special club and also of the recently published book in europe, russia, and deliver a wealth order. it's important to have a 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 would 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? we often do, even though the deed of the relatively similar institutionalized public organisms are. each of them represents its own unique position in terms of the geo politics, historian, 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 today, 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 world to 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's 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 your g is our vital concern that we

should not try to make other countries through the use of force. i mean, if you weren't saying that that was posted on his social media, it would be forgiven for thinking that they were hacked. do you believe the american president went to the fact that he is ready to learn from america's mistakes? well, i don't want to to make 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, jo binder i think what you're by the deed on case of dennis done was 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 their presence 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 god 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,

she changed this way of behavior change. these keep growing, please continue to over 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 should not this optimistic about the wider 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 span. don't have dentist on every single day for the last 2 decades. the 18 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 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 electric over the ration is free from electro considerations and from the light of the owners, as well as joe biden. he is relatively free from the considerations of career after the presidency of in wage council 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 in 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. but the ability to implement them. is there a limit that if, if existence at all what makes you believe that because violence, 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 clovers opposition, while 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 in general, politics and politics in general there, there is no choice between the good and bad decision that you always choose between . you know, they're worth while the think is about the limitation. so there was the role from a 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 himself, in july, was speaking to the republican government of gun just on his capital to receive to the fans. to tell about it for much longer time, let tale bodies, no, norfolk 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 the recovery. 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 fundamentally 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. each state is unique. and what has happened to soviet union will not necessarily happen to be united states. even though if it will happen to the united states. it's not necessarily happened the same way as it has happened before the union. the united states of america is a nuclear superpower. and do we can,

before they add the consequences 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 has any, 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. the unprecedented opportunity of trying to be exceptional nation, not just an exceptional nation, but the exceptional nation, the shining city on the hill. can we blame them for not leaving up to 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 but because. busy if we do means that we see our

future dependence on another stage of the future of each country, either at its own business or cause the historic powers and comparisons available. but the available in the way that we see a we can for the certain condition of the state as about as institution. what we don't know how a certain state will react for this seem condition for the same circumstance. for the same contingency and g, the reaction of the soviet union to feed the condition of the state was connected to the unique particularities of the for the system. the reaction of american for american and state to this condition are going to be as well connected with the unique particular narratives. the american system and society. you wrote recently that even though in the short medium term and 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 when a major challenge in the us holiday us will develop and future haul? the american society will react to the decrease of the 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 serious continued security consideration for the united states. with all this, we can deal with the americans. we cannot deal with all taken grease, we're destroying or managing. so this is why this is major challenge, nor that again is to itself,

not the original consequences by the american catholic. what's the impact of the war? and what has happened on american society, 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, mister barton, i have on this uplifting, let's bring but we'll be back in just a few moments. thank you for me or i join me every thursday on the alex simon show and i'll be speaking to guess in the world,

the politics sport. business. i'm show business. i'll see you then me the families that mark. i took market function. you go with us, we like to get some more. yeah. worried miller definition me number the whole do y'all done? got that. i've got that limit and i wanted them off. you're gonna go back to do the work for me about the less about

the me and the me i welcome back to walter with the same for that your program director at the discussion was an author of the recently published book europe, russia and the liberal world mr boy, that your friends 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's still, he's 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 on. we have another daycare and maybe even longer. is that an honest analysis?

well, i think this is, this is one over the several possible analytical options. of course, under certain conditions, someone kalu can say that both china and russia would love to not as these to continue this 4th because the exhausting american capabilities and helping china and russia to survive and to ship the goals on the global and 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's even that talk about joint economic development and the mining of rare earth materials which again, it is very reach in and many countries are seeking access to those deposits. is that too rosy of a picture? do you think i've got some can ever return to, you know,

and normal state of things where business the, some limitations could be done with their should. it depends on both on the phone, the, on the people of afghanistan, and on the other, on the, on the external great powers. this scenario which you have described is more favorable for chinese and russian interest is of cause to have as part of stability in federal you're asia. and of course, both china and russia are interested in scenario on which their presence power and dominant power in getting us. we'll manage to consolidate the government and to consolidate the country, thus making each partner for economic and all the corporate use 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 in other so often or no violence and disorder against them. i think that both china and russia prepared for for both opportunities. you know, about a month ago, i spoke to a former of dennison's 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 strengthening eurasia from the outskirts in the war. it's sort of the middle is do you think it's more feasible now then let's say a year ago, this whole concept of integrated, the reason 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 central. and we need them to say, what is it only about the americans withdrawal or? well, the problem with the 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 world for the issues and the rest of the world, the united states can look not from the perspective of national security, but from the perspective of international diplomacy and the united states. look at situation in the central your asia central asia. i didn't know southeast asia from the position of economic interest bod,

