see the world but also both countries have signed 15 major contracts and that was a great achievement. it actually shows the solidarity between the 2 countries and also the mutual trust, the 2 leaders. first of all, i think all those positive outcomes are just primarily by the russians and the chinese themselves. but if we look at western media reports, one of the most common terms used in defiance. moscow and beijing standing shoulder to shoulder. and i defined all the way to what extent does this relationship depend on outside fact if it weren't for the efforts to reassert itself, do you think the sympathy is mutual attraction would have been there for this way? there is too much propaganda going all out. all the

western media, it's a shame why we're going back into this old code wall state. and as i've written the common 2 different occasions, i say say that a better tomorrow is not going to be achieved by the us trying to contain china or russia. or by splitting the world into 2 competing camps. it's not right. if anybody is trying to do that, i think they are on the wrong side of history. the u. s. president joe biden said after that meeting that it really didn't change anything in the relationship between the 2 great powers, meaning russia and china, that there was absolutely nothing new there. and you mentioned that it was a fairly short trip on the trip. and then these are all ubiquitous on line

communication when you can. so all the problems online. is there any relevance, any additional factor that these personnel exchanges can contribute? well, i believe personal contact is always very important. yes we, we can always talk leaders of different countries can always talk online, but it actually means a lot the same thing with the french president going to moscow to meet president. right. you could have done it online, but a personal visit makes a lot of difference. so i think it's quite important between china and russia to have the leaders to meet each other physically. so that that's something quite different. i don't want to press too much on that, but when i understand and i agree with you that it means something and or it means

a lot, but i can't quite verbalize exactly what can it contribute. could you be more specific? what do you think is there that could be brought to the negotiating table when the 2 leaders are sitting across one another? i think they're the visits of mr. booting itself. it has copper implications. first and foremost, i think it shows russia's support for china or his personal presence in beijing means a lot to charter at the back of the west, the so called west having a boy cut all the winter olympics marshal. boy, because that's right. that's right. yes. the country leaders of the government

officials didn't appear so that actually shows russia's support, which means a lot, not only to charlie's leadership, but also to the people of china. so that's quite important. and secondly, i believe there has been a quite a fruitful discussion between the 2 leaders in person and was the issuance of a joint detective. racial means, which means that the 2 countries have a lot in common in terms of understanding what are the real problems of today's world. and where is the world heading and how to solve all the dispute? why it is important that we should do look at the united nation as the venue to solve all the problems. mr. why elaine jackson, i mentioned this unique moment in the bilateral history of synergy, when a rush in china can truly trust each other enough to stand back to back with russia

dealing with problems on is western plan. china being trained more to south pacific without them having to invest in defending against one another. and i wonder if that's an actual outcome of the historic relationship or is it more to the personal relationship and personal report between the 2 leaders? do you think it can last beyond vladimir putin and she's in pain where i think it's more of a result of that the world is having a moment because somehow i think we're heading to the wrong direction. the whole world is heading towards the wrong direction with the fear because fear can make people irrational. and that's not good. we have to come back to the basics

because after all, we all have to survive, and we all expect to survive in a peaceful environment. and why we're having all these disputes, upheavals, and even the fabricated potential for us, of one country invading another. there isn't anything going like this from what i read in the media. russia has never said it's going to invade you crying. it's all being fabricated. it's all being fabricated, and you mentioned that to me as being overtaken by here, which i would suggest is being intentionally through western media industry. and what do you think that fear is after and what our leaders in the west the trainer

i think, is basically the us. it's their fear of losing control of the world that they believe they control. but as i said, the only thing that never gets changed is changing itself. we're living in a changing environment forever. and yes, china is coming up as a, as an emerging power. but in terms of g, d, p per capita, china is lagging behind. just got a long way to go. where does this china come from? china is not expressing itself, having this willingness to leave the world to the china is still trying to learn from others and trying to do business with everybody, particularly with russia, with us. it's not

a host how this is something that the whole world needs to understand. china throw up it. history never has this experience of colonization. never has this experience of trying to bully others. always try to make friends with people and trying to do business with everybody. and, and this is what i would say that unnecessary figure. i find this whole idea one nation leading the world quite problematic on the philosophical point of view. it's as if one nation please the rights of god. because from my perspective, even in the most glorious times of the united states, it never actually ruled the world and never had the capacity of controlling everything. it's more like, i guess other countries complying with some of its emissions or commanding tendencies. do you think it,

do you think this whole idea of one nation being able to provide leadership for the whole planet? do you think it was ever implemented in reality it well, they try it out. it's not going to, it's not going to be successful actually in the recent, in last years about our discussion plug and you can buy the u. s. strategist recent mayer joshua mayer's. i'm as made, made it very clear, and it was a very good remark. i believe people should remember what he said was that after the cold war, the u. s. became the only super power on what it did. it's policy, it stated policy was for you to expand east for, for the nato to expand east war as well over all to the doorstep.

