now, openly rejecting the post cold war security arrangement is another round of confrontation on the continent, is safe back to them now joined by christopher toys in a long time advisory to german chancellor angle america. and like the chairman of the munich security conference. and i say it's great to see you, great to talk to you. thank you very much for your time. thank you. a pleasure to meet that to be with you. domestic security conference is one of the top platforms for discussing difficult security dilemmas. and your chairmanship comes at a time of the most accurate disagreements. good. been russia and the west over ukraine and a host of other issues. i wonder, why would you even want this job? what are your aspirations? no, my ratings are exactly for the reason that the unique security conference was established and that is talk,

talk and meet and discuss and new security conference off chris this opportunity we are very fortunate to have had over the last years a representatives from over the world and we are very happy to have president, but also as a regular for a we're looking forward to again of course i know the condition and then they give us a real meeting. and i think because this is one of the problems, i think we don't experience in official in our private lives that we don't have enough conversations 1st. oh, well i think that's a release of our challenges for the time being given the scope of problems that exist at russia and the west. i, you said in the recent interview with speak,

you know that you have eliminated the term be west from your vocabulary. what do you have replaced it where we all remember the east west confrontation calling for the cold war ended in 19891999. and since then we don't have more and we all have to have a word that is not confrontational. and what i hope is that know that if there is something from that from the past, what right now, it should be the orientation line is the international space order it in the charter of the united nations, the universal declaration of human rights. and what, what should be the orientation and not the thinking in that category of the

last century? well, you're being very diplomatic in this interior, but in your interview with speaking, i think you were why more direct and you said the it's a little bit about a dispute between the west, the east, but between states that up here as you start to a rule based international order to be united nations charter to the universal declaration on human rights. and those do not cool or what are those do's and don'ts? don't the wasn't the security council between 919 and there we place that was built after the 2nd world war 2 to bid to maintain peace and security. and there we regularly criticize those countries and among permanent members of the security council,

charter of the united nations. we criticize, is the united states for a embassy there because it's violating a un security council resolution. we criticize your country, russia for the invasion of ukraine, because this is also a trucker. and so this is what we criticize in research. please obeyed by international law. go and accept binding security. when you make it sound that you disperse this criticism evenly in fairly, but from the other interviews, i got a sense maybe i'm mistaken, but i got a sense that you tend to associate germany with one group of countries who supposedly respect all those and norms of behavior and then there is another group of countries that presumably russia and china and all the rest who supposedly don't

. is that the wrong impression on my part or you do believe that germany is sort of associated more with the forces of good and my country happens to be more in the category of that a close 2nd or area. and you know, after one journey due to the rest of the world with the 1st word reset, or we're 20000000 russians a me, we committed after the 2nd or 2 from the law and this is enshrined in our constitution. and this is try to day after day a lot, we do it here. you know, we have you go all this period piece in the history of europe and we know

resolve our problems in the european union. we don't go to the to the european court of justice and that's what we say. it don't go to war, but go to go to the court of justice. and this is what we preach. please give me an example for germany in here to that printer. well, of course, i have a couple of examples here, and you mentioned your experience of growing up in, in germany. and in my professional experience, i covered the number of conflicts, including the conflict in libya. as you perhaps know, in that particular case, the you and mandate was greatly overstepped by some of your closest western partners. it's true that germany on that particular vote voting on the resolution 1970 me, abstained and found itself in the same group with russia and china and voted

against the preferences of let's say, franz, the united kingdom, the united states. but that war preceded non de last and turned a relatively stable and prosperous country into essentially a failed state. i don't think we can argue over the fact here. so it is just interesting to me whether again, germany tends to associate itself more with the western camp, even if you don't like the word class, despite the fact that it's been western countries primarily that have been responsible for most of the conflicts as of late. thank you. thank you very much for this example because it shows you know what i tried to say. and as you write it in 2011, when there was a turn to mention and some time set it up to right. you don't see

a would be due on the country is that we now with our reputation and we have a lot of credibility in the region while beginning of last year a that actually led to a situation where now we have a cease fire. yeah, no, i think we have a certain political tract. unfortunately, there are still people who are not hearing also to the sanctions and i come back to what we're very even handedly i remember april 2019 when have started is offensive. we try to get a security, a press release, condemning it,

and the americans block. now today when you look at the situation, is your country rush, it violates a a. and we are a lot in the wrong get all these we would, we would be in a much better situation despite being a very welcome advocate of arms embark on libya. germany itself has supplied weapons to countries that are intimately involved in that conflict. b, egypt or some other neighbors of lee b i, b, b, we're talking about more than 300000000 years in arm shipments to those countries in this year alone. but i want to ask you

a slightly different question because the more strategic that you will have to be dealing with no arms in 2 areas of conflict. we supply our natural partners and otherwise we don't buy. and yes, we apply to each other by the way, russia also get a lot of troops to provide them with some navy material. and there is no navy cost in the, in the country to libya are on the side of egypt. so we have not delivered weapons to any of the parties engaged in the company. you have not deliver them directly. there is no direct delivery on to the country to your country that is directly involved in that sense, to want to commit crimes with violating international well. and that has to be proven in the court of law unless you believe yourself

