another question. but in terms of economy, russia was 6 years ago or 5 years ago, or even 3 years ago. integral part of international global economic system,

which is not the case now because of western actions to uh, to remove russian from an international economy. and this is the most important change that russia has to rely on the other very important partners. and there are many, but china is by default, the most important because of size, because over control make potential. and because china is the biggest neighbors. now you mentioned the previous visit of president she to russia. and that time he was overheard telling, pretend that the 2 nations, or perhaps the 2 liters as pure, had and changes the lives of which the world hasn't seen in the last 100 years. and it's already been reported that on this visit, put in is going to present she with a set of historical matters created by russian rights or in the college and the shasky under the title of what to do,

how much history plays into one big countries decide to do in coming, going into the future or, you know, it should, this ascii is not the most popular right now, adays in russia, but apparently he is one of the favorites by a few. uh, maybe maybe a but uh this is, this is quite an interesting uh distinction. uh, interesting difference because, and the subsidy was part of the, um, any, uh, uh, necessary readings during the soviet time. because certainly ask you whether this events during the service to russia and he was glorified by the soviet uh, the, the theory science. uh, no, i wouldn't say that the russian mood, especially the mood the rest of that issue. is there a solution that anyone in terms of how to organize the country it's rather of the

very conservative approach to uh, to uh, values to uh means how to govern how to organize the site and then disregard that. yes, indeed, i think for china, which is still officially a communist country, ruled by the communist volunteer shouldn't shift. you might be still a real event while in russia we are now in a different phase. as far as the history is concerned, a yes or no on the one hand, of course, any decision made by any state any and it had those state uh is being determined by culture. and the culture is determined by a historical experience history. in this regard. yes. of course, put in is very much aware of russian history,

and we know that in almost any conversation it has with the russian audience or for an audience like a couple of months ago with tucker carlson. she a loss to refer to history. and this is very important because uh, in the very turbulent of disruptive worlds. you need to have some kind of fundamentally, but this is a very interesting point because as you mentioned was russia in china despite their political and governing conservatism. i sort of moving proactively moving into the future. they're not afraid of the future. but when we take, for example, the united states despise, despite its supposedly progressive his values. if you look at the slogans of presidential campaigns, regardless of whether they come from democrats, of the republicans. if usually about the return to the glorious past, the united states seems to be somewhat, not someone, but very much apprehensive of the future. how do you explain this better adults? you know,

the big specialist on the domestic situation in the united states. but i would say the current mood is even more complicated because yes, indeed, we see, and we hear many politicians and united states referring to the glorious past, ronald reagan, whatever. well, even the democrats build battery, i mean the, the, the, how much forward has you can, we also have so much more forward. there can be at the same time, you know, uh, my feeling moving from far away is that the society in the united states or probable establishment, handyman stays. they are rather very much afraid of the past because they changed the past all the time. the new approach to history is still appropriate is to, to make it compatible to uh, 2 principals are more um, more, oh uh, stance is more points. uh, as they are, uh,

i'm the store today. not historically see. and for me, it's a very strange brand because you, you basically undermine your past in order to make the contemporary situation more ungovernable. if i understand correctly what the american politicians are doing. now i think one of the biggest challenges of our times, both on individual and collective levels is to move fast, but also at the same time to stay grounded then this is what history allows you to do and also to be picky about to your priorities and i think in the past, the west in the united states in particular weren't rather considerate than deliberate about um, you know, the risks or that implants, but nowadays they sort of moved to america to us and nations at the same time. well, having little grounding, as you pointed out how to explain that, that the willingness to be sort of on top of everything while their resources are

clearly not there. it's quite understandable because we leave as the chairman, she told fortune a year ago, relief in the period of unprecedented and pretty rare changes. profound changes. it's not like cosmetic or does formation add up decent of our life. this is a profound change of how the world is functioning. it's not even jewel politics. there's nothing about the struggle between great bowers, which is a state that in the us national security concept is just a little part of that. because in effect, we see a norm of changes in how society is being organized. so losing between that and you set and then assess the dates. you have a strategy about, you know, which battles you, you pick up whether you fight with the joint interest or does this or, you know,

strategy would share from my point to you is a substitute. when you don't know how to address real challenges to real problems, then you need to find problems which you believe you can address. some of them, uh, russia, china around the manageable persistence address, more manageable them them than the societal ones. i wonder if history and historical knowledge at the end of the day is not just the fascination of the leaders, but something that allows letters to have grounding and how to manage their own societies. oh absolutely. it's 63 of the difficult um, the, in this regard, united states as they will have its own problems. russia is not immune from enormous challenges either. we see that i'm the one hand a history and the tradition are absolutely indispensable to keep, to keep going to, to,

to have this ground for development at the same time. of course, if you try to implement a tradition, as you understand the past for the present and the future, it will not work because tradition should be adapted to edition is a setup of, of values and on. so that police are most how to address issues. got current issues and then disregard a each nation. each concert tries to find their own set, top of, of, of instruments a rather unsuccessful the, they would say, not speaking about different instruments. your role recently the most common vision not only aligned and our role to you, but also quite distinct about how they approach their intentions with, with the west, at least on a tactical level. what are some of the main differences between most current vision?

