from the earliest days of the nation, same security has been the most critical and the most controversial issue in europe . and while ensuring it provided both prosperity and development, it has also condemned millions to that death with russia now openly rejecting the post cold war security arrangement is another round of confrontation on the continent. a safe bad will to discuss it. i'm now joined by chris to get a long time adviser to german chancellor anglo american and the chairman of the munich security conference. and that's a great to see a break and talk to you. thank you very much for your time. thank you very much. it's a pleasure to, to meet them to be with you. domestic security conference is one of the top platforms for discussing difficult to curious and dilemma. and you're chairmanship . com's, at a time of the most accurate disagreement get 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 now? my aspirations are exactly for the reason that the unique security conference was established and then to talk, talk and meet and discuss the meaning security conference on this opportunity. we are very fortunate to have passed over the last years and the representatives from all over the world. and we are very happy to have had them president routine but also as a regular for so we are looking for it again under the condition. and then they get out a real meeting because this is one of the problems i think we ought experi

a private life that we don't have enough earth. well, i think that's a release of our challenges for the time being given the scope of problems that exist in russia and the west. i you said in the recent interview with speaking that you have eliminated the term be waxed 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 work that is not confrontational. and what i hope is that i 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, 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, the speaker, i think you were why more direct than you said the it's a little bit about a dispute between the west and the east, but between states that up here as you start to rules based international order to the united nations charter to the universal declaration on human rights. and those do not cool what i do is do's and don'ts. turn the wasn't the security council between 999. and there we have a place that was built after the 2nd world war 2 to build, to maintain peace and security. and there

we regularly criticize those countries. and among the prominent members of the security council, charter of the united nations, we couldn't find 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 against the un charter. and so this is what we criticize and we say, please obeyed by international law. go and accept binding security as well. 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 and 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, was the 1st word reset. or we're 20000000 russians the hands of germany. we committed after the 2nd world war 2 from no law. and this is enshrined in our constitution. and this is trying to

day after day read a lot, we do it here. you know, we are in your opinion, 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 internet 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 here to that printer. well, of course i, 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 my air 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 a place like you thank you very much for the success because it shows you know what

i tried to say. and as you write it in 2011, when there was a security council resolution for many turn to mention a c a would be due on the country is that we now with our reputation and we have a lot of credibility in the region. why? beginning of last year a that actually led to a situation where now we have a cease fire and yeah, i think we have a certain political tract. unfortunately, there are still people who are not hearing also to the sanctions and come back to

what we're very even i remember april 2019. when her story is offensive, we try to get a security, a press release condemning it, americans. now today when you look at the situation, is your country right for a a and we are a lot in the wrong, wouldn't get all these we would, we would be in a much better situation despite being a very vocal advocate of arms embark on, leaving germany itself has supplied weapons to countries that are intimately

involved in that conflict. b, egypt or some other neighbors. and maybe i think be we're talking about more than 300000000 years in our shipments to this country is in this year alone. but i want to ask you a slightly different question because the more strategic a lot said arms in 2 areas of conflict, we supply our store in natural partners, and otherwise we don't supply. and yes, we didn't supply to eat, by the way, russia also get a lot of troops to buy them with some navy material. and there is no navy cost in the, in the country to live 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 walk, to commit crimes with the walk moves in violating international well. and that has to be proven in the court of law unless you believe yourself a document where russia officially is criticized towards ending the malicious 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 and 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 those issues when back if it's not for centuries to come. you like praising in germany for abstaining from that crucial vote on live band. 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 such 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 that this was not the best actually this is why we are staying with them 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, going to, this is true, was marching with what would have happened if the

intervention i have not. we don't, i don't think that the time when you look at the, you know, when you look what was right, i think it would be the big instability in the, in the country anyway. and what we have to do is jointly see to it that 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 then i know that many of the western reports were simply false about 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 did 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 last major instability, no 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 you know, many to work together with the west on solving a conflict in a country. you know, i, i read say no to 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 unique security part is also about. people come together, we have our chinese partners community, and i don't see how we can resolve what i can for me. what i said earlier

than to this, the best thing to resolve conflicts is go by the rule of law and say, what international law it says about situations and follow a lot. well, ambassador, we have to take a short break right now, but we'll be back in just a few moments station. ah, who in ah, working room or should she popped in? she said, well, i'm getting ready to go shopping for christmas. and when we say there was a girl to buy another,

shooting another safe part of american life shattered by violence. the gunman was armed with an a ar 15, semi automatic rifle. when the issue comes home, it's time to act. when we're filing on this issue, the other side wins by default, lady that lived over there, i was walking. one of the dogs says, why do you wear again where you skin doesn't fit ticket? often i think the people need to take responsibility in their own and be prepared if those kinds of weapons who are less available. we wouldn't have a lot of the shootings. we certainly wouldn't have the number of either financial survival guide. stacy, let's learn about the allowed. let's say i'm a true, i get any are great grief on banks of the fight. wall street broad, thank you for help with enjoy

