especially reading all your rate the russian president is making his 1st official visit to china as the world view contestation between destinations and the west gifts ever more pronounced with all sides having passed that points of no return. whereas history having now well to discuss that. now joined by so that a little piano editor in chief of a restaurant in for and the various magazines and research director of develop the discussion club. so can, if it's always a great pleasure for me to talk to you. thank you very much for your time. thank you very much. then for me now the choice of china as the destination for vladimir put in the visit after renewing his term is not really surprising. and the other thing there is some point answer to that 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 the surprise of you, right? the said, and this is,

which is the response to last year's visit of a chairman susan been to, to, to moscow. and that was his 1st visit after the official integration as the head of state. so put in base to return a s for a relationship 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 shrink to or, and shrinking to the last crystallized um, no, no, not necessarily crystallized because 6 years ago it was a much, much broader scope of, uh, international partners. uh, how much to see, are they aware these are the 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 russia from international economy. and this is the most important change that russia has to rely on the other very important partners. and so there are many, but china is by default, the most important because of size, because over can all make potential. and because the china is the biggest neighbor . now, you mentioned the previous visit of president she to russia. and at that time, he was overheard telling pretend that the 2 nations, or perhaps the 2 liters as pure, had in changes the lights of which the world hasn't seen in the last 100 years. and

it's already been reported that on this, these are put in is going to present she with a sort of historical manuscript by russian writer in the college. miss jessica, 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 shouldn't this, jessica is not the most popular right to nowadays in the russia, but apparently he is one of the favorites by she maybe maybe a, but this is, this is quite an interesting distinction. a interesting difference because, and the subsidy was part of, uh, uh, any, uh, uh, necessary readings during this time. because during this, ask you with a dissidence during the service to russia, and he was glorified by the soviet. uh, the, the theory uh, science. uh no. i wouldn't say that the russian mood,

especially the mood, the russian of that issue, is there a loose and anyone in terms of how to organize the country, it's rather of the very conservative approach to uh, to uh, values to a means how to govern how to organize the site and then disregard. 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, 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 foreign audience like a couple of months ago with tucker carlson. he a loss to refer to history. and this is very important because in the very terrible, in terms of disruptive world, you need to have some kind of fundamentally, but this is a very interesting point because as you mentioned, both are russia in china despite their political and governing conservatism. i sort of moving proactively, moving into the future that i know the freight 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,

it's usually about the return to the glorious past the united states seems to be somewhat not solid, but very much apprehensive of the future. how do you explain this better? i know, 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 united states referring to the glorious past ronald reagan and whatever. well, even of the democrats build the battery, i mean the, the, the, how much forward as 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 denied states or probable establishment in the united states. 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, understood today. not historically seem. and for me, it's a very strange demand because you, you basically undermine your past in order to make the contemporary situation more gathered in the bowl. 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 and deliberate about um, you know, the risks or the implants. but nowadays they sort of moved to many protests 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. so it's quite understandable because we leave as a chairman, she told fortune a year ago. we leave, interfere with the unprecedented and pretty rare changes a profound changes. it's not like cosmetic, uh, uh, does formation of updates and 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 powers, which is a state that in the us national security concept is just the legal part of that. because in, in fact we see a norm of changes in how society is being organized. so really think that's the one

that you sent and then assess the dates. you have a strategy about, you know, which battles you, you pick up whether you fight with china and russian or does. this is a strategy would share from my point of view, is a substitute. when you don't know how to address real challenges or 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 the site, the 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 litters to have grounding and how to manage their own societies. oh, absolutely, it's 63, emily is difficult and the in this regard, united states as they will have his own problems, russia is not immune from enormous cio. and just 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're trying to implement a tradition, as you understand the past for the present and the future, it will not work because tradition should be adapted. so this is a set up of, of values, nonsense of instruments. how to address issues got guarantee issues, and then disregard a, each nation. each country tries to find their own set, top of, of, of instruments a rather unsuccessful the, they would say, no speaking about different instruments. your role with recently the most convincing and not only aligned and our role to you, but also quite distinct about how they approach their intentions with,

with their west, at least on a tactical level. what are some of the main differences between moscow and vision? the main difference is very clear, a china is not just a barcode global economy, it's on a filter. so i've been a little economy. russia 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 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. it will and you can or cannot, can. yeah. because we may have heard so much, i'll say that we can go exactly well, much tools anymore. they, they, they, they did, i mean, the west, the, the,

almost everything they cooled in terms of economics and located sanctions, embargo since, or china is in a completely different position at china needs a pretty smooth economic development to address domestic issues which are, which are meeks we drop huge, and in this regard, 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 to 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 of become older or just sofa. you are 2nd, there was sanctions. and this is not because they dislike russia or they don't share a russian aspiration, but they think about their own interest, which are different now. uh, so again, if we 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 featured the release, the rushing states to navigate as tight as one of the most sense community best most i'll send send up the consumer speed. what else calls question about this, even though we will then in the european union,

the kremlin, the machine, the states on the rush to day and split the r t spoke neck. even our video agency, roughly all the band on youtube tv services. for what question did you say even closer to the welcome back to what was the portsmouth,

