i'm now joined by a russian and european politics, and the university of canada has a separate rate. you see, i'm going to talk to you. thank you very much for being available. my pleasure. in your recent article, you mentioned that the current ukrainian saga reminds you of the cuban missile crisis, which mark said 60th anniversary this year. and in both cases, genuine concerns one mixed up with postering and life escalation. and i see the relevance of this comparison when it comes to russia strategic interest. but when it comes to the west or the united states, in particular, it isn't just as this sensually significant as it was back in 1962 with the placement possible placement of the soviet missiles in cuba. the cuban missile crisis is being repeated in a sort of slow motion behavior. and the launch of context is important and i'll

come back to the cuban issue. and the larger one is that i argue that we are back in a cold war. and you know, cold war 2, and just as the cuban missile crisis in october 1962 was as it were, the moment to turning moment when both sides, moscow and washington and all of the leaders understood that this conflict needs to be managed to else will co into a hot world to 3rd world war. similarly, that's why today as well, it's a moment of shock, a moment recognition that actually we have all have sides have to change. but what you said about that the beginning about the d, monetization of both sides. that is a typical behavior of cold war is that when you're not just involved to what you say, great power politics, but it's actually more existential. you are black and white men came good against evil, correct me if i'm wrong, but i think back in my agency it's you and before and after that both sides

recognize that security is a sort of 1st and foremost that systemic a structural issue rather than a moral or emotional one and that security achieving security. it takes a lot of painstaking work. a lot of very technical negotiations. ringback about where, what kind of weapons in what number should be located. and i would argue that most of the still insist on the quantitative approach, whether they're west, wants to trade in very emotional terms. you know, these were made in the ukraine, should not be given to the russian bully, we should not succumb to russia. blackmail, do you think that's intentionally manipulative or did the west indian lose the ability to look at security strategically in terms of rational objectives without passing moral judgments? first of all, i want her to say that the west is

a bit divided on this. and in the fan god off there, sort of new code will behaviors. it is the anglo saxon country is u. k, a united states and australia, interestingly enough, and some france and germany, rosmer reluctant to pose it in quite such stock. not just a geopolitical strategic terms. but indeed, ethical, modern terms 1st and 2nd. yes. this is again a reflection of the failure after 18092 established. what you suggest is an indivisible piece order. what are the west seems to have had is a 30 year young. just like right, in a sense they had before cuba and that you know, of unprecedented dominance. and why this is coach buried in such starkly cold war. many can black and white terms is because this 30 year young is coming to an end suddenly come to the shop to understand that russia was no longer going to accept

this endless expansion. and i go back commercial policy strangely enough, is a global television policy. it's a yeltsin policy and put it and his successor is to say that security is indivisible. that is the 2nd leg off that whole how think a paris charter is terrible as down a declaration, all of these declarations. but the west has been focusing on one aspect that each country construes its own security. lawrence's wise are both, most kind of caused by jean because interesting to know, begging china has actually quite said the west must take into account your security concerns is it's indivisibility. and that's what we're failed to do for 30 years. and like in cuba, that we simply have now a moment of awakening realization that you have to, we have to go back to the negotiating table. the russians have a lot complained about the existence of double standards, but i think what we're increasingly hearing back from european lease is that these

are, these double standards are justified, morally justified, because the west is on the right side of history. and, you know, for me is the person who was born in leningrad with all the painful history on that cd at the hands of certain western european power. you know, i cannot, how, how, you know, hearing certain until mentioned connotations and these type of rhetoric needing western leaders, western decision makers understand how this sort of moral discourse is perceived here in russia. because whatever you think about putin, you know, he's a, you know, he's a strategic thinker, you cannot deny that. but his family history, his own personal history, is also rooted in certain events in russia history. and i think he's genuinely sensitive to russians being portrayed of being treated as one to mention. absolutely. one of speeches about 15 years ago,

he said that russians are treated as if their barbarians have just come down from the trees. and of course, this is again, i'll go back to the issue. it's a, you know, a lot of personalities involved. but ultimately it's a systemic issue about how the cold war ended. i keep going back to back because it really is, this is what this class is over your claim. now the, the, so could they, you know, the, the russian troops and the one side of the military exercises on the other. so it's all about the sense that we have a system, the western old or if you like the liberal, international order, which is democracy and human rights and all good stuff. and the point is, is that the russian vision is not opposed to it by the image is simply saying that there were 2 piece orders at the end of the cold war. there was the go, which of your in transformation will have to establish a framework in which you actually can feel comfortable. whereas the liberal idea puts, rather than emphasizing geo politics or security or is nationalist interest. it's

