is very tightly linked to the ideal space the space russia occupies and crimea in this regards was a very peculiar case because territorially it wasn't russian in two thousand and thirteen and two thousand and fourteen but geo politically it was russian as a seat of the russian fleet for several centuries when you look at the crimean case from that perspective wasn't it an accident waiting to happen regardless of whatever security arrangements you have in europe well i think it was more a problem that we thought we had solved but apparently came back again there was a question when the soviet union dissolved in one nine hundred ninety one should crimea stay with russia with ukraine or go to russia because not everyone was happy with khrushchev action in one nine hundred fifty four transferring crimea from the . us i said. there were votes in crimea moreover there is there was

a long negotiation within the c.e. that i remember that resulted in an autonomy agreement for crimea within ukraine by the late one nine hundred ninety s. the ukrainians were so happy with this that they were showing it to foreign diplomats like me as an example for or elsewhere by two thousand we thought. we knew there were some discontented people but the question seemed resolved apparently it was not well i think one of the reasons it wasn't result because those agreements that you mentioned address the territorial status of crimea but they did not address the geopolitical status of crimea the military status of crimea would it be possible under any circumstances for you to imagine that russia would simply say that from now on we do not want to have access to the black sea russia investigated moving the headquarters of the black sea fleet and found that the conditions at novara see school are not. deal for this they signed

a. lease agreement with the ukraine and extended it in a rather controversial action in the ukrainian parliament in two thousand and ten more controversial among the ukrainians and so there was a legal arrangement and legal status for the russian fleet and russian military presence inside ukraine in crimea that was in place well before two thousand and thirteen two thousand and fourteen and was recognized by the rest of the world it was moving ukraine territorial and i think that a lot of westerners had a real problem with as you mentioned for many in the west. russia's takeover of crimea was pure and it's a sion but i'm sure you know that for many in russia it wasn't just the land grap it was to some extent. the only means of diverting a major strategic loss it was either a gain of a territory or a loss of a major strategic capacity of the status quo by that time was no longer an option

do you think the western decision making makers at the time and distant the kind of conundrum that russia and the kremlin faced and that to some extent i would argue that western decision makers pushed on russia well i think here are your question presupposes what the new provisional ukrainian government was going to do when they adopted state and where very away there. there were statements but they they weren't necessarily official statements decisions and not been taken look i understand the fears that some in russia had after the events of february of two thousand and fourteen but understanding does not mean agreement or approval and the consequences of it for what many western leaders or leaders of other countries in europe central east and west thought about this and what they perceived. of possible future for them i think was very counterproductive for

european security as a whole for you in russia to judge whether it was productive or counterproductive for russia the question of whether it was counterproductive or productive i mean i think everybody would agree that it was very detrimental to russia itself on the public relations on foreign policy front but on this strategic front i think many in russia would argue that there was no other solution and the best way of averting something like that would just be not putting russia in the situation when it had to choose make a very quick decision about why they'd once to lose an access to the black sea or whether it wants to play by the western rules and stay in good graces of western policy while i can agree with you that there were several points in two thousand and thirteen where i think negotiating and including russia in talks of some sort about what an association agreement for ukraine with zero opinion would mean for russian interests might have averted the crisis that

ensued from november of two thousand and thirteen on. putin at valda and two thousand and thirteen gave a fairly clear statement to romano prodi russia's issue interests involved here. unfortunately i don't think this warning was sufficiently considered but once you get to the events that followed it you know i can't i find it very unfortunate and find it hard to agree with the course chosen now you argue in your book that this new rig division of your of that we are now observing has been largely on in time that it's the result of many misguided decisions on both or perhaps even. more sides and rather danica here in strategy and i think many in russia would find it hard to accept even if there weren't any explicit arts. late at policy to

disadvantage russia wasn't that still an implicit bias that's what's shaping the west in decision making well no i don't think i know there were individuals you can find but you can find individuals i met them in russia in the ninety's in the two thousand and who didn't want to have anything to do with us as americans even though there were there was a policy of cooperation with us in many fields so. i think we tried to make it work and i think there were bad decision for i think there were also decisions taken that we simply did not expect some of the effects the that came from them and put us on a path that it was hard to move off of that that ended up somewhere where we really did not wish to go if if there is a point where disagreements became sharper and more difficult for russia was as the e.u. and nato expanded and got into the near abroad and became more active in the near