uh, the main difference is very clear. uh, china is not just uh, a barcode global economy. it's one of the dealers have been global economy. rationally is not at this point because russia is struggling to, to not even to regain, but to keep the place which it okay buys. and uh, uh, russia, because of our conflict, i would say, can afford to be to be more flexible and more creative. these are the, the rules imposed by, by the links a group of countries that will in you can or cannot, can. yeah. because we may have heard so much. i'll send it, we can go exactly, well my source anymore. they, they, they, they did. i mean, the west, the, the almost able to sing they cooled in terms of economics, of located sanctions and vargas and so china isn't a completely different position at china needs

a pretty smooth economic development to address domestic issues which are, which are meek. we drop huge and then disregard. we see that the political level, a chinese and russian approaches are 3 to a similar, not completely similar, but pretty similar. but when it comes to the economy, of course, china thinks about its own interest and not about russian interest in the 1st time . and that means in practical terms just now for example, and but i think it will be discussed when food jim comes to badging that the chinese companies, especially changes banks are extremely cautious to put it mildly when it comes to business with russia, because they don't want to become subjects or for become all the objects sofa. you are 2nd, there was sanctions. and this is not because they dislike russia or they don't

share russian exploration, but they think about their own interest, which are different now. uh, so again, every have to be a little bit different at this point of time because we need to take a short break, but we will be back in just a few moments extension the the broken back towards the parchment, the countless editor in chief of russia in global affairs magazines,

so look at them before the break. you mentioned that the, the chinese are far more cautious about how they deal with the west and both sides . they live service to responsibly managing their competition. but on the other hand, it's pretty visible. the mutual irritation is growing and there has been, you know, a succession of the american leaders visiting china. and it's pretty clear that their reception is sometimes it's not what they expect to guess. my question to you is looking at the scene american relationship, how much of it is due to the objective nature of the differences and how much of it is due to the communicative style that uh, both beijing or washington choose to practice is every one another q in communicative style is important, and in this regard,

i thing that american style and chinese style are 2 extremes. so to say the, we can see collision of 2 completely different approaches to how international relations should be conducted. as far as the american uh style, the american way of diplomacy is concerned. of course it, it sounds and it looks a little bit strange when the american high representative be, it's a secretary of state or even president of the united states meets the chinese council part. and the little this wish the old us agenda east to improve relationship to stabilize. what was the old risk for new or part of your not the, you know, the older soon for america's because they say that we need, we need to normalize. we need to stabilize,

maybe not to improve but to stabilize. with this intention they come. but at the same time, the stock, the bulk, the start to see the chinese. but we once do a to have better relationship, but you should not do this. you should know that you should be aware that if you do this, we will. so it's not that very much friendly approach. secondly, uh that's uh like, like a joke already. that for example, secretary of state has meeting with chinese which got smaller or less. okay. same day or the next day or present by them speak somewhere and says that the presidency is a dictator and we know this. so it's very difficult to comprehend. actually for do you think that matters for the chinese? i mean, do they, uh, uh, pay any attention to that or does it affect substantive politics because, i mean, they may express outrage and public, but does,

it doesn't affect the way they deal with them or i think it does affect how they deal. but chinese are very much different from us. for example, from russians, they are very patient and they accumulate, they accumulate and they, they make notes and of course it for them. so long term approach and the long term agenda for change. so i think the chinese are very much aware that the legal term perspective or the long term perspective of their relationship with the united states is a very harsh concept. maybe not necessarily war, but the very harsh competition. they know that now they, they didn't. uh, they were not that sure say 5 years ago, but now the noise. but at the same time, yes, they are very keen to look is if they these regard because yes, they want,

they really want to stabilize the relationship at this point. and the yeah they, they are in the way much more sophisticated. they indicate that they not this, but they do as if they can, so to say, communicate and corporate to any way. but again, that's a very, very visible and old is a discrepancy in the approaches cultural approach is not just about diplomacy. and there are many other countries who are watching this interaction. i think this is a new phenomenon of recent years. have sort of sitting on the fence in many countries and do it in very in different ways. the way, let's say united arab emirates balance is very different from the way turkey balances and many other countries. can you talk a little bit more about this proactive form of diplomacy,

of sitting on the fence and what of the risks and the opportunities that it allows you know, i wouldn't call it soothing and the sense because sitting on the fence is a passive product. uh, what is happening in international relations nowadays how actors behave and those acts, those are multiple, we see much more much more active of countries middle sized countries which have a real influence on the international relations much more than before. because years ago we have okay, couple of countries are those. where's the my to the gold was yours? it was a rather silent. now the global majority is not silent anymore. the global majority says that we have our interest. they are sitting on the fence in, in,

