than the condition it was meant to treat instead of the beneficial effects of these different medicines, any up to something wonderful, very often there, harmful effects and up to something terrible can pills, so of all ills. or are we trying to mitigate life itself? i just think i was like i was just scared, scared, little girl, the 24. and like, didn't have to be so complicated in the me. hello, welcome to wells. far as for the most, for leaving in history for people is

a bit like swimming in water for fish. both species are too far side has to comprehend what's immediately in front of them. but recently the scale and the speed of transformations have intensified so much that it's impossible not to notice the change the, the question of what to do about it still remains open. what the charge on this donovan i'm now joined by the board. the trough program director at the vault di discussion club and also of the recently published book europe, russia, and deliver a wealth order. it's about a chef. it's great to talk to you. thank you very much for your time. i'm sure you would agree with my opening statement that the world is changing fast, but you wrote recently that the consequences of such transformations will be very specific, very individual for each and every country. and that in itself presents one of the hardest problems in foreign affairs today. why is that? what we often do, even though the steve on the road, surely similar,

institutionalized, public organisms are, each of them represents its own unique position in terms of the geo politics. story experience and economics, initial economic possibilities. and these 3 factors there form how the stays, develop and holiday react to the outside challenges and opportunities, how they behave from the perspective of the international relations. we are not looking at the internal particularities of each thing. for us, the most important is how they behave in front of the honesty. so and what you have not mentioned in your introductory remark, that there is chance changes in the words the influence each state separately means that we should look at the behavior of each stage from the unique perspective and from, from the perspective or to unique evaluation of its own particular, well,

let me do that because i think the united states at this point of time presents a very interesting case. i know that many russian animals, many of your colleagues were surprised by jo biden's recent speeches on the american withdrawal from garrison because frankly, they sound as if they were written by vladimir putin speech writers. you know, they focus on national interest saying that security is our bio concerned that we should not try to remake other countries through the use of force. i mean, if you weren't saying that that was posted on his social media, you would be forgiven for thinking that they were hacked. do you believe the american president wants to the fact that he is ready to learn from america's mistakes? well, i don't want to mix the change in american posture and in the american way of behavior of international behavior ways the personal decisions and the approach of for the president, joe biden, i think, was due by the deed on case of

a gun to start with a great decision over the last 30 years. it was the 1st decision which did not follow the course of the events and history, but was an attempt to change the course of events. and the biggest task of the statement is to contradict history is to change the historical part from over the national foreign policy and what actually drove wide . indeed, even though i'm not sure that they're present conditional, then american status hodge is so functional that the decisions the right decisions can be properly implemented. but that's kind of ironic. what you're saying that the united states is still the most powerful country in the world, by on many dimensions that previously if leaders didn't have enough ability to actually change history consciously, perhaps they were shaping it subconsciously,

but they didn't have the gods to do or to go against the current. well actually the american foreign policy off of the end of the cold war was a continuation of american foreign policy during the cold war, winning the cold war. and then living on the victoria doing and extracting of the benefits of this victory. so wardrobe i don't need, he changed the way of behavior, he changed these keep growing the continuity of american foreign policy. and in this fan, americans can be optimistic about their own ability to find the leader, which is able to take those decisions, even though as i said, i shouldn't dis optimistic about the why do the functionality of the american fish . now, there were 2 figures that stuck out for me, and by the latest speech on august 31st, the $300000000.00 a day spanned on dentist on every single day. for the last 2 decades. the asian

american veterans committing suicide every single day on average in america they, they call it brutal honesty. and i don't think we've ever, at least i have never heard the american president go that far. not even the chunk in that it personality factor bite and being a straight shooter, or is it something more structural? perhaps the american state as powerful is it, is reaching the end of its rogue to some extent. well, we will see how structural it might be. i think that may be a great privilege or for joe biden as a president, he's because of his age. he is not in a position to look after his presidency for a long time. hope to have free from all the lecture over to the ration you free from electro considerations and from the light of the honest as well joe biden,

