in a way that's direct enough to expose mutual grievances but also sensitive enough not to make things worse that's seems like valid advice on the eve of the second meeting between obligingly putin but is that enough to pull the current here is russia relationship out of a tailspin while to discuss that i'm now joined by. the director of the institute of international studies at the moscow state institute of international relations mr good to see you thank you very much for coming over thank you for having me now you use a lot of psychoanalytic terms in your articles for example the fundamental attribution error which according to you both russia and the united states and their analysis of each other's actions if we take these political psychoanalysis a bit further how would you diagnose the current state of mind on both sides of. we have a very deep symmetry of perception of what's going on and. they don't probably get started you can sequence all the current sanctions regime they have. to see what's

going on through the election peter there's a malevolent russian into a few of them seem to destroying american power they've focused on that and they're thinking that that's what's basically crossing out of line and actor who are almost i'm speaking about the washington elite washington times. it's absolutely clear what exactly has happened in washington but. the. consequence of this american informal deception is a classical american strat the job to touring and possibly this month in russia and this is how it basically brings us to the point where we differ them thinks about one another not interact and directly but eventually thinking. about one about her do you see just recently that the key feature of our time as far as foreign policy is concerned is uncertainty and tolerance to uncertainty how you process it how you live with it is a key feature of emotional stability the lack of a. if these according to freud leads to neurosis i wonder if we if this is where we

are at the neurotic stage or has it gone further have to let's say paranoia well we . don't know it's we have these uncertain too which is structural and the rookie a lot of sort of everybody playing the game but we also have this misplaced certainty certainty about something that we actually know very little but we take for granted what you know what you know i'm not going to leave believes that russia has a malign idea to elect american president while it and in the same fashion i think the russians many russians it's leave believe that americans are out to get it and to put russia and its knees whenever there had the opportunity arises like the mossad to the medic and also he is being reduced to going to war and feel a loss of for something like some to buddhism all sides of the west which is like a mirror image of one another now since you mention some authors let me bring up another joseph heller the author of the famous catch twenty two novella which is

also frequently cited in political cycles circles and he is famous for saying that just because you are paranoid doesn't mean that they are not after you in your personal assed imation to what extent are russia and the united states guilty of what each side attributes to one another well i think we're investing far more in the autumn and then put it in experts on both sides like it costs one hundred million albums to create a color. and it costs like five million the rubble to create a super good experts on american studies morsi and the vice versa a new obviously to russia is not a field of. education for professionals people who do it often study in the state department and some of the policemen you know i know you're very much an advocate of a better russian outreach to deny that states and i want to challenge this idea little bit big. yes from my point point of view at least the current russian

american crisis was created by the people who weren't ignorant about russia they understood russian reasoning very well they just didn't like that reasoning is that is the problem really the lack of expertise rather than. simple disagreement with each other's intentions and view of the world well that is structural disagreements about how the world function and who should lead it how the system should look like the focus of own system americans would like to maintain primacy that is clear but we could have a war that. emanated from like uncertainty or a misplaced certainty like we thought you were doing this and we're responding to this and this happens on both sides i'm actually thinking that we should be. understanding of one another now on the bright side there is at least a realisation that something needs to be done about it let's talk specifically about the upcoming paris meeting and between the cheerleaders and just the other

day present press secretary said that since that meeting is going to take place on the sidelines of a an international new morial event it has to be incorporated into that events agenda and it wasn't quite clear whether he meant the technical schedule or the substantive agenda but i wonder if you think that specific event the celebrations of the world will one armistice could land any symbolic significance any positive symbolism perhaps to this struggling years russia ties well those battles between the first war and come time i've find them misplaced i don't think that we actually have a situation like this so symbolically speaking we have a much much bigger bounce. like you know. american interference in the russian election during the clinton was very formative period that is the metaphor we use americans currently conceive that are sure to be partly responsible for trump and that can be a pita for them so i don't think that symbolically that would actually. but even

though one parallel that i would draw i was preparing for this interview i was refreshing my memory on the armistice and the striking thing about it for me at least was its negotiating process or rather the lack of it because the germans were simply given the least of demands and some of those demands were impossible to begin about for example the germans were initially required to decommission more submarines than their fleet has asked and i think from the russian point of view the americans are also coming forward with non-existent claims like the claim of russia success if interference do you think that claim should and would be brought to the table in paris i think this idea of a russian into this topic is a kind of a show in the american political context but basically they interpret for them that interfered in something they don't understand they don't understand the moment of it. that way of dealing with the uncertainty that this is a kind of a misplaced sorting to with sure we're sure that the russians have supported pm

