what i just had 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 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? we often do, even though the state 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 economic, 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 chan 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 lighting, put in speech riders, you know, the focus on national interest saying that security is our vital concern that we should not try to remake other countries through the use of force. i mean, if you were saying that if that was posted on his social media,

it 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 what are by the deed, on case of dennis done 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, after 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 the benefits of this victory. so wardrobe i don't need, he changed this way of behavior. he changed these, broken these 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 should not this optimistic about the why do functionality of 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 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 it, throw 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 electric over to the ration is free from electro considerations and from the light of the owner 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 of the team to speak relatively freely to, to make decisions which are not dependent or the he is huge. a courier, now, you wrote recently, and you said that already a couple of times during this interview that the american state of gratis has

reached a point one. they can still make foresighted decisions for their 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 clovers 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 is no choice between the good and bad decision that you always choose between

. you know, 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 a 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 gun on his capital was received to the fans to tell about it for much longer time. the tale bonnie's 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 wider dysfunctional picture of american politics. now, speaking about this, this function. collectively,

we russians know this condition of lack of a better metaphor, governing impotence. we've been through that 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 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 the 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 that 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 are not going to represent their immortal chinese for the rest of humanity. now i agree with you that day each historic path has 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. this unprecedented opportunity of trying to be exceptional nation, not just an exceptional nation, but be 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 because other, if we do, it means that we see our future dependence on another stage of the future. each

country is its own business. of course the, the historic power and comparisons available. but the available in the way that we see a, we can for the certain condition of the state as well as institution. what we don't know how a certain states will react for this seem condition for the same circumstances to the thing considered and do the reaction of the soviet union to 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 prevent russia with, with major challenges that we cannot even comprehend. now, what are you talking about when a major challenge is the us policy us will developing future haul, 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. we represent the serious continue security consideration for the united states. with our this we can deal with the americans. we cannot deal with all taken grease war destroying co manager. so this is why this is major challenge, not the dentist itself, not the original consequences by the american because it was the impact of the war

. and what has happened on americans to fight on, on development for these great, if worse comes to worse, what was 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, short break, but we'll be back in just a few moments. thank you. me or i want to make no, certainly no board is my number piece is emerge. we don't have authority. we go to the whole world leads to take action

and be ready. people are judge. 2 crisis we can do better, we should be better. everyone is contributing each in their own way, but we also know that this crisis will not go on forever. the challenge is paid for the response has been massive. so me, good people are helping us. it makes us feel very proud that we need together in this is your media a reflection of reality in a world transformed what will make you feel safer?

type relation or community? are you going the right way or are you being somewhere direct? what is truth is faith in the world corrupted. you need to defend the join us in the depths will remain in the shallows. ah, in the me a welcome back towards the point with the same for that your program director at the vault discussion club and also of the recently published book in europe, russia and the liberal world. 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,

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 decade 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 can, you can say that both china and russia would love to not as the continue this for, for because they are 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 joined the economic development. the mining of rare earth materials which garrison is very reach in and many countries are seeking access to those deposits. is that too rosy of a picture? do you think of garrison 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 genario, which you have described to me, is more favorable for chinese, russian interest is of cause to have as part of the village and center of your asia . and of course, both china and russia are interested in scenario on the which their presence power and dominant power in getting us. we'll manage

to consolidate the government and to consolidate the country. making each partner for economic and the culture of your 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 cha in russia, prepared for for both the percentages. you know, about a month ago, i spoke to a former 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 strengthen your asia from the outskirts in the war, incidents that are from the middle. 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? well, 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 be real. is it only about 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. they put 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 eurasia, 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, with china and russia. it's not about the regions, it's about the great power of the 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 and 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're 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 a 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 in our own positive role in international it's really limited because the russian and the chinese example, i think all for some inspiration and that's why they agree, i think that's why i would call china resolutions the you unique strategic partnership for the 21st century. we will 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 kenneth and about which we have been speak just a couple of minutes ago. and i think this type of relationship defies with big neighbors in sky. used to write about that. no single, great nation should be allowed to emerge in eurasia because otherwise it would be trying, in this case what we're going to try and look, it was, it was like one in 1030. now maybe he borrowed well, if i'm talking about the idea anyway, idea was that if there is one here, german, one regional had 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 actress trying to work from different polls

and trying to leave the center together. seeing janny 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 there only 2 classic 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 moved is so strong that its we'll isolate the united states from the world. but now we don't have one power dominant and duration . we have at least 2 powers, china and russia. and we, we see that russia is trying to develop, install and called today relationships with india and is trying to positively

influence the ration she was between china and india. so these were 2 dominant fibrous it's what is differently than was one dominant ballot. so we will see, i'm not sure that there, that the traditional course of the, and of the state 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 maybe tomorrow we'll see a structural ex films we should we should be to be absolutely, i'm just guessing will they? 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 are recording this interview and will do most of 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 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 the possession of the rim fire 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 the, for the people who are leaving them. and that's why, from the longer perspective, all fresh from sustainability of the ration stayed. it is, of course, much more important than gauging 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 thesis that without ukraine, russia caesar's to be an empire. and yet you wrote that without the ukraine. russia retains an 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 benefits. 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 feeble to ukrainian people. and it was at the table to the regional stability in europe. what russia wants from ukraine, russia, one from ukraine to be a saw during stage capital, both to say to the soldiering foreign policy decisions and the rational decisions based on the political and power considerations. it was written in the, 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. barge. the condition of these is the rational behavior. so the problem was you bring and said that it cannot behave rationally because it does not take foreign policy. if there isn't

itself. finally, you come from this group of fresh and thinkers who believe that moscow should stop dressing and obsessing about if you're a p and identity. and it's instead 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 europe, you? well, i think go to this mental consideration, been just the consequence of the russian foreign policy, which was obsessed was a go will becoming the part of the european balance of power for the couple of centuries. balance of power in europe in europe was a 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 father, if europe is not so it's not, it's not necessary in terms of the national survival. and i guess that's why it's makes much better sense trying to lift up this part of the world as far as this iberia than 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 ship. and it's important 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 i didn't use the war on drugs noted as a way to come back, a great problem. what's the one it's part of the attitude of the nation, not just of north dakota and it got to be something that you could elected this time. the fight against drugs took a check. he told us that andrew was competing short form and 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 something else had to be happening with the ah, in the story that shape the week, the us and it is 20 admitted trick and pain and i've got it on leaving the country in the hands of the same terrorist group they bound to receive a generation ago and as a party to retreated, american choice key equipment, all the helicopters and there are a lot of them that were abandoned the was, have been caught various various electrical blocks remove yeah.