all about the over emphasis on principles which will support, but it has to be politics, is all about a balance between values and interests. and by over emphasizing values, you actually undermine the interests of all concerned, advised escalation and before and looking it from a tactical rather than strategic perspective. some analysts in moscow speculated that putting out those ultimatum style demands and massing chinks on russia's western borders allowed moscow to make west pay attention to the issues any concerns that weren't even considered as deserving attention. only year ago, starting and dialogue on security principles in europe. isn't that a small breakthrough in and of itself? yes, no, absolutely. i can quite. and the document, and again,

that's why cuba is important. by planning to put michelle's on cuba. they actually pulled the u. s. to negotiating table, and of course, it was a success with the soviet union that you're for, to miss out with a to and from turkey. and a promise was given not to invade cuba again, like to buy pigs the previous, you know, just why you could argue though, till advised. is that yes, the door has been opened to negotiation now to the issues which have been worrying both yell saying, well, garbage of yeltsin and put in. but you know why till advised. it's that it's not so much the door was opened, the door was smashed down, and so maybe a more delicate way, opening that door may have been better advised, but then you'd say they would, you refusing to open the door? so the only way to get it was to smash it down. i understand that argument that these already misplaced one way or another for in order for the talks to continue, it requires some sort of for the both sides to have certain degree of negotiating

skills and certain conception of a level playing field. given that after, you know, for the last 30 years the, what has been assuming that you know, it's vision has to be accepted and complied with. no questions asked. do you think there's still sort of feel sad where these negotiations continue rather than you know, going with value preaching, media friend via and etc. all those exactly are skills that the west is so good and practicing. yeah, no, absolutely. and compared to those leaders, i'm thinking of jack kennedy, robert kennedy, in 1962, who in many studies have shown just how intelligent and of course they resisted the military. talk of the defense secretary at the time. mcnamira was actually, you know, advising that we can't put up with this. we need military action. and of course, in washington today there's hotheads who actually saying that as well. so absolutely do they have the skill set,

the responses to your so security trinity ideas develop delivered in december, they answer from nato showed a completely inadequate response. it was highly, i do apologized. and of course it completely closed the door to a possibility of negotiation. however, the u. s. response was actually far more nuanced and it so i actually think that biden, despite his own personal inclinations as somebody who has been at their head, had the u. s. foreign policy for shaping it. for many, many years he had, he met with put it in june 20 last year for the geneva negotiations. and of course because they went no way. that's another reason why gosh, has continued bashing a duel with its force mobilization. and they, on that this response actually just suggest room for negotiation and maneuver. so that diplomatic us on so was, you know,

obviously disappointed. russia all sorts of ways. but it's kept the door. the door is still open, i think is a huge positive american response. also include flying lethal weapons into your crane and increasing you know, military contingent in europe, the western media and i, filled with reports about the imminent war. and i think even though those people in moscow who used to dismiss it as deanna just part of the american a muscle flexing is sort of the political postering. then getting a little bit nervous, especially taking into account the temperament our, the political temperament of our ukrainian neighbors. how likely is that an open confrontation at this point? do you think they could be a, why not a big war, but still a war for the u. s response actually did open the door to the band on a deployment of strike, mr. and so on, in your thing. but obviously the,

what they would call the defensive weapons is being rushed in by the anglo saxon powers. don't forget that germany refused to allow britain overflight rights over. so i has to go over the baltic and denmark. there's a huge military industrial complex number that communist eisenhower who wound against the military industrial complex. and of course, it's only got more powerful. so biden in opening, keeping the door open for negotiation and it is by didn't, it's not blinking the secretary of state or jake sullivan, the i national security advisor. it is by didn't personally whoever you them. but of course, as you say, even zalinski, the president of your claim is saying that there is no immediate theater, 5 full scale ball. so no, and the, the idea of an invasion is very much a london washington thing. it's not a european. i stands apart from the poles and the bunker publics, of course the, the usual suspects. so, a,

the situation is extremely dangerous. an idea of russian invasion, i've always said, it's simply, you know, nothing is excluded, but extremely unlikely. if any action did come in defense, it would be using long, long guns to act, weapons and so on. and, and another thing to remember is that you, things have over a $110000.00 forces on each side of the border. and of course, in part the russian, semi mobilization is to prevent a sudden attack on the dung. best of the sort. as a bi shad against the territories of armenian occupied it. you are not going to come back. so the military situation is extremely dangerous and has been for the last 10 years and getting worse military exercises and both sides planes flying within inches of each other. so an accident is just waiting to happen. well, what is also waiting to happen is a little break. we have to take it right now, but we will be back in just a few moments. and ah

ha ah, 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 and getting to resist. i don't see how that strategy