this is why he elected what will happen if he will be elected you know would you blame anybody else well that meeting in paris is going to take place about a week after the american midterm elections. are you sure that the sore losers whoever they happen to be this time around will not be tempted to play the russia card the again i think it will be played for at least two consequent years to build up next but eventually because it's for some reason russian the russians would lose this miraculous capacity of putting the american. you know these the russians we just don't know what they can do you know elvis presley landing on the moon they have a few that you can imagine or you can play and actually can be interpreted. but the thing is that's. like witnessing the solution of a single subject from them at a concert so. we wouldn't get a deal if we deal only with american president when. to send signals to

a medical establishment who are. contrary to what their president washington as a suit like a position will be voted in favor of clinton in addition to influencing the american leader we also have to invest in influencing their entire political you know communicating with them sending the signal that you know it's absolutely your your your think what is going on in washington where you have no idea and no interest in actually you seem to be missing your argument on the idea that they genuinely believe that to be the case and it is hard for me to accept that i'm pretty sure that people let's say in the obama or hillary clinton camp know what they were doing there was a very deliberate decision we know it from the leak hillary clinton e-mails to kind of entangled with russia and that's one thing like you know in terms of the political technology as we call it the decision to play this russian card came twenty four hours after the defeat but actually if you speak with people like in a congressional staff or anybody in the ministries pentagon state department it is

very little bit and widespread idea or belief. that russia has a big thing. of this topic but you know i don't remember who said that but it's essentially the more outrageous thing is the easier it is to believe and it's to some extent if you make exorbitant claims you don't really have to prove that that's one thing but they don't make it like this in a cynical way we just blame you because we want to believe they believe in it and this is very hard to grasp but like sitting here in moscow now you made the point in one of your recent articles that the russian leadership also seems fatigued by its own efforts to normalize the relationship with washington the previous meeting in the house and you showed that the better the personal chemistry between the two leaders is the worse it is for the bilateral relationship is that tendency likely to continue after perry. well it was clear that the russian executive have invested

heavily in these by locals and seeing that he didn't produce any positive results part i was trying was attacked for this meeting it was considered to be a failure of american diplomacy it's clear but he has a lot over the existence of ministration so we actually need to not only communicate with him but we do all of the guys were trying to constrain and prevent him from doing what they see as a threesome now this decision so we have to take a very short break now but we'll be back in just a few moments stay tuned. to what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have it's crazy. let it be an arms race. theory dramatic. only. i

don't see a. very critical time to sit down in. the global economy has been dead since two thousand and eight and through the transfusion of a lot of money has been animated and kept alive it looks like something was going on there but now those transfusions of cash are ending because interest rates are going to start ticking up so now the rotten stinking corpse of the global economy is going to start smelling really bad people are going to start bailing out of stocks technology stocks housing stocks. semiconductor stocks right there. and then of course you can have market down twenty thirty forty fifty sixty percent . people. live the good. fun.

we have other things and the smells and this isn't enough for everyone and why some people's minds so take our thing all the power just for themselves.

welcome back to worlds apart of it and the solution solved director of the institute of international studies at the moscow state institute of international relations this is the sense of the kremlin made it known that one of its priorities for the paris meeting is some sort of a dialogue on the an ounce to american pullout from the intermediate range nuclear forces treaty and i think the kremlin also treats dodd as a given the rather than a negotiating tactic on the part of trump if the russians are not going to try to persuade americans to stay in what is said that russia is after while it's clear that americans would like to withdraw their actually like they have not claimed that they have all of it was wrong but it's premised to conceive of them being with a very direct and clear one but they want to do it as. a multiple that it's all this missile technology is very focused on trying out other than the russian even though there was a first argument use this that i should violation claim. it is of course

unfortunate development but it wouldn't believe necessarily the first two would be going to ration of tensions in european speaking about you or more specifically i think moscow was quite relieved to see both the german and their french concerns expressed over this announced pull out does that mean though that the deployment of ground launched missiles in europe is out of the question because. some would suggest poland may be looking into that opportunity and we hope the missiles will come back to europe that will draw the. line for to. then not necessarily bet on the structural problems in european security would be like. implementing no or this program. is not you know it's those issues are decided knowledge or at least brought out not only only because of some strategic considerations but also because of political considerations and

