hello and welcome to worlds apart while people in the west still question if the cold war is back for many in russia it's a foregone conclusion that the confrontation between east and west has not only resumed it's far more risky and that's kerrville is than it used to be and the only question is whether mounting tensions could be managed without another major war breaking out to discuss that i'm now joined by gad man got the professor of political science at the university ensberg professor man god it's good to talk to you thank you very much for your time. thank you israel now your country austria has been to have a lot lately given the decision of its political leadership not to yield to the

u.k. pressure and not to sound the russian diplomats over this crippled case i wonder if the question of who did it even matter do you think austria would stay true to its neutrality regardless of who they believe to be behind the poisoning well actually i need to say that australia has shown solidarity if the united kingdom and if the other members of the european union when declaring the official british position that most likely are russian perpetrator has committed a crime but it has decided not to expel any diplomats and disc was done based on the decision not to further egger of aid to tensions between the european union and the russian federation not going down anymore on. down towards spiral to confrontation a new cold war but to try to do something different to keep up the dialogue of the russian federation despite what has happened in the united kingdom while you said that there was still taking the u.k.

side but i heard a number of austrian officials publicly complain about the pressure on them how has submitted for example your foreign minister karen can they still was on record saying that the british were very very persistent in expressing their displeasure do you think austria may suffer because of this stance that took the solidarity as you said but they're very limited solidarity to not the kind of solidarity that the u.k. wanted to show well first of all of us not the only country not take spell the russian diplomats some other countries also did not do so like greece or cyprus so it's not isolated but of course yes there was a lot of pressure when a few demar shiz by the british ambassador in vienna to the austrian foreign ministry and of course yes the first some calls from washington to. to change our position but the austrian government has been firm and i think it will remain i don't know if you would agree with that but i think much of the geopolitics these

days is about shaming and stigmatization it's certainly the policies of the russia there is a concerted effort in my view of that. to show this country as a as an inhumane barbaric state and there was recently an interesting article in the foreign policy magazine reached you can aim at australia and suggest that austria's peacemaking bridge building inclinations its. historic neutrality was actually running a risk of turning this country into useful idiots for the kremlin that is a direct quote i wonder if. neutrality is still as valued auster neutrality in particular is still as valued in europe as it used to be during the cold war. the argument by the austrian government that the austrian stance is based on your travel was not very helpful and not a very good argument because when the european union back in one thousand nine hundred five made changes to our constitution which essentially says that the thing

the european union hears no new neutrality so the argument was not very well taken but the essential idea behind all stress behavior is to say what we don't have and what we have not had for the past four years is any institutionalized dialogue between the european union institutions and the russian federation that most the first part of the sanctions the west imposed on russia and the austrian government is committed particularly the chancellor is committed to establish some sort of at least informal dialogue between institutions and russia and he did not consider it helpful for that purpose to expel a russian diplomat from ghana now i personally came of age after the collapse of the soviet union but it is my understanding that even. in the cold war the soviet union was disliked it was fear it was recognised as an enemy but i think it was. you know the station back then the still lag of the kind of still a t.

and hysteria towards russia that we are witnessing today even anime's can treat each other with respect and i think i would argue this is perhaps the main difference from this current period of tensions the cold war as we know it from history books do you agree with that yes i did really well this indeed missing and what has been the case in the cold war during almost all the time of the cold war is mutual respect and the behavior of both societies following rules and actually deaths missing. respect between the united states and the russian federation or the european union in russia for that matter both sides don't seem predictably very much predictable particularly the russian side i have to say and rules obviously missing of conduct rules of conduct that have been adhered to during the cold war so in disrespect we are not in the cold war as we had it's but we have

a very different situation. i don't know again if you would agree with me but i think there is a very big difference between how russia and the west particularly the united states perceive a war i think in russia there is still a fear or a very a visceral fear off a nuclear confrontation i think russians that is the reason why russians bring out the issue of nuclear deterrence so often to show that they are you know that they want to thwart the development of that scenario but clearly americans don't perceive it as such and so what i want to ask you is how do you think europeans or austrians feel about it do you guys still fear a nuclear winter i actually have to say i'm too. as you know the university and generation of generations of students either asks whether they still feel fear a new clue war and they don't they are not aware of the danger they are not aware