he is relatively free from the considerations of career after the presidency of in wage counsels of directors. and these charities that allow him to be the leader that allows him to speak relatively freely to, to make decisions which are not dependent or the he chicago. now, you wrote recently, and you said that already a couple of times during this interview that the american state apparatus has reached a point where they can still make foresighted decisions for the ability to implement them. is there a limit that if, if existence at all what makes you believe that because biden's people would tell you that you know, we made a decision to pull out from ghana, son in 4 months and we did. and despite all the convert and love birds opposition? well, they did it bod, how it was implemented,

made a very big damage to the international positions or the united states. and basically to all dimensions of american power. is they are seen from outside, not only from russia, but also from china as the main rival, the united states, from europe, and from the other parts of the world. isn't that what to be expected in this field? i mean, i think, and joe politics and politics in general there, there is no choice between the good and bad decision that you always choose between bad. and they're worth while the think is a bottom limitation. so there was a role from of get this done was implemented very badly in the very disorganized, very dysfunctional and very unimpressed way. so the decision was good. the implementation was bad. and even president biden's himself in july was speaking, that republican government of gunners done his capital to receive to the

fans or tell about it for much longer time. the dollar bond is a no, nor vietnamese army su, haven't, haven't made a right decision in his after statement in july, she was already part of the why the dysfunctional picture of american politics. now, speaking about this dysfunction collectively, we russians know this condition of lack of a better metaphor, governing impotence. we've been through that a delayed light in ages in the 1990 and the russian state has recovered. maybe not the way the the western partners would prefer to see, but if the recovery its ability to get things done, how long do you think it will take the americans to rebound? can they do that without mentally changing the system?

because the russian system has to be changed. it has no choice. do the americans have a choice about whether to change or not? i don't know which state is unique. and what has happened to soviet union will not necessarily happen to the united states. even though, if it's all happening to the united states, it's not necessarily happened the same way as it has happened to the soviet union. that the united states of america is a nuclear superpower. and do we cannot before that they can sequences of the internal american changes and internal contradictions. i'm not going to represent their immortal chinese for the rest of humanity. now i agree with you that day. each historic path is unique, but i still think that historic parallels could be valuable because it was the collapse with the soviet union in 1991, which ultimately served the united states of this unprecedented opportunity of

trying to be exceptional nation. not just, i'm exceptional nation, but be exceptional nation, the shining cd on the hill. can we blame them for not leaving after these godly, divine image when we the russians gave up on our cells so desperately at that time? well, i mean, we cannot blame them because. busy other if we do, it means that we see our future dependence on another stage of the future of each country, either its own business or cause the, the historic power and comparisons available. but the available in the way that we see a we can for there's certain condition of the state as well as institution. what we don't know how a certain states will react to this seem condition for the same circumstances, to the same contingency. and d,

the reaction of the soviet union to this feed, the condition of the state was connected to the unique particularities of the service system. the reaction of american for american steed to this condition are going to be as well connected with the unique particularities, the american system and society. you wrote recently that even though in the short medium term, the americans with troll may bring rush some benefits in the longer term in the longer term. and it can present russia with, with major challenges that we cannot even comprehend. now, what are you talking about? what a major challenge in the us holiday as will develop and future paul, the american society will react to the decrease of these country positions in the international scene in the international arena. so this is a major challenge because actually the united states is the only country in the

world, which represents secure serious security consideration for russia. as well as russia is the only country in the world which were present the she was considered a security consideration for the united states. with all this, we can deal with the americans. we cannot deal without the can greece war destroying co manager. so this is why this is a major challenge, not the dentist itself, not the original consequences by the american catholic was the impact of the war. and what has happened on american society, on, on development for these great, if worse comes to worse. what, what could happen? well, in international relations will was said that we always anticipate the possibility of the universe of catastrophic, even though we should believe that our own nation is immortal. well,

mr. barton on this uplifting logan holds, let's say bring, but we'll be back in just a few moments. thank you. me or i me the, the, the the drug started as a way to come back. a great problem. what's the, why? it's part of the attitude of the nation, not just of north dakota, and it's got to be something that you could get elected. this time, the fight against drugs took a tragic, told us that andrew was competing short form. this is way too

dangerous for him to be doing. clearly they put him in harm's way. a rural college student does interest get shot in the head and found in a river like that. something else had to be happening with the me i welcome back to the point with the same for that your program director at the vault discussion club and also of the recently published books, europe, russia and the liberal welto during mister bore the trip as we were discussing before the break, joe biden, by his own admission, is ready to turn the page on the american use of force. but he still sees the united states as being locked in an almost ontological battle with russia and china . in that same speech, he said that they would want nothing more than the united states thing. and again,