obviously poland has an ax to grind with russia. as far as poland is concerned do you think. it is more beneficial for it to continue at least floating an opportunity like that or do you think it may come back and bite it for example in straining the nato you need against russia well if those who are. you know emerge from poland through russian response will be automatic of course but if we are to sports russia is not interested in provoking this kind of tensions we hope that polish friends would be sane enough to avoid this. development. but i think it's clear that even before they can be deployed there's going to be a huge discussion and it's clear what position germany and perhaps france are going to take they're going to be strongly against that. having said that though. if

poland perceived that through three tory clee do you think that's going to be a russia problem or an ego problem because as far as i'm concerned i think that would make it very difficult for germany to maintain this you need to against russia well i i hope that that will become a util problem rather than the russian problem because basically and this would trigger events in the direction that. it would not only consider the polish question but all the european christian russian they too question and we need in this respect to speak to the capable and western europe who can see the. negligible confluent europe and try to maybe together with germany development develop an argument would be satisfactory to those who are fuel and say russia now heard you say recently that the russian diplomatic and military schools as well as the russian people as a whole tend to be historic passiveness in a sense that something is working it's not advisable to try to create

something new in its place and put in i think old that russian conservatism but there are some people who can call it complacency don't you think that it's indeed complacent on russia's parts you continue abiding by this treaty while many countries in russia immediate neighborhood move ahead with development of that kind of weaponry well i think we should. get. international stability and one potential stability so cherished russian historical experience shows that peace is fragile and it can be doing to any moment and if something is working you don't need to have a lucrative oil it's hope that this can bring about the possibility in the future so were you something is working in flight if i'm a little asian ship if they're working you don't just break them because you you know find some other parts of portman and in this respect i think an experiment in the strategic here is. what troubles. you know we don't.

trouble for international stability it will be but you mentioned john bolton and in his. you know a few years ago explaining why this treaty was bad and why the united states should not abide by it he specifically quoted sort of gave an old former defense minister of russia making very much the same argument that it's not fair for only moscow and washington to be constrained by the treaty while everybody else moves forward with the development don't you think that at least partially some people in moscow are relieved that the days of this treaty are numbered specifically because of the military capabilities the growing military capabilities of russia's immediate neighbors. well we indeed in this live in the multiple world missile system china and iran and north korea they're developing this kind of. facilities but actually

the proper way forward would be. universal agreement and including those you know very well that it's not possible because china that's true but i never agreed to that i mean for good reason but we had a few get to know delicious till seven to eight where we together with united states invited them to join us and i think that's about a better idea imagine that we approached the same the same way that you do if. some of the weapons of mass destruction united states just were also said you know we will just go ahead that it's not constructive measures not state but that but i think it's also not very constructive to ask china to abandon him to mediate the range ballistic missiles when ninety five percent of its nuclear arsenal is based on the class of weapons i mean even if china wants to demonstrate some goodwill does it have a technical military capacity to. give what is being asked of it yeah but this is the situation where you take a decisions also like major uncertainty and you are going to wait this uncertainty

with these you have some sort of well structural promise to hold the system is uncertain but just destroying the regime you may convince certain to be why you mentioned. the american side specifically cited its concerns over china's growing arsenal of intermediate range ballistic missiles. china is now a global leader in that class of fabens how much of a concern is the chinese arsenal for russia started you can do speaking we're on the same page which means we have a very. friendly trust relations which have been much routing for about several decades and the comparing them to russian american relations they are like you know absolutely different got to go to we have only because you do perception that china can be planning something against us and we have like metaphorical east. can we in europe or in china in the pacific we're facing the same of those attributes to do with them going back to back to one another facing in a different directions and americans basically by themselves they're pushing us

into this this is something that i wanted to ask you about because you do believe that it's a major strategic mistake on the part of washington to keep pushing for. consolidation between beijing and moscow but there are a number of analysts in russia who believe that it is also shortsighted on the part of russia to pursue that consolidation the relationship with beijing as you said now is blossoming but who knows what will happen in the future i mean i don't think russia could ever imagine that the state of relationship with ukraine would be as it is right now do you think russia has a contingency plan a contingency policy in case the ties of a beijing go right. historical pessimist but it's also going to plug and it's a country which is. responding to the situation that it would be my discussion with a medical expert i'd actually like to check the books they have this argument you know guys we are your friends actually united states is your friend while china.

