i said i will enter it in the if they will the law. if they will shoot me. at all i will. indeed i'm deaf and i think in vietnam in the beginning that you could have been killed but if you deny that i think i'm a little bit like i mean. come

on welcome to worlds apart western europe has long been the birthplace of both the most dangerous and the most enlightened ideas that almost burned the planet alive with the two world wars and came up with the european union as a prevention strategy against the third is the euro centric way the only strategy of saving the world from a new disaster or is it perhaps the surest way of bringing it about well to discuss that i'm now joined by collapse and he collide is director of the center for international studies at oxford university professor nickell it is it's an honor talking to you thank you very much for your time thank you now i know that for much of your cadet make career you've been focusing on how people collectively negotiate diet differences and you see the european union which are meant much within that framework not only as an experiment and governance but also an experiment in settling and negotiating differences among the peoples. as we're recording this

conversation john clarke ian kerridge the president of the european commission and the quintessential european bureaucrat is supposed to be meeting with donald trump in many ways a remarkable american leader how do you think the two are likely to proceed well i think we can are great that it's not going to be an easy conversation will it indeed you encourage goes to washington in the name of still twenty eight countries the u.k. still part of this story and. is bringing with him on content a message of multilateralism the idea that we are still a world governed by rules and institutions that well the u.s. may have some issues with trade deficit with the e.u. in general with germany in particular saying about their car exports but that all of this can be discussed in a kind of civilized

a way in the context of now bilateral dispute resolution or in the context of multilateral. discussions in the w t o and should we do this and of course she's going to face a president which i don't need to tell you doesn't really agree with this way of doing things and where with a bill coming to all this with a belief that institutions are not just kind of ineffective but they're very often bad for what he calls america first so how are those two going to talk to one another what do we think well and i think this is actually a very interesting question to ponder because as you said these two represent two very different archetypes of governance the new york european the way reach is based on laws it's all very simple deliberations slow motion decision making and the what i would call the old american way you know get it done and get it done very quickly and it's not that the. donald trump doesn't respect institutions and

i'm not sure about that but i think he definitely has a certain disregard for for the dialogue for the sake of dialogue i think he may believe that the european union is using it to its advantage to keep the benefits as much as you may dislike him i'm sure that that is the case for most european intellectuals do you think your of can learn anything from donald trump well first of all i don't think international politics is about liking are not liking it's about asking whether parties countries and their leaders or groups inside countries . have learned and know how to pursue their interests which is what it's all about in a way that's enlightened for them meaning that it's in a way which also considers interest in the long run indeed that's what the us did when you talk about the old american way the old american way depends what you call but it has to do also with the end of world war two where the us created the

bretton woods institution and very much as a benign and had him on sometimes sacrifice its interest in the short run to pursue its interest and more general global interest in the longer run so in this sense i would say that. the question for me is whether trump is pursuing even his own country's interests in the appropriate way it's not about whether i like him or not whether i'd like him to babysit my children that's not the point and indeed i don't think donald trump you say well it's not necessarily that he dislikes institution you witness as well as i did his coming to the u.k. and advising. terrorism may our prime minister to sue the european union indeed he said many times he doesn't think the e.u. should continue to exist he doesn't like that well you know it really depends on the point of view because you can make an argument that he actually trust the institution of courts and he believes that judges will be able to make. the best

judgment i mean coming from russia you know why people mostly distrust our court system that is actually you know kind of you know a sign of respect but nevertheless you mentioned he's slogan america first and i think in order to discuss it in a serious detail we really really have to contend the issue of nationalism and what strikes me about nationalism is that for many in europe it is quite clearly a pejorative term and we all understand why it is a bridge or a deterrent but for many. you know in other parts of the world in the united states even more so in russia it is actually a positive term do you think people in europe and the leadership in europe actually understand that not everybody shares that our conception of nationalism and their fears of what it represents first of all i mean you're absolutely right. as you remarked about russia that it's not because we value institutions and conversations

and peaceful resolution of disputes that i would be arguing that institutions always do the right thing i mean institutions are led by very fallible people men most of the time if women were in charge and you think it would go better and you know so institutions can have failed ideologies they can be problematic and indeed the problem that russians are struggling with and americans and many around the world is a fear that people have that institutions supranational institutions this taking away what they value their sense of place control as we say in the country where i live that's why briggs it is also all about taking back control and so if you're suggesting to me that it's a very universal trait to want to take back control to feel that your life that you are part of a polity of politics that is closer to you and not somewhere out there i'm with you i agree and. maybe you and i could have