abroad from the very beginning the near abroad was especially important place for russia in the ninety's when this found more acceptance in the west western countries actually. accepted and cooperated with the russian peacekeeping operation for example enough. after two thousand and three two thousand and four you don't find this in the attitudes of nato e.u. countries towards russian involvement in up in south ossetia so there's a change on on both parts russia become sharper and more defensive as the e.u. and nato become closer and more involved in this area and i think from my perspective of having worked there with this this was the single greatest point or region of disagreement between russia and the united states and its allies i often hear from your american and european colleagues how russia hates the. democratic

order and i personally find it extremely perfect in deceit because what russia hates is not so much the people democracy but divac lists and sometimes very bloody foreign policy that the west allows itself on dead the banner of a liberal democracy do you think that may have figured in russia's decision making and russia over nato moving ever closer to its borders and nato having discussions with the neighborhood countries not the democratic factor another night a logical factor but the simple security factor russia fearing naida and fearing that it will bring the same logic. and leave that to be partially saw in afghanistan closer to russia there may have been some concern on that and certainly nato geographic reach and expeditionary military capabilities were not there in one nine hundred ninety but by two thousand and ten were considerable so there was

a big transformation in nato. many westerners are not as conscious of but then again what was nato a threat to russia russia cooperated with nato and i remember putin after being elected to his third term went to the duma and defended offering. an airbase in russia and then the trend that we're going to see you know you have this saying in russian keep your friends close but keep your enemies even closer i don't think putin referred to us as an enemy of money you know like you always are very serious and the threat i thought i know but i know i mean the cooperation of russia with the united states on afghanistan listed a long time into a period where and i've myself was visiting the ministry of defense here in two thousand and eleven and asked military colleagues from russia if they perceived any military threat from europe and their answer was no but i mean i think when you talk about this from the. i like that you know you're talking about nato as an

institution but i think what russia has also observed is western countries sometimes acting extremely approach mystically because i mean and put inside that on a number of occasions they didn't have to push what happened in ukraine so much there were elections coming any way yanick office would have laws doesn't like since but there's a perception i think in the kremlin death whenever an opportunity arises the west just cannot how to disposing regimes that it doesn't like for the sake of a bigger kaos well i think there's also a perception among some in the kremlin and the west prompted the demonstrators to come out and i don't believe that's true we did support and american politicians individually and some by policy supported the demonstrators and in this sense be became partisan in that but you know that there there are there have been other support put in support of young core bichon two thousand and four member him

campaigning for unocal that so you know this this this is a complicated question i think in general some colleagues in moscow over emphasize western involvement and under emphasize the ability of local populations to mount protests themselves just as some in the west may overestimate moscow's hand in something or underestimate the westons ability for not their very thoughtful policy let's put it this way mr hill we have to take a very short break now but they will be back in just a few moments stay tuned. pranking gave americans a lot of new job opportunities i needed to come up here to make some money make me twenty five thousand dollars as a teacher or i could meet fifty pounds. dollars a year truck story chose to drive

truck people who rushed to a small town in north dakota was among the rate of zero percent was like a gold rush it is very very similar to a gold rush but this beautiful story ended with pollution and the bus station a lot of people have left here i don't know too many people here anymore just slow down too much they lost their jobs got laid off the american dream is changing that's not what it used to be. and it's a tough reality to deal with. a statistic from a couple weeks ago came out that showed the wealth and income gap around who were all the different countries and then there's there's the u.s. there's there's france and then there's the u.k. oh it's like why is stuff incredible spread between this concentration and then you've got the royalists are people there in the tory party who support the queen whose whole point of breaks it was to support the queen ok so they just aired

a list and a moron a policy because incredible poverty breaks it's all about supporting the queen and getting rid of their world contacts. future historians may look back at donald trump's handling of the murder of jamal to show the as a case study of the lack of leadership and outright folly his reasons for giving the saudis or rather the crown prince a free pass simply don't make sense why because it's all about a race. going to go camp sundown again for people that can't decide and they're like so vampires. like us safe housing as they don't have to talk about what they go through with us because we understand her daughter jeannie was diagnosed with a very rare son sensitive condition if i get sunburned i heal she doesn't feel patients. they have problems with the walking talking some the brains of actually

shrinking inside their skull gets thicker in the brain state small. the pain is indescribable it's feels like a really really bad chemical burn but it goes through your skin in your muscle all the way down to the bone and there's no relief comes out we're not so sure this is just over. most people think just stand out in this business you need to be the first one on top of the story or the person with the loudest voice of the biggest ratings in truth to stand down lose business you just need to ask the right questions and demand the right answer.