in one sense that they don't want to join in the sides, in competitions or wars on conflicts which they don't believe are the or so. okay. now, there are many countries who don't want to be it from both under these great power rivalry, but there is one particular exception, which is ukraine. that wants to be a ride in the midst of the, of the fire, 2 years into the conflict in the country. how do you understand the current ukrainian calculus and the how those changed in any way, given the, the loss of the last 2 years. i don't think the cocoa has changed and one of them that i don't believe that this particular leadership can afford to change the cal calculus because they made once they they, they, they put everything on one stake to win. obviously they cannot do it the

what's the create, the august straight to the whole situation. i mean, ideal logically, political, economic only in military terms, evidencing in weight which doesn't allow them to back. it doesn't allow them to, to change the position. because now initial point, not, not even by the landscape by ukrainian presidents, i would say, you know, the gates ago, the initial point was that we have to break with russia and to join and other than that. so now the discussion whether it was wise or not, or told the reckless whatever or even possible, or even possible. but this happens. and then during the uh, the $22000.00 pounds and that escalate that all the time. and that led to, to the conflict which we, uh,

witness now. and since this uh, idea prevailed that the only way for ukraine to survive is to join the west to join florida mother the form of the, during the listing institution. and that means that uh, at least for this rolling group, there is no other option, but to fight or whatever. uh, the price for the the nation will be. so that's why i, you, you up. so to the right that ukraine is, i'd be the exception from the global threat. the global trend is to be to try to much, to, to try to maneuver and to try to even money relate, but not to get the hear about self preservation. so yeah, exactly, exactly, it's not the case with you claim and unfortunately i'm, i'm afraid that the consequences for this nation will be disastrous. now, the worst is now organizing of conference in switzerland to discuss the conflict and ukraine in russia is not invited. and you have,

there is an attempt to give this a, you found some sort of for international representation and legitimacy. how do you understand the purpose, how, why would the other side be motivated by something like the basement this point? or, you know, the purpose of organized goes through absolutely clear. and it's 22 purposes. one purpose is to legitimize the landscape, because we know that to formally, it has some problem. he's official term expires in may. and after that, uh that so legally bait whether he still remains the legitimate presence on not the bates, not the internationally, but the big domestically, which is much more important because legitimacy is about domestic situation. not about international recognition. so on the on, sorry, this is an attempt by france offers and ask in france of care to,

to the steve i have to demonstrate that he's still the absolutely legitimate, powerful head of state. leave it on the nation 2nd, uh, which evasion is to demonstrate, to create and that's most viewed to create an image that every body is for a peaceful solution, bought the russian. and that's why participation of this world, majority of countries absolutely essential. that's why china is desperately being repeatedly invited by ukrainians by suisse, by americans. and so, and that's why chinese are so far at least very em again, very cautious whether to participate in this. this is a game, make sure you saw the above piece. of course, i heard you say recently that's a major obstacle to any substantive peace negotiations because the russian, the west understand the cost of the valley for this conflict in very different

terms. why wouldn't that even matter? at this point, given the, you know, the profound changes on the ground that would matter at this point or at some later point. because the sooner or later it should come to some kind of abuse the stalk, an open, close to a secret official whatever. and the question is about what and this is the main, the difference that for the west and for do you agree they the promote it very much . this is in for always stick war by pull to well that, but that's just rhetoric do things. yeah. yeah, no, no, no, no, i the, i don't believe the rest of the 3 guys think for your convenience and for meeting the west. this is a really hotels attempt to adjust the gain, the territory destroy it. con 3 of which russian need, the many in russia, sees us historical,

a bunch of russians to one. and so that's about you agree. so negotiation shouldn't be about to create a russian position. and i think this, this should be emphasized very much the cost was bailey was not to create the customer's bailey, was expansion on it. right. the wrong way. we can discuss it. but russia receive the expansion of nato as a vital existence of trapped directions. security and uh, it must be repeated once again that the russia said that many, many times students may have $9.00 to $9.00 to sexual when, when nathan lot of them started no longer. no one cares about this. no one, no one wanted to listen. and if we believe that the, the whole issue is about to ukraine, it's one type of negotiations which russia will not be engaged in easily

belief as russians think. and as i share this with you, the, the, the, the causes bailey and the issue was about naples, which means about security is the security of the interest in europe. that's completely another type of dialogue with a completely different set up of participants. well, mr. ok let's we have to move it there. thank you very much for your time. and thank you for watching hope to see her again on the walls that part the of

the police clash with protesters in tell of the buzz. thousands rally against is rarely prime minister netanyahu all while the looming threat of new need cast a shadow over netanyahu's government. what's the prime minister netanyahu? i look you in the lights, and i can tell you the choice is in your hands. if you choose to follow the pos of fanatics and lead the entire nation into an abyss, we will be forced to quit the government. the