will be successfully, very difficult time. time to sit down and talk a welcome back to wells up words with richard sackler. professor of russian and european politics at the university of canada for just a 2nd. in the beginning of our conversation, you mentioned the principle of indivisibility of security, that the russians are insisting on, which is essentially an idea that no country should enhance and security at the expense of another country. but when we look at russia, a country that occupies a quarter of the european land mass, it's pretty clear that it's secure the interest somewhat larger than, let's say, the security interest of melodrama, estonia, georgia,

or even the size i european states. and it's not only a matter of security, it's also a matter of responsibility when it comes to, let's say, if i against terrorism or the fight against infectious diseases, you know, russia is usually expected. he'll intervene when things go awry. and as i did, for example, in the catholics on defending, not only income and government, but also western substantial western investments in that country recently. why do you think the west has such a big difficulty accepting that russia would have a certain area of not only influenced but also responsibility in this part of the world. indeed, again, when has to come back to the post cold war settlement, where there was no decision, no, no framework for behavior of their so called post soviet space. and going from the beginning, there was a sort of a neo containment policy. is that the fair russian imperialism coming back?

so you call it responsibility and leadership, and i agree that russia as the major power, just like united states in its own region, in china, to a degree. and it's part of the world has responsibilities. but this was never counted by the western powers because of that vision of a liberal, international order, which is like a universal monro doctrine. it means that they can be no regional spheres of influence. even regional phase of security weren't allowed. because that would, by definition, infringe this universalism of the west. but now all of that model is being challenged. and as you say, russia does have your sponsibility. in addition, as a permanent member of united nations security council says not just regional, but oh, even global responsibilities. why isn't them so difficult for the west just 2nd, because i don't understand why they would have if you, let's say 30 years ago after all the transfers muscles,

the end of the cold war in the collapse of the soviet union. but nowadays, the united states doesn't have the means or the desire to involve itself in every part of the will. they just withdrew from afghanistan because they don't want to waste their resources there. do they really want to be a sort of a global policeman? let's say in catholics on or into jesus and are even in georgia or your brain when things go arrive there, when they rather prefer russia to deal with pretend i interest as well. yes. to paternity. but the phrase would then be, they would say, is that they can be no challenge to the soviet international soviet independence of countries that you came from. because then of course, there's a part of element of double standards because as we saw interventions and serbia 1999 it up later, libya and so on. but yeah, the, the idea of russia as the regional head, human or older maker, is not been accepted. that is why the western powers of nato absolutely refuses to

engage with a collective security teach organization which was involved in kazakhstan as an organization. so he refuses to give space. i think that's of course, one of those big elements on the agenda today. and it will be helped of course, by the guys of china, which is also finally moving from a unit polar world to a multiple in a world. but it's very painful person for those in washington, in london to understand that this, like some russian common day to say, 0500 year period of western dominant is coming to an end. so there's a lot of civilizational cultural issues involved as well as security factors. now speaking about the collapse of the soviet union, which i mentioned before, it last here mark as 30th anniversary of this historic event. and there is an burgeoning debate here in russia, an analyst about that of the solidity and resilience of the state of the former

soviet republic. that ability to exist as self deficient, responsible, independent states who can take care of all the issues that may happen on dietary to be that terrorism on the spread of infectious diseases. what, what have you. we've seen a succession of crisis in on base territories, starting with georgia. ukraine could be done armenia and now potentially it's a i said it's natural growing pains. do you think the map of this region is still not set in stone? i'm not even implying that marshall would come and take all with them. i'm just asking specifically about the ability of those attack trees or state to exist in all the south. absolutely. so this 30 year pair says, since the disintegration of the soviet union is still continuing,

some people say that slow motion collapses continuing. oh is too much to is taken much longer to build nations and states in the region. this is where jackson's i day of negative sovereignty is important, where they're only sovereignty. is that given by outside, by the international system was internally these countries are divided and unable to establish genuine polities. i think you claim this one of those. and we've seen this since 2014, the enormous division between these 2 models of statehood one which is pluralistic, ingenuous and encompassing it's multiple identities. and the other one, which is this guy, the new nationalist exclusive, is vision, which is why this crisis, today's, at the intersection of the crisis of the post cold water and the crisis of statehood in particular in ukraine. but as you say, some of the other central elation states and of course south focuses as well. so russia surrounded by a whole stack of unstable state. and of course, the whole region across it is tensions. and, you know,

when you say afghanistan come outside and elsewhere, so it's a very dangerous part of the world. and as you say, russia has the most powerful state in that has certain responsibilities, but obviously not to infringe the sovereignty of the states. and yes, has no intention of doing so. if we look at the soviet subsidies to former soviet republics, if i'm not mistaken, the largest amount per capita went to georgia. where is the biggest recipient in absolute terms? was ukraine and goals of the states? now nurse, very visible animosity towards russia, and i'm pretty sure that the russian leadership is quite aware of that. when you hear that put in was nothing more than 2 mean corporate ukraine or george a did believe it is absolute nonsense. this was the here clinton line of to the announcement of the what was going to be the your nation union, you action economic union. she said to in a famous speech in dublin,