a official document where russia officially is criticized for sending the militias to libya. so it's, it's not to be proven. it is proven, believe in intervention without any doubt created a host of major security challenges for the european continent from regulated migration to human trafficking, to elicit drug trade. and it's pretty clear that the content will have to bird and we have to deal with this issues when back if it's not for centuries to come. you like praising germany for abstaining from that crucial vote on that. but don't you think that germany could have done and should have done more to persuade its western allies to persuade its western partners from using that force? in fact, distractive and broadly consequential way, because that intervention 1st and foremost, came back to haunt to europe. yes,

i mean, i here with you here with you that this was not the best actually, this is why we are staying with that. look at the end of the intervention. and as you, as you rightly say, it was a, you remember in 2011, the situation was very bad. there was a civil war, you know, get off. this is true, was marching into what would have happened if the intervention have not take place. we don't, i don't think that the time when you look at the, you know, when you look at right, i think it would be the big instability in the, in the country anyway. and what we have to do is jointly it,

we stop that situation and see to it that, you know, suffering off the people as well. i'm better with all due respect. i was on the ground in guys the back. and i know that many of the western reports were simply false about the, the killings and the abuses by the army. that was just a lie manufacturers for the sake of their vents and putting that aside. you said that there was a need to come together and indeed the international community seem to come together and russia did not vote against that resolution. china is not well because they have spain. they seem to be willing to join forces with the west for the sake of peace and see what they got out of it. country destroyed and major migration, floss, majoring, stability, malicious running all around the continent. do you think that was just a misfortune or do you think that could be some strategic last sense,

drawn from that effort on the part of russia and china and germany, to work together with the west on solving a conflict in a country? you know, i, i read, you know, the west, but i do agree with you on what you said before is reason to sit together and work together and see on, on how to live. yeah. and can you prevent it? you know, this is coming back to your opening question. this is what the unit security is also about. people come together, we have our chinese partners community, and i don't see how we can resolve what i think for me. what i said earlier to this, the best thing to resolve conflicts is go by the rule of law and say, what international law says about situations and follow for international. well, ambassador, we have to take a short break right now,

but we will be back in just a few moments station. ah, who what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy confrontation, let it be an arms. race is often very dramatic. development only personally, i'm going to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very political time to sit down and talk to others financial. a guy i hey, i teachers of the friday at the last i buy it from the

future, or watch guys to replace ah ah, welcome back to ones of course mr. still, boys get elected chairman of the munich security conference ambassador just before the break. we were talking about the rules based international order. and in fact, you use these terms or rules based international order and the un charter interchangeably as if they were synonyms. but legally speaking, they're not because they are signed and ratified the un security chart there. where is what you call a rules based international order is really in the eyes of the beholder. or in the eyes of the most part. why do we need a rules based international order?

when we have international law isn't, isn't it easier and less than big years to just comply with the letter we have to be in the university decoration, right? i see documents, you know, documents after work or worse catastrophe. and i think this is based on, based on the, you know, the un security council resolutions all the resolution to on that basis. but also that on treaties, we've also that have notified this is all the information based order. so in treaties all this, you all to that. so this is, this is for very, very important. if you were criticizing germany, let me also turn around and say on, on your claim, you know, we started with on ukraine. we had,

this is part of the route space international order. we have a rusher guarantee certainty and integrity of ukraine, and you gave up its nuclear weapons in return, and then russia invaded ukraine. and despite the fact that this was a good of this memorandum was by officially transmitted to the security council represented russia, or that was a lot today. the foreign minister and russia is violating a run every day. and i say you make it sound as if i russia, as you said, invaded the ukraine because it has nothing to do. but you know that the security

situation, any crane, i was very intimately connected to russia, security interest in budapest. memorandum is not the only document that it was broken and she's not the only side that broke a previous arrangement. there were many promises given to russia with regard to nato enlargement, after the cold war. they were also many thomas is given to russia by the german, many of the german politicians who are pretty open about it. in that memoirs that the berlin wall will not be moved, the virtual girl in will, will not be moved ever closer to russia. but this is one of the things that i also wanted to ask you about, because i'm sure in the ukraine conflict, this is something that you will have to deal with a lot. once you come to the chairmanship of the minute security conference, you were one of the architects of demons, graham, and negotiated it on behalf of germany on behalf of angle america. and do

you think that agreement still stands a slightest chance of being implemented? there is when you look at the text again, it's it exactly a 72 hours for a cease fire to to start. the problem was that after 2 hours, the russian course is continued their take on the, on the, on the strategic point because they were not able to conquer that during the time that you were given. and this is a basic flaw that the ukrainians and then we went to the product. you're so sick with russia didn't do the 1st thing we don't trust it was draw heavy weapons for. ready the never did that and so it was very hard to convince the ukrainians to do

their part. i still believe that the ministry agreements are the agreements that the basis but it has to be on both sides and both sides have to so the ukrainians have to do there. but there is the country that was evaded. so therefore, they have to trust the russian that the russian to your work and we see that on the always see monitors that has also been a good base in the wrong. they are every day there they have to do their job. they cannot go to the order with rusher and they are shipment from russia to do that. so there are many, many flaws on the russian side. and then it's difficult to convince you can say ok or to, to do your, your site now. and that's your, one of the reasons why the ukrainian country has been so difficult to solve is

