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 collide is director of the center for international studies at oxford university professor nicolaides it's an honor talking to you thank you very much for your time thank you now i know that for much of your khadem a career you've been focusing on how people collectively negotiated differences and you see the european union preachment much within that framework not only as an experiment in 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 argue 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 that u.k. still part of this story and. 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 german in particular about their car exports but that all of this can be discussed in a kind of civilized 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 he'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 the bill coming to all this with a belief that institutions are not just kind of ineffective but they're very often bad for which he calls america first so how are those two going to talk to one another what do we think well 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 which 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 donald trump doesn't respect institutions 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 contains or is interest in the long run indeed that's what the u.s. 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 advise ing. terrorism may our prime minister to sue the european union indeed he said many times he doesn't think that you should continue to exist he doesn't like 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 what 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 a 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 fear is 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 is 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 is 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 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 everywhere in the world is when is it that people start turning this proud in 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 the 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 european elites you know. there is every kind

of politically means there are those that are very blindly surprised that list wanting to forget all about national identity there are those who are very nationalist and populists there are those in between their old sort 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 as they certainly blame aggressive nationalism for the carnage of the world war two and what they 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 the for us nationalism is not something that ruins half of the continent it's something that allowed us to actually perseverance in the face of that aggressive force and what i wanted to ask you and i think when i listen to

trump at least i think what he's trying to. in the best way he can is you know something about doc 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 itself clearly you're absolutely right to say that troubles or or rather challenges always start at home so 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 russia to what you call russia russian nationalism and i'd rather call you know russian courage russian pride i would call it peter it is but it ultimately based on the very strong national feeling yes absolutely so we know we all you and me and others want to use the term patrick ism to say that's the positive the the fighting for the right cause you know dimension 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 also to be sunny day with one another to help one another i mean all of these elements of patch risen 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 in a 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 you can say that but are you sure that you want to share with the idea sorry with trump the idea that this requires now therefore to build walls to put children in. away from their parents too with pop you know racial politics to do all sorts of things that i am not sure as russians you really do want to share with with a troll i have never actually bought the idea that we as russians can really say anything to the americans did except that they will actually you know take that as our advice i'm not a big fan of you know metal. an interference story simply because i don't believe

it's possible but i think it's also a little bit manipulative to kind of flump 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 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 the trunk comes to europe and say hey guys you know why you are only four countries and nato spending two percent of their rigid e.p. or more on defense which we're bearing too much of the burden now course we could say well that serves you it's industrial military complex we could say that the germans for instance spend a lot of money you know in development and that's conflict prevention it's a kind of security you can sell sets 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 add to say that there should be a conversation with trump well professor nicolette is a 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. for. you. it's a very rough terrain of sorts climates. you have to fight to be able to the fam.

it was. on top of them and so many friends it would happen again and if i may. need a lot of clout with me telling me you know i don't want. to see everybody in the trouble in the city to participate in the good. old do me a good movie that. you don't think about these three of these so. you've got three to like you know the other patients.

welcome back to worlds apart from cynical ideas director of the center for international studies at oxford university professor nickell it is 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 and it is well of course it does make sense as you just explained very brilliantly there are two very different entities. and indeed.