but is that enough to pull the current here is russia relationship out of a tailspin well 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 the atlantic who have a very deep symmetry of perception of what's going on and. they don't probably the strategic consequence of the current sanctions regime and they. see what's going on through the election peter there's a malevolent russian into if you don't seem to destroying american power they focused on that and they're thinking that was basically across and 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 the informal deception is a classical american strategy of the touring and possibly dismounting russia and this is how it basically brings us to the point where we both get a few different things about one another not interact and directly but eventually thinking. about when i heard you say 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 it 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're. i know it's we have this

uncertainty which is structural and the rookie a lot of sort of these you characterise everybody playing the game but we also have this misplaced certain to certainty about something that we actually know very little but we take for granted like you know like what her like 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 russians many russians it's leave believe that americans are out to get it and to put russia and its knees whenever they're the opportunity arises the most side to the medic and also he is being able to use to go to war and feel a loss of for something that somebody who didn't is the most sites of the west which is like a mirror image of one another now since you mentioned 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 asked imation to what extent are russia and the united states guilty of what each side attributes to one another well i think we'll invest in far more in the autumn and then put in experts on both sides like it costs one hundred million albums to create a color. and it costs like five million that able to create a. good experts on the american studies morsi and the vice versa a new idea so it's a 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 do knighted states and i want to challenge this idea little bit because from my price point of view at least the current russian american crisis was created by the people who were and ignorant about the russia they understood russian reese. very well they just didn't like that the 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 a focus on system americans would like to maintain primacy that is clear but we 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. 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 me 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 u.s. 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 time it was better for me if you know that is the metaphor we use americans that are sure to be partly responsible for trump and that can be a good for them so i don't think that symbolically that would actually work but you know one parallel that i would draw i was preparing for this interview i was refreshing my memory on the armistice and the strike. the 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 the stall because a kind of a bomb showing the american political context but basically they interpret for a loop for them to interfere in something they don't understand they don't understand the moment of it kind of their way of dealing with the uncertainty the order like this is a kind of a misplaced certainty so we sure were sure that the russians have support to pm this is why he elected but 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 actions because it's such a good outcome for some reason russian the russians would lose this miraculous capacity of putting the american we don't know if 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 cannot explain actually can be interpreted. but the thing is that the medical issues were kind of like witnessing the dissolution of a single subject from them at a conflict so. we wouldn't get a deal if we deal only with american pressure that we need to send signals to the medical establishment to a condom. contrary to what the president washington as a studio like a position would be voted in favor of cold. in addition to influencing the american

later 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 as 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 russia 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. but russia

has a big thing in 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 that 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 he 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 paris while it was clear that russian executive photos have invested heavily in these by locals and seeing that it didn't produce any positive results. was. for this meeting it was considered to be

a failure of american diplomacy it's really about he has a lot over his distance in five years all of ministration so we actually have to not only communicate with him but we've all of the guys were trying to constrain and prevent him from doing what they see as a threesome now this isn't stuff we have to take a very short break now but we'll be back in just a few moments stay tuned. because as i live the good feel confident. fun.

we have many things in the smiles and this is an e-mail for everyone why some people's minds so take our things all the power just for themselves. so what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have it's crazy. let it be an arms race on. scary dramatic development that only really. i

don't see it. will be successful very critical time to sit down and tom. welcome back to worlds apart a bit 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 treat it as

a given the rather than an equal shading tactic on the part of trump if the russians are not going to try to persuade americans to stay in what is said that's russia's after a while it's clear that americans would like to withdraw 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 line that they want to do with. a multiple of its own missile technology is very focused on trying out of a member of even though there was a first argument you have this that i should violation claim. it's use of course unfortunate development but it wouldn't leave necessarily as a first step to the 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 going back to europe that would draw the. ton back and like for it to. then not necessarily bet on those structural problems in european security would be like. implementing or this program. is not you know it's those issues are decided not 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 russia to go to medical

records but if we're 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 is going to be a huge discussion and it's clear what position germany and perhaps pret france are going to take that they're going to be strongly against that. having said that though if poland pursues that through three toric lee 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 hope that that will become a util problem rather than the russian problem because this would trigger events in the direction that. it would not only be. consider

a polish question with all the european christian russian they to question and we need in this respect to speak to the capable and western europe who can see to. try to maybe together with. development develop an argument would be satisfactory to those who are few and. 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 russian conservatism but there are some people who can call it complacency don't you think that it's indeed complacent on russia sparred to continue abiding by this treaty while many countries in russia's immediate neighborhood move ahead with development of that kind of weaponry i think we should. international stability and

one political stability is so cherished 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 a lot of 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 are going to find some other attractive point and in this respect i think an experiment in the strategic here is what troubles me even though. you know we don't see this being a great trouble for international a strategic 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 a no former defense minister of russia making a 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 to 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 very 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 way that the two of. them of weapons of mass destruction united states just were also said you know we will just

go ahead that it's not constructive matters most 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 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 but this is the situation where you take a decisions also feel like major uncertainty and you are going to wait this uncertainty with these you have. while structural promise to hold a 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 with cheney's we have a very. friendly trust relations which have been much routing for about several decades and a comparing them to russian american relations they are like you know absolutely different got to go to we have because you do perception that china can be planning something against us and we have like metaphorical east. can we in europe and china in the pacific we are facing the same adversity abuse to cope 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 much of this and it's a country which is. responding to the situation that it out but 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 are actually united states is your friend while china pull ups were brutal attack you have such words for and i said you know guys in russian we have this problem to the community. you know and with friends like this you don't move and it moves so we also have. is actually a quote from one of our czars that russia doesn't have friends at all it only has its army in the navy a good thread 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 be. alliance with china now we want to maintain this strategic autonomy. having and but you know this is can force russia to do this now we mentioned the mr bolton already and he left a very trail of ought to have 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 form that it can still 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 for your whatever it's possible that i just wish i could have. the value of mutual decisions before previous to caves i think that's an experiment and a strategic importance if you're 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. 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 or where 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 is what it will control so this the symmetry of perception actually made that is so shortly we're. witnessing the negative crushing the action i don't think that there will be go you know why 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 we need to develop more complex the framework the international communication framework focused on stability focused on the response ability focused on avoiding unnecessary confrontation that isn't there already there i think we underperform in many respects witnessing discussion so many international for us 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 very thing like c.s.i.s. and some other american british french open that's why not russians we are underperform in this respect and we need i think we have a very solid argument patient to provide with well i help we 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 help to see you again same place same time here on worlds apart.

talk of impending war around the world is on the increase the great power speak openly on the need to prepare for a conflict what does this tell us if anything it appears to be a sign the global order they came into being optimist second world war and the cold war has come to an end what is replacing. 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 stock. semiconductor stocks.

and then of course you could have market down twenty thirty forty fifty sixty percent. i am not. i am not of this. but. these days no matter where you are in the world the chances are you. anywhere. on have the slightest idea. and if you won't see it coming. in are you there in. the villages villages the houses the mudhole. says the bomb and sometimes the

terrorist on the new cd is a lie so who have the kill. children for a country for profit. how can you smile. it's a case of picture perfect as locals from a small english town are outraged as things appear in a smear campaign against the us democrats at the midterm elections.