because it's, it's such a complex next, our cultural economic security, a political, military considerations which are ultimately rooted in the post cold war realities over debilitated militarily and economically debilitated russia and since you don't like the term west and expanding neighborhoods, expanding nate, and despite all the assurances that were given to moscow by the german leadership at the time of german unification. now these realities, this is something russia is no longer going to accept. it will of provided security whether they wore the west once it or not. but i wonder how does it look to you? do you think post cold war security arrangement is still viable? when you go back in the, in the ninety's, there was no longer the cold war. in the ninety's, there were nato, the european union were stretching out there to to rusher and all of that for me.

and so the republics and they were agreement signed were on cooperation. and so there was not this confrontation and it, we came back into the consultation with president putin when he took off it. and there are no creek is there's nothing in there is the tricky where it was said that nato cannot expand beyond if you, if you specific issues which have to do with a new cation and, and now there's one thing that i would like to highlight because it said that, you know, nato is reaching out to to ukraine and when one of the major fights. busy chance had with president bush junior, was in 2008, the so called booker it summit. at that stage,

the united states actually wanted for georgia and ukraine to get nato membership to start the so called membership action plan. and it was germany that stop that and then said, no, we don't want to do that because these countries will not add to the stability of nato, which is one of the prerequisites in the, in the nato treaty. and there is no move towards ukraine membership. there is a respect this intervention on the part of germany and chancellor in particular, and did not the united states from supplying weapons to crane or sending its military advisors or from interfering very rudely in the ukrainian politics. we may argue about the facts and waste our time on that,

but i think what we're looking for in russia sent to weapons to, i mean, we just talked about libya and sent weapons into libya is against international law . there is no provision that prevents the united states to support your cry militarily. it's not, it's not, it's not with a name to it by talking about international law. we're not talking about the feelings of people here. and this is something that has to be ready, that has to be talked about, that if you rush or withdraw troops on your crane, i'm sure that there will be no that there would be a solution. but you have to remember it was russia and the aggressor rusher that violated the good of this memorandum that we just went through. but i don't want to renegotiate history here. let me ask you a specific question. a question that relates directly to the meaning security conference and your mandate in these are going to zation because as you know, a few days ago, the kremlin, very directly asked for certain security guarantees,

legally binding security guarantees from the united nations from the united states, rather and from made up against further expansion. and i know that this, this question, this request that has been criticized by many in the west as a totally impossible or excessive, but the bite and administration did not dismiss it out of hand. and in fact, they seemed to be quite open to further negotiations with russia on the issue of strategic stability. i want to ask you, what is there to negotiate? as i said at the very beginning, and you repeated that, and there's a point where we agree. it's always better to, to talk and discuss and see where the interest, where can we, where can we meet the interest? how can we come to a conclusion? i think that one of the big deficits of the big problems are big corona crisis has

been that the people have not been able to meet. i mean, your president has hardly left the pre chinese president has left the country and the american president hardly left because they're not enough meetings. the russian president, the 20 meeting and christian and this is, this is detrimental. we have to have meetings and chris, and we really hope that munich will give an opportunity when, for instance, to foreign ministers, to master's attend beauty that they can talk to each other and discuss these, these issues. i think it's very good. i agree that the i don't criticize that the americans are ready to talk with their, with their russian counterparts, while ambassador we have to live in there, but i really appreciate your time and i wish you best of luck in this very challenging endeavor. yes, no, thank you very much. it said it was very kind of you to, to this interview and i like the open way that we discussed it. so all the best to

you and thank you for watching hope to hear again next week on a was a part. ah me the me i line me every 1st day on the alex summon 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. ah,

boy miss mortimer. don clark, my margin. beardsley dunn is boys the middle. you can get nobody talk to you when you can is because deity gifts is still let her wash the list as the identity skill, storage roofs or whatnot. assembly viney amber. mm. ah, charlie was to put my deal lead. you'll cook a, did you like to come up with a little and eat newkirk and give me a chalet as to begin on your voicemail and i still need my purse to heights him. he led to the 0 like figure that got boys to say it was literally 11 osha bumper. i see in the why no quarter of a year now to we were explainable. i was stork. i did the warriors chicken, the sneezing glitches of blooming. erin looked like to ga gov with little give me she is a business, lorna for school quorum, federal ritual idea. if the thugs dosh go on with the bug noise,

you need more next door motion, novelty, aqua. but i looked on my ball, which i am. what, where did supports give my? hi, tim says that it was darrell this a mutual business loan as a tombstone machine. nazi what the key and i should go by nessa, naturally speaking with european nations record daily cove id numbers. as the armoire chronic strain takes hold, while street protests rage on against harsh new restrictions and mandatory injections, also with a story to shape the week here, what are the internet? you must give us the guarantees it is on the end and you must do it immediately. latimer powder and demand. nato give assurances to not to boot. bait is closer to roger fiance's questions on global politics during his annual media briefing.