it's done. we have another decade and maybe even longer. is that an honest analysis? well, i think this is, this is one of the several possible analytical options. of course, under certain conditions someone can, you can say that both china and russia would love to the, not as these to continue this for because they are exhausting american capabilities and helping china and russia to survive and goals on the global in the global level . now it seems to me that at least for now, both the russian and the chinese leadership believe that they can come to some sort of an agreement with the taliban in more optimistic scenarios there. there's even that talk about joint economic development and the mining of rare earth materials which of denison is very reach in and many countries are seeking access to those

deposits. is that too rosy of a picture? do you think of gather some can ever return to, you know, a normal state of things where business the some limitations could be done with or should it depends on both on up against, on the, on the people of against them. and on the other, on the, on the external great powers, this scenario which you have described to me is more favorable for chinese, russian interest is of cause to have as part of stability and center your asia. and of course, both china and russia are interested in scenario under which their present power on dominant power in getting we'll manage to consolidate the government and to consolidate the country and making each partner for economic and other corporate projects in case of china and

both china and russia, of course, the other option is the day to the movement which has taken control over the country will not be able to do it. and it will open another chapter often or no violence. and disorder again, is i think that both china and russia prepared for, for both opportunities. you know about him on go. i spoke to a former garrison present because i was in moscow for consultations that had been american patrol. and he was very positive about the russian chinese synergies and their ability to solidify shrank from eurasia from the outskirts in awards. instead of the middle is do you think it's more feasible

now than let's say a year ago, this whole concept of integrated your region space from lisbon to do a song that the russians are so normally with do you think it's more likely i think the conditions are favorable i think that the international conditions in eurasia are good for them and for the, for the general stability in the center. and we need them to say, what is it only about americans withdrawal or? well, the problem with america is that america does not have direct security considerations beyond mexican and canadian border. so the only region in which the united states are interested vitally is the mexico and canada. the for the rest of the walls for the issues and the rest of the world, the united states can look not from the perspective of its national security, but from the perspective of international diplomacy and the united states. look at

situation in central your asia, central asia. i don't know southeast asia from the position of economic interest bod, 1st fall from the perspective of it's for lisa ships. we're china and russia. it's not about the regions, it's about the great power of game. and that's, that makes the american participation less productive them. we could have believed that makes the united states nor to solution. but the problem in the united states, many of it says, doctrinal documents is describing russian nowadays as a disruptor, a disrupting power. and do you think that's essentially a projection, they're describing us in a way what they're trying to do to this region disrupting it for their lack of better word. why don't think that there's a project. so i think that there is normal diplomatic practice for the great powers . if we recognize that the other great power is the contributor,

not to disrupt a means that we have problems about establishing our own position. because only between the great powers. we have very limited possibilities to recognise the positive contribution of others without limiting our own place in our own positive role in international really it's really the limited because the russian and the chinese example, i think for summons duration is great. i think that's why i would call china rush relations, the you unique strategic partnership for the 21st century. we'll see how it will develop in future. but for the time being these 2 countries established an excellent next one relationships in eurasia. we. she is absolutely free from any substantial contradictions. and we contribute

to the stability of genesis about which we have been speak to a couple of minutes ago. and i think this type of relationship defies. was big numbers in sky used to write about that no single great nation should be allowed to emerge in erasure because otherwise it would be trying. in this case, we're going to try and it was nicholas pikemen in 1030. now maybe he borrowed well, i'm talking about the idea anyway, that was that in there is one, had gemini, one regional had jam, and it will tried to reserve the whole, the whole continent. and therefore present a challenge for the united states with russia and china. we are seeing, you know, q strong, regional actress and global actors trying to work from different poles and trying to leave the center together. seeing jenny and benefits for, for each and every one of them. do you think be the americans could ever be converted to that logic, that it's actually,