a whole conversation about semantics so we could say well yes but nationalism is that you often use as a term to denote the pathological or problematic aspect of national identity to have a national identity to be proud of it to want to build democracy and solidarity with within a space that's not global is a good thing i agree with you the question that you and i have to ask we have to ask it to the russians we have to ask it to the europeans we have to ask it everywhere in the world is when is it that people start turning this proud of who they are in their collective into a tool of exclusion into a tool of aggressive intervention in other people's affair indeed into it to where you don't respect the national identity of the other side so it's a very complex story and you're absolutely right to imply that the european union right now is struggling in trying to balance its people's yearning for this

sense of control and the sense that we need to do things together in this crazy dangerous worth world of ours so it's a balance and when you ask me about europe in a nice you know there's every kind of political elite there are those that are very blindly supremo list wanting to forget all about national identity there are those who are very nationalist and populists there are those in between their old suits of shades of colors in europe as in russia and as in everywhere well yes and no because i think the main difference in how the european union and russia for example approach the issue of national is for many in europe nationalism is almost the root of all evil is basically blame aggressive nationalism for the carnage of the world war two and what the kind of miss is that for the country like russia national is was the saving grace this is what carried us through those terrible years back in. the late thirty's and early forty's this is what sustained us as

a country so therefore for us nationalism is not something that ruins half of the continent it's something that allowed us to actually persevered in the face of that aggressive force and what i wanted to ask and i think when i listen to trump at least i think what he's trying to. secure weighed in the best way he can is you know something about that kind of nationalism sustaining nationalism rather than nationalism that six to destroy everybody else don't you think that when people in europe are so frightened by either putin tromp or people of that sort don't you think that they're actually not so much fearing the danger that those personalities represent as much as they fear that side's within europe the fear of europe in south carolina you're absolutely right to say that troubles or or rather challenges

always start at home to stop pointing to the other look in your own backyard to see what your challenges are and indeed in our european backyard i'm not sure i agree with you when you imply that you know when europeans are looking at russia they kind of forget what we know as europeans to rush to what you call russia russian nationalism and i'd rather cold you know russian courage russian pride i would call it patriots but it's ultimately based on the very strong national feeling yes absolutely so we know we'll do you and me and others want to use the term patridge ism to say that's the positive the the fighting for the right cause you know die mention of nationalism so you like me and i think many people in russia will make this distinction between the kind of national attachment that leads you to defend values to defend values against nazism to defend values against. all sorts of of

problems in the world over to be sunny there with one another to help one another i mean all of these elements of patrick ism and national identity are very important the question is when you want to give a lot of. support to trump. i see where you're coming from you're saying you know way you know the americans and us in russia we share this understanding we're not like these naive kind of. europeans who want to forget about nation we understand that making our country great again is you know the best thing in the world and you can say that but are you sure that you want to share with putin the i dare the sorry with trump the idea that this requires therefore to build wells to put children in. a way from their parents to with pup you know racial politics to do all sorts of things that i'm sure the russians you

really do want to share with with a child i have never actually bought the idea that we as russians can really say anything to the americans to the extent that they will actually you know take that as our advice i'm not a big fan of you know meddling in interference stories simply because i don't believe it's possible but i think it's also a little bit manipulative to kind of lump all those things together because you can criticize any politician or any had of stayed on one set of policies and agree with him on another why do we have to sort of criticize or praise tromping in such a wholesale manner oh and i don't so you and i can completely agree with this let me give you one example nato you know trumps and i'm not sure speaking to me from moscow is the best example you would take but trump comes to europe and say hey guys you know why are you only four countries in nato spending two percent of their agenda or more on defense. which we're bearing too much of the burden now course we

could say well that serves you it's the industrial military complex we could say that determines for instance spend a lot of money you know in development and that's conflict prevention it's a kind of security you can celsus of that all sorts of things like this but you could also say that in a security alliance there should be an equal sharing of the burden so in that sense i don't like the style the way trump says it but on substance it may not be such a bad idea now of course from the russian viewpoint i'm not sure that's the the example that you prefer but on this one you know i'm happy to to say that there should be a conversation with charm well professor nicolette is i really want to have that conversation with you but in a couple of minutes we have to take a very short break now but we'll be back shortly stay tuned.

if you think of a more intriguing story line one that includes an attractive russian woman money guns politics power and yes unfortunately for maria who came in this is not a story line but her life at the moment is she the most recent victim of the west spoke via towards all things related to russia. everywhere in the world my guess is that probably just about everywhere women expect men to make that first move and here we are in an age where men are scared to make the first move don't know how to make the first move don't know what's right to make the first little.