it most certainly will not have a nuclear war by choice but they could have could have won by accident but they are not aware of death and i don't think that a broad majority of the populations in western europe or in the united states really is a very of the principal threats of a nuclear war unfortunately. between the united states and the russian federation efforts are missing and will be even third in the forthcoming years to do something about the risk of nuclear war by accident by assigning arms control agreements and by continuing to existing arms control agreements well it's interesting that you mention they are in control of the arms control agreements because back in the nineteen ages the soviet union and the united states clearly disliked each other just as strongly but they were still able to conduct those does armament talks there were a number of treaties signed i know that in one of your articles you pointed out

that you believe the need for that is very pressing given the expiration date for the new stars treaty approaching but do you think in this current climate any arms control talks are even feasible it will be very very difficult but as you state the only arms control treaty which deals with strategic offensive nuclear weapons is about to expire but twenty twenty one there is based on the stipulations of the treaty the possibility to extend the treaty for another five years but it takes two governments to two governments of the united states and russia to do so and so forth the united states government has not indicated that it has any intention to do so president only cold. a very bad deal which is supporting the russians given these statements but also the sentiment we see in the security cabinet and in

the security administration there is no strong will on the u.s. side to extend that i was just going to say that in the meantime both countries continue to arm or they're not offensive and defensive weapons russia has recently announced it has developed weaponry that is capable of overriding the american missile defense system in europe and i know that the kremlin intended that as an invitation for desire meant talks i mean putin president putin. plainly stated that he wants to sit down at the table with the americans and describes the future of strategic stability but again from the statements by the american officials we can see that they perceived it as a threat as a direct threat if you were in russia's place how would you address the american so that they would listen so that they would respond positively to russia's proposals i think at the moment in the security cabinet and particularly with president trump

there's no one eager to listen both sides have started modernizing their nuclear arsenal russia's almost finished the job united states is almost only at the beginning of this and for the russian side negotiations about control about the further reduction of warheads and missiles and strategic bombers with strategic potential the russian willingness to negotiate about that is based on the u.s. commitment including gauche ations on ballistic missile defense and in the political and military establishment of the united states just simply not a very significant who would at the current stage of bilateral relations include missile defense in arms control agreements with the russian federation so the russians have. united states are not ready to meet those conditions now just this morning i've seen several prominent russian foreign policy experts warn that we are

in the midst of the worst crisis since the cuban missile standoff some of them suggested that the possibility of a direct military confrontation between russia and the west and by the west i mean primarily the united states and to some extent the united kingdom is now higher than we've seen in the last thirty forty years do you share those concerns or do you think the russians are just being paranoid i don't want to call them paranoid but i simply do not agree or not in the situation leigh in october nine hundred sixty two when the very very close to a new clue war. conventional war between united states and the soviet union we are not there we're not there yet and it's not very likely that he will be there in the coming years you're saying that nowhere close to that crisis and yet if you look at the number of big gun ships in the seas around syria in the bid to raney and in the

red sea there is a very very high concentration of both russian and the american navy there and it has been the case for quite some time for at least several weeks or months and we heard numerous reports of. possible provocations all of this time around a large chemical attack that may trigger the united states to hit that country with its crew israeli missiles or other weapons and the russians have already said that if that happens they will retaliate do you think it's all bluff on both sides if you believe that we are not close to anything similar to the cuban missile crisis i don't think they are close to a deliberate clash military clash between united states and the russian federation close to and have been for the past two and a half years. is a class by accident as you say there are so many airplanes in the small syrian air space there's so much weaponry on the ground there's so many navy ships on the

mediterranean coast of syria that something could happen but not out of choice but by accident so does needs to be prevented at all cost and for that purpose we have called a nation in communication lines between the russians on and the united states it's a different thing however if. the united states as it has done so in april twenty seventh teen again launches cruise missiles to the syrian sites for alleged or real chemical weapons attacks i'm not sure that the russians will make true what they threaten the united states with namely with a military writ retaliation for such a strike i think the russians are threatening uneek it's a bluff to make us decide not to do so because of the threat of military escalation while a professor my god i said may hope that we will not leave to find that out anyway

we have to take a very short break now but we'll be back in just a few moments stay tuned. do you mean you don't say it was to the teacher what did they cook to do. what they need most through only ten space to. make. love to. said. no servant is messy that. you speak french. you.