questions. nobody could see coming that paul's confession this would be that profile in the small place before the bridge books any interrogations out there what you'll see is promise threat promise threat why a lie a lie the process of interrogation is designed to put people in just that frame of mind make the most comfortable make them want to get out and don't take no for an answer don't accept their denials she said therefore we're all set on the stage where i would be home by the next day there's a culture on accountability and police officers know that they can engage in misconduct that has nothing to do with solving their crime.

welcome back to worlds apart with william hale global fellow at the wilson center and the author of no place for russia mr hill in your book you claimed what happened in crimea and what transpired later on then ukraine in two thousand and fourteen and later changed the post cold war security order that existed in europe for two decades and the new order is still undefined what are some of the forces some of the trends some of the factors that may shape the evolution of this new order the questions remain first of all what is russia is relationship with european countries and the united states going to be the chief one muddle along with that given the events that have occurred twenty fifteen and since then what is the future of the european union just what what will emerge from breck said from

the refugee issue. and from european discussions of their internal governance and finally after the election of president trump what is the u.s. is future what are its intentions about its presence in europe which has been there since one nine hundred forty five i have and we don't know the answer to any of those questions and the other goes to see some of those questions. you mention in your book that the russians on a number of occasions proposed the creation of the european security council the idea that was dismissed at the time but more recently were heard from the chancellor of germany angela merkel a similar idea the security council for the e.u. a framework that will still exclude russia but do you think that is something that could lead us. to the right direction well i think we need some forum.

we meaning all of us the united states europe and russia some forum in which representatives can gather and have a full voice in order to debate questions of european security and take decisions with which all of the participants are going to be content in which they will observe the question is what will this be do we reform leo aceee do we start from the beginning and build some new party new new organization should this be done in the context of the un all of the o.s.c. in the early one nine hundred ninety s. was structured in the un context this is something that i think european countries and the united states and canada need to get together and discuss because the system we can we started to construct in one nine hundred eighty nine ninety ninety one is no longer working and we're back to a divided europe so we need to look at ways that we can get out of this and that

division line i would argue exists not only but been a russia and western europe but to summit. and it's already being billed that's been the e.u. and the united states european pronouncements for more security out on the me for a european army i think they're clearly triggered by the change in the white house but my question to you is whether you think the europeans are still hoping to kind of way don't know trump out or should we take them as a real substantive change in the european security pose i don't think the europeans have made a decision on what how long or what sort of direction administration is going to continue in and what they want to do with this what what i see from my perspective i participated in some very sharp negotiations with our european allies in particular french at the beginning of the one nine hundred ninety s. where there was deep disagreement over whether european europe should have

a separate security organization and military force or whether this should be done in the context of nato it took over fifteen years to resolve this question finally resolved with the berlin plus and then with the lisbon treaty in two thousand and nine which has a formal relationship between nato and the european union but it seems what's happened over the last couple of years may have opened this question or a successor question to this opened it up again you mentioned this tension between the united states and france and i've heard some people say that. we may see another episode of that coming mr trump reacts very angrily. pronouncements for an independent european army and i think on some level it's pretty understandable because if that idea were to be realized france as a major arms supplier as the only nuclear power of remaining within the e.u. would be the main benefactor of that it would not only be the bad drop of that new

army but also the main supplier which may disadvantage the united states economic. d. thing. we can see that rivalry for the rights to provide security for europe emerged it's been the united states and france i don't know where the personal dynamics between presidents trump and mccrone is going to do to go and i think there is no i mean i'm not sure that this is what i do know from having worked closely i've had french students every year for several years of work closely with the french over a long time the french have been close allies we don't always see eye to eye but this is because the french are very self-reliant they're very capable and they have their own strong views at times and sometimes we have to settle differences between us we've always been able to do this but part of the french worry has been from the