welcome back to worlds apart post-collegiate cynical ideas director of the center for international studies at oxford university professor nickell i did just before the break we touched upon the nature issue and this is a very very sensitive issue for russia i know that many officials in moscow find it very hard to distinguish between the european union which is a political and economic activity that russia is eager to develop its relationship with and nato which russia sees as occasionally aggressive military alliance do you think even makes sense for russia or for that matter for the europeans to try to distinguish between these two entities but of course that doesn't make sense as you just explained very brilliantly there are two very different entities. and indeed when you is a peaceful entity and only a defensive entity and of course nato is also a defensive organization but when would that include other countries than the u.

. but you know on the other hand i would say that since you are raising the issue of nato that. while i think that russia. has. complex relationships with nato and with the e.u. it's fair enough for russia to express you know its own interests these are the the kind of alliances that happens in happen and it's long it's neighbors but i wonder how would you navigate those very difficult relationship because all on the one hand as i said russia wants to have you know better trade ties with the european countries but when those countries are kind of from the common perspective lured into the nato alliance that makes it. very difficult to deal on the diplomatic level and i'm sure you've heard we've had a number of scandals recently the russian diplomats have been expelled from

greece over the major controversy surrounding the supposed that russia's interference in the domestic politics of greece dealing with the with its long running dispute over macedonia what is a fair game when it comes to europe i mean because as i said before there is trade diplomatic relationship and that there is another aspect to it which is security relationship well it is a complex question indeed and you raise of course the latest example of the methadone in question and indeed i'm not sure to say whether the expulsions where grounded on what kind of information you know i'm just an academic. i don't have inside information but what we do know is that a russian businessman or did to poor pay whatever people who belong to the extremes

you know on both sides in greece and in north macedonia people who have rejected an agreement that we have taken the press back agreement between the two countries we've taken twenty five years to get where we are it's an amazing agreement so very modern agreements it's an agreement of deep reconciliation between two countries of course over the name that becomes north macedonia over the sharing of identity between two countries but also lots of other elements of of cooperation and so when you say well you use the word lure country into nato in asking me about this and i would say very strongly knowing all my friends in scope in north macedonia that they wouldn't all of those who signed the agreement on their minister prime. i would not considered that they have been lured they would consider that indeed this agreement this is the great price for the great reward for their country to both

and turn nato and to start negotiations with the european language be fair here because i think it's clear from the public opinion polls in macedonia that the public is quite divided on this issue and we had previous examples in other balkan countries of people sort of being i wouldn't say pressure the alert as the term i used before but kind of prodded towards. that military alliance and that obviously comes on the back of many other far more fraught issues one of them is the issue of ukraine another one is a show of georgia. authorities one a major one was there an issue off later interference and regime change in libya which absolutely appalled not only russia but i think ultimately led to the major immigration crisis in in europe so you know. this is definitely again this is a formal structure and people who belong to nato they they they talk about the peaceful nature of that alliance but when push comes to shove this alliance das act

very approach mystically and sometimes i think russia would argue acts against the best interest of humanity as was the case in in libya so is it really such a surprise that russia would feel so apprehensive about this alliance moving ever closer to its borders. well i understand that is a question that is very important in russia and it's one can hear that but in your question you've raised so many different issues it is very hard to respond with a general question so if you're asking me whether the intervention of nato in libya was a great success i'm with you not really i mean it may be in the very short term to avoid. many deaths in benghazi it wasn't about idea but it was a very mismanaged and we have a bit of a mess in libya right now and indeed you're competing you're right that this has contributed the so-called refugee crisis that's a different issue from nato in the eastern neighborhood or rather the should what i

was called the sheriff and disputed and contested neighborhood between russia on one hand and the european union on the other and within that again i ask you shouldn't we distinguish between the former soviet space the georgia has and ukraine of this world where yes we could have a whole conversation about who wanted nato and ukraine itself with if i did and all of that we can have that conversation that's again different from southeast europe from the balkans who were never a soviet space which historically even under tito were always in between which of course since the end of the cold war have themselves expressed in many different ways their wanting to be part of the european union and which of course themselves are complicated when you're serbia it's not serbia or boys now are not the same story as albania montenegro or indeed north macedonia so we would need to have