see. this busy cutting up towards. kentucky. boy you go very funny. money you see it with no coal mines left. the jobs are gone all the coal was showed . that it was love to see these people the survivors of disappearing before their eyes. i remember thinking when i was younger that if anything ever happened to the coal mines here that it would become a ghost town but i never thought in the million years i would see that and it's how it's happened.

welcome back to worlds apart god professor of political science at the university of professor member just before the break we were talking about how the new cold war will be different from the previous ones and i think one al. is the frequency of clearly great just attacks usually with the use of weapons of mass destruction that both sides ascribed to one another the chemical incident insults bury a whole series of allowed to sarin and chlorine attacks in syria i wonder if you personally see any connection there between what happened in the united kingdom with this crippled poisoning and what's been happening in syria over the course of

the last few years. i think these are two very different issues on the one hand we have to suppose an ng with the british side and the european union solidarity the british as well as the united states who claimed it was a russian agent it was produced in russia i needed was authorized by the russian state what we do is evidence on some of these claims and it would have been very helpful from the very start for both sides to. an independent investigation by the organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons with russian and british specialists to find out and get answers to the open question so that's one thing syria's different the u.s. policy in syria is in disarray we forgot that after the defeat of the islamic state the united states will withdraw from syria and then we had to speech by the former secretary of state rex tillerson at stanford where he said no way they are

here to stay not only to prevent a reemergence of the islamic state but to decrease the influence of iran in syria and find a political solution and now we heard donald trump a couple of days ago say we bring back our boys quite soon so it's a bit difficult to understand what the united states actually wants with its troops in syria now last time we had a similar chemical attack back and when in two thousand and seventeen year old read the reference that the response of the trumpet administration was to tomahawk missiles into syria but they did it in a very unusual way it war of both the russians and the syrians in advance so those missiles only damage some rusting aircraft so in the eyes of the public it was a tough response but the military military terms it was really not much and i think

there are many ways of how you can interpret the. do you do you think that was an example of trance reckless behavior on the or on the contrary seem being overly cautious when actually i think the use of us chris missiles against a military side of the. syrian army was more for the u.s. domestic audience than for the syrian government trump wanted to be a very courageous and tough president obama had set a red line he had said when the syrian government is going to use chemical weapons it will change my calculus about syria and the bilby a military response but obama never really responded so trump wanted to show i'm not a i'm tough i'm not a soft liner and so he attacked but it was clear from the very start for the russians and for disappearance this is a warm of attack and not the start of a new u.s. policy in syria i want to come back to something you sad suggesting that president

obama didn't really respond to the syrian government supposedly crossing that red line i think we now see from numerous interviews in and from numerous testimonies including the latest testimony by the u.s. defense secretary that the united states has never had any proof of sarin gas average being used in syria so when you suggest that president obama was somehow weak in north punishing syria for its bad behavior shouldn't be also interpret that as president obama simply being prudent enough not to bomb the country until it has or he has any evidence to support that well actually i think the situation is different first of all we have casualties in syria who have suffered all died from chemical weapons and we have had some investigations by the united nations to clearly identified the syrian government's side for all of the chemical assault in august twenty third team. coming by. to the current situation there is strong

pressure by the security cabinet by the pentagon and by the media on down donald trump to do something about syria when trump announced that he will be thrown off from syria there was very very strong criticism for the whole security and foreign establishment not to do so pressing mr trump to do something about the political solution for syria not allow iran turkey and russia to dictate what happens with the syrian government and probably at some stage he might give in to this pressure but i don't think that it is his intention or what i consider more likely than another u.s. military attack on syria is that the united states' policy will be to wreck any effort by the russians the turks and the iranians to find a political solution so that is what i see namely that united states

not wanting to send thousands of troops to syria which they would need to resist the ukrainians let alone the russians what i see is that the united states is doing everything it can politically to make progress on the solution impossible what you're saying is that while being unable to contribute anything constructive and positive to the to this horrendous war they will just sabotage any progress that other parties have been trying to achieve well we have to say at the same time we have two parallel peace processes one is the united nations mediated peace process in she needed and all the rounds of talks we had there of are not successful particularly because the opposition demanded stuff that the regime was not going to deliver and secondly with the russian intervention in twenty fifteen the syrian government saw no need to give in to the demands of the opposition so that she