it could be very beneficial for them for strengthening their own power to work collectively with others, you know, to, to least have not only eurasia but the rest of the world. well, 1st of all, i think of that is absolutely correct. and the only 2 classic geopolitical approaches represented by the works of nicholas pikemen before the 2nd world war, no great power should dominate eurasia. otherwise, the consolidation of your ratio wound is so strong that it, we'll isolate the united states from the walls. but now we don't have one power dominant eurasia. we have at least 2 powers, china and russia. and we, we see that russia is trying to develop install and called relationships with india, and is trying to positively influencing relationships between china and india. so these were 2 dominant fibers. it's what is differently than was one dominant balance. so we will see, i'm not sure that there,

that the traditional force of the and i'll just say behavior of this, the dependent on the national security considerations can change. but i don't know, as you have said in the beginning of follow follow, thought the world is changing tremendously and maybe tomorrow we'll see that structural ex films, we should, we should be able to be absolutely under testable that they will, they will change. and now we have only a few minutes left and i want to ask you about this particular part of the world because we actually recording this interview and stuff which is 9000 kilometers away from moscow. and you made a very interesting point recently. and one of your article saying that investing in this part of the world in russia, as well as trying to build connections with powers in this part of the world, it's far more efficient, makes much better sense for russia than putting its efforts. you know,

it's attention, it's capital, it's aspirations towards the western frontier. so essentially i took it away as, let's invest in far east, rather than trying to get the ukraine back. what's made you connect the seemingly unconnected parts of the world. well, 1st of all, far east and siberia are what makes russia russia otherwise, it should have been just one of the big european powers, but what makes russia global power is a possession also be around for east. that's why roches should be naturally interested in the development of this ratios. and as it has been discussed already today, during goal forum and making these regions good for, for, for, for the people who are leaving them. and that's why, from the longer perspective, all fresh from sustainability of the rational stayed it is of course,

much more important and then gauging bay or establishing privilege to ration for any european nation, including a grain we mentioned versions can before. and i think many people in, in the west as well as in moscow, i still believe in his old thesis that without ukraine, russia caesar's to be an empire. and yet you wrote that without the ukraine. russia retains and imperial scale, but not imperial obligations. and you won't even further saying that, i mean ukraine as part of one state with russia during the soviet times was more of a liability, a burden for moscow than a benefit. are you saying that the west perversely served russia a favor when they tried to drive a wedge between them? yes, but no. i was not able to ukrainian people. and it was at the table to the regional

stability in europe. what russia want from your brain brush up once from ukraine to be a. so during stage capital, both to say that the sobering foreign policy decisions and rational decisions based on the political and power considerations. it was written in the, one of the recent articles published by the president, which generally russia is the major advantage of the independence and severe energy of its neighbors. because russia will always remain stronger than them. but the condition of this is the rational behavior. so the problem was your brain and see that it cannot behave rationally because it does not take foreign policy. the issue isn't itself. finally, you come from this group of fresh and thinkers, or believe that moscow should stop dressing in obsessing about if you're a p and identity and instead embrace eurasian standing in its full

capacity. you said that russia would never accept it as a foolish flash european power by the west, but it could be a force, a serious force to reference with as your range and power. do you think that mental shift has occurred? how tall being sub europeans? well, i think go to this mental consideration, have been just a consequence of the russian foreign policy, which was obsessed was a goal, will becoming the part of european balance of power for the couple of centuries. balance of followers, europe in europe was a vital for the, for the international security and for the balance for following the war. now it does not anymore. now the balance of power has the global nature in the that's why, for i showed the goal of being father if you're is not. so it's not,

it's not necessary in terms of the national survival. and i guess that's why it's, it makes much better sense trying to lift out this part of the world that far as this iberia than a stock in the past with to agree because it conceive is much more to the long term sustainability and survival. there are some stages and it makes russia russia, it makes us sasha. and mr. board has been great pleasure talking to you. thank you very much for the time to. and thank you for watching hope to hear again next week on the was apart from me. the me ah,

join me every thursday and we alex simon show. and i'll be speaking to guess in the world, the politics, sport, business and show business. i'll see you then. me the in the stories that shape the week, the us ends. it's 20 year, a military campaign in afghanistan, leaving the country in the hands of the same terrorist group. they followed to defeated generation ago as a part of the american forces. ravage capital international airport, their final refuge pool, the helicopters, and there are a lot of them that were abandoned the was have been various various electrical blocks removed. yeah.