end of the cold war that the united states this is oversimplifying but the united states may not always stay in europe and europe needs to be able to defend itself so it should have a capability that it can draw on and the french have been the strongest in this train of thought. and this may be now coming up again in europe as some pronouncements of the trumpet ministration have raised doubt about the u.s. the devotion of the u.s. to nato i should say if this is now all still at the level of statements because the actions are still nato new u.s. and nato allies are still acting very much together but it comes out of it's been a constant argument since the end of the cold war and i suppose it'll always be there because is it natural for the united states to be in europe forever well i mean on some level it's very beneficial economically and. if not of much of welcomed it. because of conditions at the time and eventually some time

whether it's a century two centuries a thousand years in the future it will change but it hasn't right now and that so we're dealing with. and an argument and a tendency and a worry but it hasn't gone much beyond that in my perception now for us russians it's very hard to figure out what's going on with native because in the one had to be going to witness this. the americans and the europeans bickering over a nato expenses but on the other hand you they have intensified their exercises alongside the russian border used to work for an aide to write or advise me i've been yes worth in the context not formally in nato staff but yes definitely from your understanding who is calling the shots at nato right now it's not it's no longer trump the trumpet ministration right when nato. i mean nato operates by consensus. and it's very it is still it is totally influence is

a complicated to explain how you know the u.s. has great influence in nato and when you talk about the u.s. officials you're not talking about the white house or is it some other whether there was a large bureaucracy and there are ministers from the u.s. and nato staff from the u.s. speak also because large portions of u.s. policy are supportive of nato. in the trump administration many officials senior officials in the trump administration are supportive of nato we in the us have always complained about europeans not paying enough i have a very close friend who sat behind junior diplomat larry eagleburger who later became secretary of state who complained to the europeans in one nine hundred seventy one that they weren't paying enough have been present when we have told the europeans they should pay more and we're still telling them that. you know.

different americans evaluate this differently personally i think for us nato is a bargain now since the events in ukraine russia secure. post chair hast changed dramatically partially because of its intervention in syria partially because of the development of a new generation of weapons i think russia feels far less insecure of these of the nato now than it was let's say five six years ago do you think the russia of two thousand and eighteen presents the same problem for nader as it was let's say in two thousand and fourteen maybe the russia prison presents a different problem because i don't think we are fully sure of russia's intention i'm not terribly worried by all of the capabilities although i have colleagues who might denounce me for that russia was always right the russian military

deteriorated terribly at the end of the soviet union and russia was always going to rebuild its military because a country the size of russia needs a competent military you have an enormous border you need to provide for its defense this is natural the question is how can we the united states and russia construct a relationship where we are both confident of the intentions or more confident of the intentions of the other so that we're not worried right now i mean i think the situation is still although it's it's not good at all it's still not anywhere near as bad as it was during the cold war when the level of military confrontation was much higher but we need to start talking with each other about the systems we're building where we put them how we operate them to create transparency and confidence it's not that we shouldn't have weaponry but it we should make sure that

our counterparts understand why we have it and when and where we would use it and that that's something that we need to work on. starting right now would not be too early well. mr hill on this very forward looking. let's leave it here i really appreciate you coming into the studio and sharing some of your thanks very much for having me 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 on worlds apart.

statistics from a couple would show came out that show the wealth and income gap around the world in different countries and. there's the u.s. . there's france and then there's the. spread between this concentration and then you've got the loyalists are people there in the tory party who support the queen whose whole point of bragg's it was to support the clean ok so they and a moron a policy because incredible poverty it's all about supporting the queen and getting rid of the world. cracking gave americans no longer. needed to come up here to

make some money twenty five thousand dollars as a teacher or i could make fifty thousand dollars a year in trucks or chose to truck people who rushed to. small town in north dakota was an unemployment rate of zero percent is like gold rush is very very similar to . this beautiful story ended with pollution and devastation a lot of people have left here i don't know too many people here and slowdowns for much the lost of jobs that laid off the american dream is changing that's not what it used to be. and it's a tough reality to deal with. future historians may look back at donald trump's handling of the murder of jamal the show as a case study of the lack of leadership and outright folly his reasons for giving the saudis or rather the crown prince a free pass simply don't make sense why because it's all about

a range. of . people some get pulled up he comes in for just twelve euros fifty per month. top stories here on up to the five months old in action and criticism of putting trade above one man's life the u.k. promises to deal with the case of a british academic who was jailed for life by the united arab emirates all the spy .