never talks wrecked by the syringa. and and the other third to find a political solution of the troika of russia iran and turkey is wrecked by the opposition and or parts of the syrian military opposition and in doubt they are to a certain extent yes of western nations so they can't agree to have a choice solution for syria so they both digitally to wreck each other's death to find a political solution now this syrian attack how to push this creep out of the front pages of western papers but i still want to ask you about it i'm sure you know that russia denies any involvement and there are many people in moscow particularly in the foreign affairs ministry who believe that these calls creep all controversy was intended and other things to warrant any possibility of rapprochement between russia and the e.u. i'm not going to ask you whether you believe in that but do you think there are forces within the u.k. stablish men possibly within the american establishment who would not want the

relationship between russia and the european union to be normalized while certainly within the military establishment of the united kingdom which is now asking for a larger budget forces who are interested in bad relations between the u.k. and russia between europe and russia because does is what they need to get higher government spending and i think we have the same people also in the united states who are interested in the confrontation but at the very same time i have to say i do see also forces within the russian federation who do the same or also stand to profit from confrontation the russian government or there's a russian leadership is not monolithic there are different interests involved in the russian leadership and there are some circles particularly related with the military industrial complex like the ones in the u.k. or those in the united states who profit from confrontation so actually what we need to address is that we have him. both sides people who are clearly interested

not to find a rapprochement not to solve problems but to make things worse now you wrote in one of your recent articles that russia if russia wants to see any improvement in mutual relations with europe it needs to make concessions do you have anything specific in mind what kind of concessions could russia make in order to try to build bridges into europe well i think for the e.u. russian relations to most pressing problem is ukraine not so much crimea because most western governments simply do your job but the fact to accept crimea is part of russia and will be so for a very long time if not for ever but the real issue is eastern ukraine is there a chance to find a solution to those territories in the regions of don't yet skinned lugansk which are not controlled by separatists here we have an agreement in minsk to agreement which would help but it doesn't work i'm sure you know russia would be perfectly

content with the so-called austrian scenario let's say neutrality or some sort of knowing alignment for ukraine and i can even see europe or the majority of the e.u. member states agreeing to some form of that but i think what they agree with me that they're met for the americans that's not good enough they will continue pushing the prospect all for ukraine's nato membership if nothing else and purely for retort go purposes where is there room for concession there simply accepting nato troops on russia's border is that the only concession concession that would be required of us well i'd say for the russians the ongoing conflict in eastern ukraine is helpful in preventing ukraine's western integration particularly into nato but it's not just the united states who has an interest to bring over ukraine to the western political and military institutions but it's the government of ukraine which wants to and it's a much shorter population of ukraine with which. wants to join nato i don't think

given the resistance by nato members such as germany and france ukraine will become an official member of nato india needed future or not even india for c. ables huge are but what we see are steps taken on the ground calling ukraine now an aspirant country to bring ukraine defacto closer to the alliance and i think this is not helpful. the russians also the west should make a concession of not including ukraine in need but the russians need to make concessions to the military solution of eastern ukraine and there we have not seen sufficient thirds by the russian side not assuming that the russian government has full control over the separatists but we don't have not seen enough resolution on the russian side to bring it least about a comprehensive peace plan which will be helpful by the way for the russian

interests because if we had a comprehensive honesty's between the two sides it would be in the ball would be in a court of the ukrainians they would need to deliver on political reform and they won't do it well professor manhood i think we also have to keep in mind that we cannot make peace with ukraine without here but anyway we have to leave it there thank you for this conversation which our viewers can keep going in our social media be just as for me to see her again same place same time here on the wall the part.

that guy the product of google also guides the actions of the employees within a google and they can stop the algorithm isn't this just like fantasia the disney movie with mickey mouse worry goes to war with the dancing groom and he tries to chop it down. to flood with in the wizard alice these are algorithms that are out of control and the employees within the company can't stop the. algorithm who's in

charge of the algorithm or the head of google who's running the show. us the defense secretary admits that his country has no concrete evidence there was a chemical attack in the syrian city of dumas but might strike preemptively to defend american troops there. after a lengthy cabinet meeting theresa may fails to show much light on london's course of action on syria merely stressing needed to coordinate with allies meanwhile the german chancellor gives a firm no to military strikes against damascus good chance. even to end its chicken and side unusual from my. own community of us not to need to tighten. your case foreign secretary is in no doubt russia was behind the screwball poisoning after u.n. watchdog confirms the substance abuse in the attack that is the.