a complex conversation i certainly do not believe in the series of influence i believe in each country's right to self-determination but i think that concept is being abused way too often and one thing that unites all those profiles all those cases that. i mentioned before for russia is the mode of decision making because if you go back to libya and if you actually analyze how the decision to overstep the un mandate was made it was made because of two individuals it was made because of the class i crazy and david cameron and those two individuals were able to override all the institutional safeguards that europe is so proud about so that decision to ruin the country and. cause a great havoc to the rest of the continent was made by very very close very very narrow group of people and there is no guarantee for russia that the same group of people or different people of a similar mentality will not make similar decisions when it comes to russia ukraine

or any other country in the russia's neighborhood that's really in turn destabilize this country do you understand what i'm trying to say well absolutely and indeed first of all it's important to stress that lived there was not an e.u. action but as you said british and french but in any case you are very right key in using aside the historical interpretation of what happened leaving aside the fact that of course we need to learn very deep lessons about how the un functions about how intervention is managed collectively all of this is right but at the very end but i'm not sure i would agree with you that therefore as we look at the need just story we should obsess including the media by saying oh well it's atavistic you know the west has it in its blood that they will do the same in russia in ukraine or wherever i think the west first of all has learned its lesson with afghanistan and iraq and indeed libya i think in in

a way sadly because in syria i'm not sure that the west has necessarily done the right thing or any of the external intervenors but indeed you can see in syria that when it comes to intervening in another country when it comes to overriding sovereignty you know russia helps itself to so. it's a very widely shared problem if it is a problem and we all know that under certain circumstances it may be right to intervene that's why the international community came up with this notion of r t r two p. responsibility to protect i am not saying that r two p. is a reason to intervene anywhere specifically but i'm just saying that this debate about intervention about what you call you know in russia sovereign democracy and all of these issues is a difficult one it's not black and white yes we should refrain from intervening and imposing our will on other countries but in certain specific cases then it's certain specific very restrictive cases we could also define intervention professor

nickell it is it could be very easily argued on the kremlin side that libya was that specific case when russia actually did not use its veto power when it trusted that was that the west was going after the good thing but it just couldn't help itself you know you know the rest is history now you said something before that the rest actually learned its lessons if it indeed learned its lessons why do you think it needs to push with the nato expansion further and further wouldn't it be you know wiser it's you you know. call it quick all done that and allow that trust to be established within the continent and proceed from there and who knows maybe that trust would be enough to proceed with the r two p. later on why do you think that issue with macedonia and keep pushing for the expansion of nato is so present earlier on oksana you spoke about what countries should do what they want and you know in terms of institution think about it

a supply and demand nato supplies itself and whatever service it gives and countries demand ask for membership or not and when you agree that in all of these stories we need to start from the countries themselves even if we're talking about ukraine or whatever countries but in the balkans and specifically in macedonia today we have countries who maybe they're wrong you know i don't know but they themselves and their government and majorities of their population would like to be part of these institutions there is this kind of attraction where there is the e.u. and the money in the markets that it represents and perhaps the values whether it's nato with a sense that it will bring some kind of security and like mindedness they demanded they ask for it you know our macedonian friends our north madisonian friends the reason that they change their own name to north macedonia and this is not an easy thing to do they have a huge pushback domestically they have extremists who are saying no no no we don't

want a concession with greece but they think they think the public opinion and the government that the promise of nato membership in e.u. membership is the right thing they're the ones who are asking for it they may be asking for it and yet it is after the parliament to ratify that decision and i think the whole case of russian interference was based on allegations that supposedly that well connected businessman was agitating against rick to cation so probably if he was indeed doing that there was some space for turning that pain in why. one way or another anyway president gladys we have to leave it there i really appreciate the spirited discussion that you're treated us to today thank you very much for being with us and i encourage our viewers to keep this conversation going in our social media pages and hope to see you again same place same time here and will depart.

it's a very rough birth or a new sort of climate and you have to fight to be able to them if. it was gunshots on top of them and so many friends they would have been going there meaning and i've been and you know mark i'll be. going back up and. you know i don't when you see it but a body in the children is ready to participate in the good. old to me a good living. you don't think about this leave this soldier or know you guys like any other another patient.

the u.s. president postpones a second summit with president putin while the u.s. secretary of state is grilled over donald trump's dealings with the russian leader . donald trump on junk ordeal because strike a deal to avert a trade war between the u.s. i'm thinking of you. and islamic state claims responsibility for a wave of terror in southern syria which has reportedly claimed the lives of at least two hundred fifteen people. the nations of the stories head to our team dot com at the top of the hour my colleague only sushi will be here with the latest news but coming up the crosstalk debates the arrest of russian gun.