we know what protein wants and which is as it was to create the soviet empire. and we know how to stop it. well, i've been trying to stop at this imagination since the beginning. so no potent came to power. one of his 1st things he wanted to go all the way through was to stabilize existing borders to actually build up the domestic sovereignty of the states. yes, democracy human rights. an important element of that. but also state capacity. just a simple ability to govern your space in a reasonably effective manner. you claim, for example, today has a lower g d p per capita, than it had an independence in $1009.00 to $1.00. it's a fuss. and so in many ways, if you actually was to invade, to take it over, to have responsibility for a country which cannot manage, it's a phrase in a humane and democratic manner, the extremely hostile population, disability infrastructure, lots and lots of problems. many rationalists argue that taking over ukraine,

taking responsibility over ukraine, would be the worst thing to happen to russia, that it would be a major blow to its own ability to develop itself and be a strong great power. do you agree with that? that would be suicidal or russia, it would be absolutely suicidal it would be equal. and perhaps even far, far, far worse than the soviet invasion of afghanistan in december, 1979. which of course, pigeon ski. another started you say they deliberately pulled the soviet union into that fatal mistake. and a sum strategists in washington today, no doubt would like to see, gosh, make this huge mistake because, you know, an invasion is unthinkable quite apart from the loss of life and quite apart from the fact that you communion people, the people over the russian people overwhelmingly peaceful, all they want is to develop and live normal decent human lives. now, he quoted, i mean, also argues that men get women's is the only way to go. and i wonder if

that's really the case because they had of ukraine security council. i like, i like seen denila a few days ago, warren, that in the west where to continue pressing or pressing rather you grants, you comply with the men's grim and it's great times. it could, is stabilized deciding as the stabilized as it is already from within. and i think there is a certain kernel of truth and that because if we remember the station back in 2013, it was the sudden you try on the issue of the integration with the european union that led to the uprising and the you know, very, very passionate reactions from the ukrainians, the site to do you think the misc agreement as as good as it may be as a satisfying, as if maybe to the outside powers. do you think the ukrainian society can digest it

now after pouring acid on it for so many years? no, it can't. but still it's the only way forward. so in a sense, we have a, an impossible problem. the only way forwards is not a way forwards. the, the means containment, as you say, it hasn't the and i will say that their responsibility lies to some of the members of the normandy format, france, and germany. in particular, because on many occasions, anglin local refused to put pressure on care of the meeting in december 2019 after zalinski was elected. don't forget, he was elected as the piece candidate with overwhelming majority. if you claim people reflecting what i say, the majority of your opinions won't piece, and i know that it's quite clear yet what happened, even as they were meeting in france, i was put in as a lensky people these the, the, the near nationalists as i call them this not call them fashion, let's not call them anything extreme. these are just near nationalists who have a very limited vision of your current state and they were mobilizing already and if

they, so you could say this out to a guy twin radical right wing is holding ukraine, nation and state hostage. and so, you know, earlier on those in the dung bass showed, opinion poll showed they were happy to return to canyon sovereignty. as long as they could have a level of mistaken culture or tone political economy. today you could say, what do the people of a don't bass want? nelly, i over 650000 now have russian passports. so it's a, it's, it's got even more of a tangled and difficult issue. but you know, at least within the mens format they may well build a normandy for me to have negotiations. i also think the united states should join it because ultimately european powers have shown themselves to be ineffective and unable even to stand up to the normative principles in ukraine. where we say a tax on the russian language and culture. where's the european response to that?

well, what is the fact what we have to live there. thank you very much for being with us today. my pleasure. thank you. thank you for watching hope to hear again next week on the wells apart. ah with ah ha ha ha. driven by drink shaped bankers and those with

there's things we dare to ask in oh, is your media a reflection of reality ah, in the world transformed what will make you feel safer? isolation, whole community. are you going the right way? or are you being that somewhere? direct? what is true? what is in the world corrupted, you need to descend a join us in the depth will remain in the

shallows. a long the stories that shape the week on r c. russia shuts down the moscow office of german broadcast, 3rd, joy chic, valid after berlin law, r t history channel r c d, in germany. to coming up on the street in curling team member is allowed to compete at the beijing winter olympics. this is by testing positive for co, but we ask if the rules are for some countries, but not for others. on at least 6 children are killed in north west syria this week, as american command. those claim to be taken out the leader of islamic state of the same time and place.