russia, not only that, they want to change the regime a russia same thing applied to the east. their engagement, that engagement approach was china was implemented with an ultimate objective to seek a regime change in china to the problem we're having is that none of these 2 missions got accomplished. they failed and this is why we have this problem because they believe they can change the world. they can leave a leadership of these 2 countries. believe that everything is possible and that you can indeed it not only installed regimes but make those regimes work in for in culture. cultures that you have very little,

very limited knowledge about doesn't come from the lack of knowledge or is it something peculiar to the american mentality that generally makes them believe in dan bill if you bring that to the world to the rest of the world, because it's a very high order, i mean, i mean, the russian and even with my very limited knowledge of the world history, it's a kind of ambition that one shouldn't be afraid of, rather than rushing towards it. well, it's exactly like what you said. i think it's, it's the rational, it is totally irrational, and i hope so later, the american, all american friends, welcome to the realization that this is not awesome. and this is not right. and if they keep going all on that pass, they will be definitely on the wrong side of history. but the one we have to take a very short break right now, but we will get back in just a few. ah

ha. ah with

oh, driven by drill shapes, bankers, those with theirs sinks, we dare to ask in what happened? i make no ship, no board is a piece. and you as a marriage, we don't have with the we don't to look back seen the whole world, leads to take action and be ready. people are gonna come

in with them. 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 great. the response has been massive. so many good people are helping us. it makes us feel very proud that we are in it together with ah, a

well come back to well, the nelson, one wise chairman of the highest center for green pack and international studies. missing one before the break. we were, we touched upon this very cordial relationship most currently enjoys but beijing, but russia, russian diplomacy can also have a very stubborn, very direct, i would say, very uncompromising style as has been evidence recently in public exchanges between moscow and washington. and i think the chinese diplomacy has changed in style of communication with the americans. to some extent, i think both the russians and the chinese are trying to give the americans a taste of that on medicine sort of to approach americans in the same way. americans are used to approaching the world is very bare knuckle style. do you think that's good or do you think that would make the americans listen? i think at least it, it shows the americans that time has changed,

that they should be realistic as well. they should be realistic it's, it's not that they can teach people what they should do and how they should behave. this is something that it's hard time. i think it's 5 time the world wake up to see what's happening around us today. one of that is that i've seen suggested by russian analyst, that one positive outcome of such tough talk is be thinking right, realisation in the west, that the disagreements that exist between russia say the united states have a systemic fundamental reasons. rather than being just, you know, putting, being at york and being disruptive for the sake of losing his own ego, you know,

suddenly slowly but suddenly there, when the west is realizing that there is something structural, there is something that may be discussed. for example, the basic principles of security in you're relying on your per gnostic challenge. do you think those discussions will evaluate in something substantial or it will be, it talks for the sake of talk as a means of simply biding time with the ho russia and europe. i've come to realize that it's time to the security of a region. and by and large, the whole world needs to be discussed of all stakeholders instead of just one country already. well, the shots telling, telling us where, where and how security is going to be. so for example,

i think it's, it's quite apparent that the security in europe needs to be discussed between russia and of europe and all the leading european countries. and this is exactly why we see the french and the german leaders and some other country leaders are initiating the talks with russia, which is a very positive step. i think it's not that european security is going to be decided by the u. s. this is wrong. the same thing applies to asia, one of the queen. so i would say care that there western media from care is that if the united states or europe indeed succumb to russia, pressure and sit down to negotiate basic security principles, that it's built in bold and china to be more proactive in these part of the world.

do you think there's a potential there? i'm sure china is watching the development, but it, is it learning and the lessons from what it sees were i think the to china and chinese people. it's a wake up poll, actually given what's going on in europe, a crane, and it's also a learning curve. for most people in china, that world piece is not something you can take it for granted. there are always something happening every now and then. and so if we want to live in a peaceful environment, we also need to do something as well instead of just sitting here and b, oh, what is going to be? this is wrong. now you mentioned the issue here, crane and how the station develop their 1st,

at least from the russian point of view. the west was very active in supporting the opposition. then they essentially supported who to talk. now they're actively and hopefully supplying the crane with offensive weapons. i know that the issue of taiwan is highly sensitive for china and human pretty straightforward. the west also allows itself to use that issue for its own geopolitical or tactical maneuvering. do you think there is a fear on there is a risk rather of events in taiwan taking on a crane scenario? me being very, very diplomatic. no, i think it's quite a different case. but as you know, the whole world has recognized that there is only one child in this world,

