ah, ah mm huh. welcome to wells apart, the former evil empire, standing up to the employer of life. when let me put him, it was announcing his decision to d, potentiate ukraine's military infrastructure. it wasn't just resurrecting the ghost of the cold war. he made it clear that the years russian animosity never really ended how hot and bloody could still get. well, to discuss that i'm now joined by timothy board. i shall program director of the vault di discussion club through his group to see you again. thank you very much

for finding the time. good to see again. thank you for inviting me. now. when ronald reagan 1st used the expression, evil empire, it wasn't just a political invention. it was actually a statement of political believe he truly believed that the cold war was a battle between good and evil. when vladimir putin alludes to that trav today by calling the west the empire flies. is that just rhetoric or do you think he is also caught in this battle between the forces of flight and the forces of darkness are well innocent and we away? yes. when we speak about their nationalism, their violent aggressive nationalism which are, is present in ukrainian society for many years as us and especially of to the qu or 2000. and 14 and 2, we all know that in the nationalism, these one are there war st. evils, oh, are they contemporary history?

we immersed in europe and the 2nd part of the 19th century and has been poisoning europe for the decades caused to ward wars the 1st older and the 2nd world war especially. and brought a man's human losses on the european steeds and societies. we inertia, we know that nationalism is the one of the most dangerous things, if not them, if not the most dangerous thing. oh, about which we can even speak about. but from what i heard, he put in say he never mentioned nationals. he was talking about nat, susan, and he was talking about supremacy of the western supremacy and to some extent, impunity. so if it's indeed a battle between good and evil, once again, what do you think he defines as or as evil? well i think that he defies you might be defining as evo, urge them. our self confidence of our partners in the rest that only

they are having that lets us cousin, that arrogance is actually also mentioned that where arrogance may arrogance of our brought us in the west and they are strong and genuine, believe that only they are those who can decide about which internal vision of justice can exist, can continue and which can not. so this is a supremacy as i will define it, their absolute self confidence in the knowledge of only one universal truth in a i find this set of metaphysical aspect of their russian western confrontation. very interesting because it's a bit like a coded language. the general public usually ah, mrs. at the bed, i think the leaders are using it to send a specific message to each other. and for example, joe biden,

and his reaction to russia's recognition of the break away. republics said this. who in the lord's name does put in thing, gives him the right to declare a new so called countries on territory that belong to his neighbors. and that's, i think, a question that that's worth pondering. what is this source? the current, the morning, and the source of just fair decisions and legitimacy in, in the world today, it's definitely north international law. so what is it? unfortunately, it's not a driver and the international law. the nations have been trying to develop international law as a universal instrument of universal justice behind which there is no military power, which will translate its all values through these capability to exercise international law. basically before the 2nd world war, the situation to global balance were far was based on the strongest nation and the national vision of justice. but the could actually effectively balance each other

off the 2nd world war. when we got the situation was out many strong states. the international law wasn't bantered after the collapse of the soviet union. the more to paula wald emerged for the moment or longer for the moment. and this universal vision of justice was t hm. and taken in their own position by the united states. so i my understanding correctly that the return of use of force as a tool of politics not only in russia's hands, but also previously. we have seen many examples in recent history from citing from missouri, john, and all the way like to re key the united states or all the arabic conflicts, etc. oh, we see definitely an interesting cation of using and military tools in your politics . is that a consequence of the international law as a framework that is devoid of military force, it not being effective or it not being fully realized and not being fully practiced?

there is an excellent definition about this problem. it sounds like the in the beginning, all the power politics simply means the end of the power monopoly of one country. so we used to have the power monopoly or foreign country of the united states for more than one decade after the cold war. and we remember what has happened to the slideshow. we remember what has happened to iraq and several other smaller states. so, and are office are on the said the other countries started to grow up their own cumulative power capabilities. and the united states have been relatively weakening. so the other styles kind of states started to challenge the united states in one way or another, china, russia, turkey, and the united states. or are they simply trying to get what's their own? despite of the american object by the rule,

by the rules of the order which was established after the end of the cold war, the very, the very desire to her to take it. decisions on their own are considered as a violation of the rules of the game because the manual of the game established after the collapse of the sooner was that there is only one country which can decide for that for, for the rest of the international community. now i mentioned joe biden, i a moment ago and he are also condemned her flagrant violation of international on the par. the fresher which are coming from a years to president is, is not even ironic. but i think law including international law is not a shallow concept for the russian leader. why do you think he, he chose to explicitly violated by ordering strikes onto the ukrainian military infrastructure? because it is a violation of the national law, regardless of what position will take there, because he is responsible in front of the russian people. he is responsible before

the russian people, and he is a responsible beer to keys, nissan, which is alexia and eve, the leader of the country, will be responsibly behaving at the expense of his own nation. it means that she is not properly occupancies position. dad decision. i was mad with a lot of criticism, not only from the west, but the from a substantial part of the, of the russian population. many of my friends are very indignant about that. and i, i find myself in a somewhat difficult situation here because i spend the last 15 years covering conflicts are all around the world, usually with participation of some western countries. and to me, the war didn't start here on, on thursday. it didn't started on thursday in the ukraine because the concert has been going for 8 years with over 10000 people killed the overwhelming majority of