sets for itself and i said you know guys in the russian we have this problem. the commute if you know with friends like this you don't so we also have a is actually a quote from one of our czars that russia doesn't have friends at all it only has its army and the navy a good threat to you for any country is to have a therapeutic autonomy and to have an ability to true partners to true. doesn't want to build. alliance with china now it wants to maintain this strategic autonomy . having and but you know this is can force russia to do this now you mentioned the mr bolton already and he left a very trail of autocrat pieces including one in the new york times in two thousand and ten in which he attacked. the new start treaty do you think that agreement is also slated for demise now. there is a good possibility of this happening but i wouldn't say there's a bigger than fifty percent who will see. there is no such a for americans to leave

it right and actually all these procedures basically it doesn't make the war closer it just makes the world more times for. mr bolton and that specific article in detailing the truth is false he specifically mentioned and i'm quoting here the enormous disparity is between russian and american global responsibilities and the importance of america's nuclear umbrella in maintaining international security it's another way of saying that russia and the united states could not be treated as a nuclear equals do you thing that was eight years ago do you think that would be a trump position now for us position is in maintaining american primacy and interest your whatever it's possible. that i just wish i could have. the value of mutual decisions before previous to kids i think that's an experiment and a strategic importance for you in a situation where peace can be very much footage oil and. i wouldn't say it's

just possible but you know we started you could have short sighted but do you really think he can achieve any success with putting the if he comes to the table saying you know look guys russia and the united states have our own a different level when it comes to nuclear weapons we understand that you guys have some you know stockpiles of it but we by definition more important you know chances absolutely that perhaps would have to be either amended or expressed and in a somewhat more polite language i assume you know i think that like the this position to take tackle this question this way it would lead nowhere. russia and united states are still holding the key. piece in the world and from what i understand the the. addition in russia or at least the perception within the kremlin is that russia is actually russia actually has a match when it comes to nuclear weapons over the united states at the moment well

you know this. sort of quotation from one. prime minister when she was asked whether. a nuclear weapon and should respond in the way no we don't but if needed we will use. mr bolton is perceived in russia as one of the biggest harshest russia hawks and yet both from his visit to moscow and he's published views i got an impression that he was a much more comfortable interlocutor for the kremlin than let's say obama people who. didn't see nuclear deterrent deterrence as say as a saving grace and who wished for a nuclear free world is that an accurate perception that russia has countered that is find it easier dealing with people like mr bolton well stillest achille yes in terms of the priority issue on the table no. ministration and fewer people talking those issues that were much more focused on the idea that. weapons

of mass destruction is a good day for us so we need to offer for this but not for everything else that russia is what it will control so this the symmetry of perception actually made that is a short clip we're. witnessing the negative pressure to action i don't think that there will be go you know they wouldn't fund. you know russia in this respect and very finally if i may you mentioned earlier that russia is investing too much in its weaponry rather than in growing the expertise and perhaps honing its communication skills because you're broke recently that possibly the most difficult challenge facing russia today is the lack of finely honed communication skills what's wrong with how raw. today speaks to the world i wasn't made in this specific. i mean as a channel as a show yes we are part of the outreach effort for sure absolutely i think that

russia has very strong arguments to the rules and would need to develop more complex if the framework the international communication framework focused on stability focused on the response ability focused on avoiding unnecessary confrontation isn't that already there i think we underperform in many respects witnessing discussions so many international forest being one cup it's also the problem is that say when i'm in new delhi or and b.g. norrington people experts i'm speaking with they are taking their expertise on russia from foreign sources they allude even chatham house to even like c.s.i.s. and some of the american british french open that's why not russians we are underperform in this respect and we need i think we have a very slowly toward mentation to provide well help we've filled at least part of that void that you mentioned thank you very much for coming over and sharing your insights thank you encourage our viewers to keep this conversation going in our

social media pages and hope to see you again same place same time here on worlds apart. what politicians do something to. put themselves on the line to get accepted or rejected. so when you want to be president or injury. or somehow want to be rich. but you'd like to be prosperous like that before three in the morning can't be good . i'm interested falls in the waters of college. pressured.

by you while give easy while fantasize. and. or union one slide. down. the rational assaults. desire for love needs the fear. that the new go cause i'm a boy. up my pizza luck zumaya full. of them should slow the. small fortune in the begin to your good. fortune for the automobile out of both is

. more than at yourself financially. fifty. six pm from international is a case of picture imperfect as. against the us democrats. will bring you the story.