that right. fell out in depth slavery. ah, welcome back to ones at portsmouth christoph boys get elected chairman of the munich security conference ambassador. just before the break, we were talking about the rules based international order. 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 jack states signed and verified the indicated charter. where is what you call a rules based an international order is really in the eyes of the beholder, or in the eyes of the most powerful. why do we need

a rule based international order? when we have international law isn't, isn't it easier and less than big? he has to just comply with the letter. we have the un charter, you know, this is the, the universal declaration of human rights. these are the basic talk, you know, documents that are worse catastrophe and you know, i think this is the basis. and then on that basis on the un security council resolutions, all the resolution that have been adopted on that basis. but also that long treaties, we've also that have been notified yet. this is all the international rules based order. so in previous august, you all to that. so this is for me very, very important. if you were criticizing germany, let me also turn around and say on, on your credit, you know,

we started with on you crazy. we had, this is part of the rules based international order. we have a 94 we're rusher guarantee certainty, and integrity of your crane and you gave up its nuclear weapons in return. and then russia invaded ukraine, despite the fact that this was a know, the good of this memorandum was by officially transmitted a, there was a lot today, the foreign minister and russia. if i know every day ambassador, you make it sound as if a russia, as you said, invaded ukraine because it has nothing to do. but you know that the security

situation in your crane, i was very intimately connected to russia, security interest in budapest. memorandum is not the only document that was broken and russia is not the only side that broke a previous arrangements. there were many promises given to russia with regards to nato enlargement after the cold war. and they were also many promises given to russia by the german, many of the german politicians who are pretty open about it. in the 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 dement graham and you negotiate and it on behalf of

germany on behalf of angle america. how do you think that agreement still stands a slightest chance of being implemented? there is when you look at the text to get it sent 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 we were given. and this is a basic flaw that the ukrainians and then we went to the product. you know, your so sit with russia didn't do the 1st thing. we don't trust it was draw heavy weapons for the you never did that. and so it was very hard to

convince the ukrainians to do their cars. 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 go there. but there is the country that was invaded, you know, so therefore they have to trust the russian that the russian and we see that on the always see monitors that have also been a good base in the memo. the they are, every day there they have to do their job, they cannot go to the order with rusher control. 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't say ok, you are to do your, your site now. and that's one of the reasons why the ukrainian country has been so

difficult to solve it because it's, it's such a complex next, our cultural, economic, security and political military considerations which are ultimately routed in the post cold war realities, all debilitated militarily and economically debilitated. russia and since you don't like the term west and expanding maybe expanding made. and despite all the assurances that were given to moscow by the german leadership, big time of german unification. now the reality is, 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, 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 stretching out there to to rusher and all that. and you know,

for me, so the republics and there were agreements signed were on cooperation. and so there was not, this contradiction had ended. we came back into the consultation with president putin when he took off and there are no treaties. there is nothing in there is coming to treat you where it was said that nato cannot expand beyond if you, if you specific issues are to which have to do with a new cation and, and now, and 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, chance america 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 a treaty. and there is no move towards you credit 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 ukraine are 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's in russia sent to weapons to, i mean, we just talked about libya and sent to 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 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 its troops from your crane, i'm sure that there will be no that there will be a solution. but you have to remember it was russia and the aggressor rusher. i related 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. and 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 guarantee 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 has been criticized by many in the west as a totally impossible or excessive. but the vitamin 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? and i said it's a very beginning and you repeated that, and there is country where you 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's one of the big deficits off the big problems off the krona crisis has been that people have not been able to meet. i mean, your president has hardy left the country. the chinese president has left the country and the american president test hardly left because they're not enough meetings that the russian president didn't attend the 20 meeting at christian. and this is, this is detrimental. we have to have meetings in person that we really hope that unit will give an opportunity when, for instance, a to foreign ministers, a 10 unit that they can talk to each other and discuss these issues. i think it's very good. i agree that the i don't criticize that the americans are ready to talk with with their russian counterparts. well, ambassador, we have to leave it there, but i really appreciate your time and wish you best of luck and very challenging endeavor. yes, no, thank you very much. it was very kind of you 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 the well to part with mm. with oil and gas, manufacturing, electricity, telecom vacation, all of them now have a type of infrastructure connected to the internet. well,

clearly realizing there's disruptive potential so that those countries kind of ignore it because it threatens national security issue. but if we take nato and you country, virtually all of them subscribe to certain doctrines, and maintains selling, but task forces. they are a cyber army on behalf of a country that's their job. ah, europe in nations are headboard record daily coven numbers, while protest continue against new restrictions? that are the stories that shake the way you must give us the guarantee it is up to you, and you must do it immediately. the approach and demand, the shortage from nato, that it won't move bugs is closer to russia. as the president feels questions on global affairs at his annual media briefing.