1st to fall from the perspective of its felicia shapes, the we, china, and russia. it's not about the regions, it's about the great power of game. and that's, that makes american participation less productive. then we could have believed that makes the united states nor to solution. but the problem in the united states, in many of its doctrinal documents, is describing russia nowadays as a disruptor and disrupting power. and do you think that's essentially a projection? they're describing us in a way what they are trying to do to this region disrupting it for the lack of better word who i don't think it is a project. so i think that is normal diplomatic practice for the great powers. if we recognize that the other great power is the contributor, not to disrupt her, it 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. our own positive role in international it's really the limited because the russian and the chinese example i think for someone's duration in the group. i think that's why i would call china restoration. see you unique strategic partners for, for the 21st century, we will see how it will develop in future by 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 kenneth about which we have been speak just

a couple of minutes ago. and i think this type of relationship defies. was big neighbors in sky used to write about that. no single, great nation should be allowed to emerge in eurasia because otherwise would be trying, in this case what, what i'm trying to get was nicholas pikemen in 1030. now maybe he borrowed well, because if i'm talking about the idea anyway, idea was that in there is one here, german, one regional jam, and it would try 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, too strong regional actress and global actors trying to work from different poles and trying to leave the center together. seeing genuine 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 according to their plastic geopolitical approaches represented by the works of nicholas pikemen before the 2nd world war, no grades, power should dominate eurasia. otherwise, the consolidation of your racial wound is so strong that it, we'll isolate the united states from the walls. but now we don't have one power dominant and eurasia. we have at least 2 powers, china and russia. and we, we see that russia is trying to develop install and called racial seats with india . and it's trying to positively influence the racial between china and india. so these were 2 dominant followers. it's what is differently than was one dominant ballot. so we will see, i'm not sure that there, that the traditional force of the and of the behavior of this,

the dependent on their 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 may be tomorrow. we'll see that the structural ex films wish which appear 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 their will because we actually recording this interview and let us talk, 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 is far more efficient, makes much better sense for russian than putting its efforts. you know, it's attention, it's capital, it's aspirations towards the western frontier. so essentially, i to get away as,

let's invest in far east, rather than trying to get the ukraine bag. what 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 that just one of the big european powers. but what makes russia global power is a possession of state directions far east. that's why russia is been 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 or freshman sustainability of the rational stayed it just of course, much more important. and then getting bay or establishing privilege to relations with any european nation,

including ukraine. we mentioned versions can before. and i think many people in, in the west as well as in moscow. i still believe him. he's all, he says that without the 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. when demand further saying that having 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, it was not a fever to ukrainian people. and it was at the table to the regional stability in europe. what russia wants from ukraine, russia once from ukraine, to be a soldier in state capable to say to the soldiering foreign policy decisions and

rational decisions based on the political and power considerations. it was written in one of the recent articles published by the president bush. and generally, russia is the major advocate 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 you bring in said 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 who believe that moscow should stop stressing and obsessing about it's european identity. and it's instead of embrace eurasian standing in its full capacity, you said that russia would never accept it as

a full fledged european power by the west. but it could be a force, a serious force to reference with as your range of power. do you think that mental shift has occurred? how tall being sub european? well, i think of that. so this mental consideration had been just a consequence from the russian foreign policy, which was obsessed was a go will becoming the part of the european balance of falling. for the couple of centuries, balance of power in europe in europe was the vital for the food, international security. and for the balance for following the water. now we're just not anymore. now the balance of power has a global nature. and that's why, for russia, the goal of being farther europe is not. so it's not, it's not necessary in terms of the national survival. and i guess that's why it makes much better sense trying to lift up this part of the world as far as this

iberia than a stock in the past with the to agree because it contributes much more to the long term sustainability and survival of the russian station and it makes russia russia, and it makes us our share. mr. board, that 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 it was apart from me. the me ah, driven by adrian shaped by those

in ah, the dares thing. we dare to ask me. o is your media a reflection of reality in a world transformed? what will make you feel safer? tyson lation whole community. are you going the right way? where are you being somewhere which direction? what is truth?

what is faith? in the world corrupted. you need to defend the join us in the depths or remain in the shallows. ah ah, the story is it shapes the week the united states ends. it's 20 years military campaign in afghanistan, leaving the country, the hands of the same terrorist group, the valve to defeat the generation ago. and as a parting act, retreated, american forces destroyed equipment. all the helicopters and there are a lot of them that were funded. the was, have been caught various various electrical blogs, remove the

building a return to power the.