and part one is part of charlotte. so this is a fundamental base of discussion. and for any country including the western interfere into the intel office, it's not something that china what color it, john has already made very strong statement that an interference is not going to be entertained or tolerated. so discussions of a piece for re unification is always on the top of the agenda. and that's something with just a moment. i would say it's quite different from what's happening. you credit mister one, you know that we leave in the world way international law could be in compliance with international law would be demanded for some countries and absolutely going to work for some others. and the united states, as well as some of the other partners, have a lot of experience of using lisa tactics supporting position, supporting,

you know, part is on a rebel fighters, for example, one of the narrative see developing in west media right now is that wasn't our support part isn't in ukraine so that, you know, video and he's with free access to weapons would be attacking and you know, whoever is he's there in the neighborhood. i, you, i'm to trusting too much in sort of clean ways of dealing with this issue. i mean, if you apply this to the case of taiwan, i would continue to tell you that there is this a session all which is the government, the constitutional rights to seek to military measures in case of

emergency, if there is anything happening that goes beyond the limit all the red line that china will take military action that the termination has been expressed very clearly borrow government is the one. if we come back to the european diplomatic theater, there are some players like france, which you mentioned already. turkey who are offering themselves as mediators between russia and the united states. and i know that for example, pakistan's prime minister in hand also suggest this similar role for his country in somewhat tension relationship. it's been beijing and washington. do you think mediation would be helpful in such cases? i do think it's primarily for the great powers to settle their differences among themselves. well, all these initiatives only show that the world,

the rest of the countries are getting worried, which is a good thing that people do realize it's not right. the 2 countries are not friendly with each other. so to solve the problems, 2 countries will have to come together, sit down and talk. that'll be if i'm not mistaken. i think it would agree with me that the administration made a strategic decision to frame those differences between itself and russia and china in terms of, you know, there's a central struggle between democracies and a talk races as well. i don't want to waste time on discussing those labels. i think it's pretty apparent that we leave at a time when the very nature of governance is changing before our eyes. and many the

so called democratic countries have to take pretty autocratic. if not to tell terry in measures, how do you see this democracy versus a top percent discourse, let's say, in 20 or 30 years from now. i think the pandemic as giving us a good lesson and with what's going on around the world, i'm not just democracy at all. i still believe that democracy, the western democracy that has been practiced in so many countries, is not a bad system at all. but it's a very delicate system, and it's so vulnerable and it's very vulnerable. in terms of any crisis coming, they don't perform well. and i would not

try to divide the world into that more chris's publish. every country needs to find its own system that shoot that suit as me. russia calls itself as a democracy as well. and china also considers itself as a democracy. it's just that democracy can take different forms. the french democracy is different from the british democracy. systems are quite different. so it's, it's, it's a word, it's just a word, but you can also use this word to apply generally. but on some level, you can also measure if you look at the number of people on this condition whose lives were improved. let's say china is kim and you know, ultimately serving the people democracy is for the people and by the people. but

it looks like in the west, it's applied very narrowly to specific methods that certain leads i used to rather than just genuinely trying to produce some verifiable numbers of how life of that populations have changed. i agree with you on that, you know, by the end of the day, it's the people that has to say, if the people are i happy their lives are improved. this is what we're here for, right? this is what every government's objectives are. it's, i can't imagine that a government survive is dependent on what principle it hope it's actually the result we're looking at. the result of the result is that people are happy that living stand does not improve that. and that's what matters with a wong. and that seems like a good, a good measure. you determine what side of history any given country happens to be

all. thank you very much with pleasure talking to you. thank you. thank you. it's a real pleasure and thank you for watching hope to see you again. same place, same time, all the part ah, with me, ah, a democratic republic of congo is among the richest countries in the world and natural resources, but he cannot mclee it's still one of the poorest cobalt is an essential material

in manufacturing batteries from modern devices. like electric cars, mobile phones and computers. 60 percent of the world's cobalt reserves are in congo . 20 percent of it comes from small scale mines. units have figures confirm that in 2017. more than $40000.00 children worked in cobalt mining in the republic to earn a living and paying for schooling. next time you use a fancy gadget like a smartphone camera or, or laptop. just remember that there's a chance it works thanks to a child's hard labor. children like john michelle henry at all countless others like them. or join me every thursday on the alex simon, sure. but i'll be speaking to guess what the world politics sport business. i'm sure business. i'll see you then.

with this story, the shape the news this week, russia fly with stereo over was being claimed during the legend plans to invade ukraine. as western officials urged the citizens to leave emitted daily media headlines that the net soc, is imminent. believe clear, shorter convoy protested in canada from a u. s. border bridge. they've been blocking for a week. the country's prime minister labeled members of the anti coated mandate movement on canadian. this is a story of a country that got through this pandemic, by being united and a few people shouting and waving. swastikas does not define a hearing in to the doping case of russian biggest gates.