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 that 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 this in a american relationships, 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 the both beijing or washington choose to practice is every one another acute 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 into nation release and should be conducted as far as the american 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 count the part. and the little this wish, the oldest agenda east to improve relationship to stabilize very well. they will do this for you or part of your, the, you know, the oldest even for americans because they say that we need, we need to normalize,

we need to stabilize, maybe not to improve but to stabilize. with this invention they come. but the same time the start to talk about start to see the changes, but we once do it to have better relationship, but you should not do this. you should not do that. you should be aware that if you do this, we will. so it's not a 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 kind of 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 the 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 eve,

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 then corporate to any way. but again, that's a very, a very visible and all of this 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 of sort of sitting on defense in many countries and do it in very, in different ways. the way, let's say united of i'm or as balance is very different from the way turkey and 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 approach. 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 it's lighter, i think the gold was yours, it was a rather silent. now the global majority is not silenced anymore. with the global majority says that we have our interest there. see thing on defense in, in,

in one sense they, they don't want to join in your sides in competitions or wars on conflicts which they don't believe are the or so. okay. now uh, 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 how those changed in any way, given the, the loss of the last 2 years? i don't think the cocos changed and one of them that i don't believe that this particularly the issue. i can't afford to change the cal coat because those because they made the ones they, they, they, they put everything on one state to when uh, honestly,

they cannot do it or what's the create the august street, the whole situation. i mean, idea logically, political, economic only, in military terms, evidencing in the 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 bi zalinski 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 another can 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 booting to uh the 2002000 pounds and that escalate that all the time. and that will add 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 formerly joined the west institution on it. that means that uh, at least for this rolling group, there is no other option, but to fight uh, whatever, uh, the price for the, the nation will be. so that's why i, you, you absolutely right, that ukraine is. uh, it'd be the exception from the global threat and the global trends is to be to try to much, to, to try to maneuver and to try to even money relate, but not to get the fear 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 in

your grant, in russia's not invited. and you have, there is an attempt to give this a, if on some sort of international representation and legitimacy. how do you understand the purpose, how, why would the other side be motivated by something like this, at this point? or, you know, the purpose of organize us is, i've certainly clear, uh, it's 22 purposes. one purpose is to legitimize the landscape because we know that to formally, it has some problem. she is official term expires in may. and after that, uh that so legal debate, whether she still remains the legitimate presence on not the bates, not the internationally, but the big domestic, which is much more important because legitimacy is about domestic situation. not about international recognition. so of the, i'm sorry, this is an attempt by france so far as a man, skin france of care to,

to basically if i have to demonstrate that he's still the absolutely legitimate, powerful head of state leads up in the 2nd of 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 action. it's not the above piece. of course. i heard to say ever since then, the major obstacle to any substantive peace negotiations is that the russian,

the west understand the cause of valley for this conflict in very different terms. why would 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 sooner or later it should come to some kind of abuse, be stuck open, close a secret official, whatever. and the question is about what to, and this is the main, uh, uh, this ones that for the west, and for do you agree they, they promote it very much. this is a fairly stick wor by pull to. well that, but that's just rhetoric do seem to be a no, no, no, no, no, no, i the, i don't believe the rest of the week. i 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 lead the many in russia sees us historical, but the russian, so on. and so that's about to agree. so negotiation should 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 that right. the wrong way. we can discuss it. but russia received expansion of nature as a vital existence of trapped directions, security and uh, it must be repeated once again that the russia said that many, many times since the me $9.00 to $9.00 to sexually when, when nathan lived in stockton no longer, no one cares about this, no one, no one wanted to listen to. and if we believe that the, the whole issue is about to ukraine. it's one type of negotiations which the russia

will not be engaged in easily belief as russians think. and as i share this view that the, the, the causes bailey and the issue was about naples, which means about security is the security of interest in europe. that's completely another type of dialogue with completely different set up or for participants, or 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 was a part of the,

the other way in law lives as the cargo border brothers was there up at one of their so so the just so basically of course we need the last name was name is really most and when we used to live, imagine we have support

for someone who is this we would show new people to the the the police class we've protested intel or be this thousands right against is way the prime minister netanyahu or while the moving semester of new to the tough, the shadow of the and baffled need has done what 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 interface, we will be forced to quit the government the . how can i pay the state visit to china, seas by aging, roll out.