them on the air break away republic side. but even more broadly, you know, they have so many wars over the last couple of years. serial. ebay yeah. man of ganeth than in the least goes on and on. why do you think people i so overly sensitive and so exclusively outraged about the use of violence or the use of force rather in ukraine when it's been all but normalized with far greater is tall in other countries? well, i think that generally people feel credit quite comfortable when only one big nation violates the international law. and this is a reason for them to be nervous, even hysterical about what is happening now in her rollin and the round ukraine because it just destroys the picture of the universe a day or the collateral here. glove. hello,

the world you established after the end of the cold war was based on the simple assumption that there is only one country which could violate, violated international law. and everybody was rower to lucky was it, given also the fact that the united states managed to provide significant or significant material benefits to many countries, even to russia, to many countries on the international convention. so people could live with it or this is a bare ground the fundamentals of the reactions. of course, these reaction l stories a result of. ready their natural care, the war is not in nature or condition for people even though their nations and the steeds of fighting wars. ready for several 1000 of years, still it is, it makes us humans that killing the other humans is not nature or for us and its own usual is very big factor. however, the channels 1st, but of course why i'm very sorry for saying that. some people feel that their personal individual comfort may can be damaged,

that they will not be able to travel anymore to the united states, or for study or 4 or 4 visit. i don't know. so people generally don't care about anything. what is not connected to their personal individual well being where the kids in the bus have been killed. morosely by the ukrainians. it did not harm russian. my might some of my colleagues or the other people here and everywhere. ah, in terms of their or own personal won't, will being now, this is a done didn't endanger the problem of ukraine has existed at for the kremlin, for quite some time. it's been understood that having a hostile country on the border is a strategic problem and put himself in his speeches in his articles and expressed that he was se mulling over that he would have to see the russians and ukrainians fight. but this was somewhat where the things were moving. why do you think chose to act? now because as you said,

the war has been going on for 8 years. people have been killed for 8 years. but what do you think needs to move right now in order to respond these question properly? we need to have the same information as are there leaders and steeds l the steed sand governments? do have. we don't have it. oh, i believe there are now we are at their very and all for the period when the resolution of their problems was the european secured to order are possible resulted, general war eve de enter and leave has been said by russian leadership for many eyes times eve the ukraine would have been incorporated into needs her developed nato military infrastructure. the war of choice which is going on today could have become the war of necessity for russia, conducted in, not in order to defend the interest, but in order to survive. and when you fight the war in order to survive, you can resort to all nuclear but abilities you have. and we all know the torture

has significant and danger, as well as united states, significant and dangerous for the human, entire humanity, military capabilities. so this war is fought in order not to put russia in the position to war for survival. ok. it's from a hey, we have to take a very short break right now, but we will be back in just a few moments statement. ah, mm. mm. oh in the please take a look that is hash with its been young mythical program that the provider to reset them. no. hm. and then with how much you know that i was just wanting to yeah. when was the shuttle was the shits helping you out? last year something along

with . 7 the old place products with ah welcome back to was a for it with, with a bunch of program director of the involved i discussion club, timothy before the break. we were discussing the military operation in the ukraine and vladimir putin defined the goals of the current strikes as demilitarization and d, notification of ukraine. now technically i can understand what demilitarization

means. you just take out the crucial military infrastructure. but what about the so called dean, that's a vacation. what does it even mean in practical terms? well, 1st of all, starting was limited through zation over the country means that the territory of this country will never be used as a territorial bees full of their activities. which are dangerous for the russian security. full stop. the notification means that there isn't huge number of individuals in ukraine who have during the last 8 years committed crimes against people in odessa against people in dunbar sin. some are some other parts of the country. so people who committed crimes, order their nationalistic pretext, and to listen, it's one thing to, you know, order, limited stress on military infrastructure. it's relatively easy to do, given the technology. but, you know, rounding up are those sir individuals. many of them, as you mentioned,

putting them through the some sort of legal process. you know, that requires a totally different infrastructure that requires policing in place. that requires some sort of control of some sort of control over the legal system. does russia really have a habit and how long it could possibly take? i mean, it's one thing to take an action against the infrastructure, something else entirely to your actual take here, of the people in day ideas. while think of that as president booth and said, the russian operation in ukraine is not about occupational this country and is not about that. they're state building. it is about regime change and it is about bringing to the power in ukraine. people who are not connected to the crimes which have been performed during last 8 years. and the when of called after that, of course, the new ukrainian government will be able, willing and support that, of course, by russia,

in exercising their activities directed to hunt and bring these people to justice. it's not for russian. well, security authorities to, to, to, to bring these people to joint. it's also not for russian security authorities are even civilian authorities to decide when and who is going to be a, the ukraine's new government and what its priorities are going to be. do you think this current operation may result in the change of power in kia north? of course, this is a main goal we in russia have been decrying regime change policies and other countries for many decades. e, i saying that russia is now into the regime change game itself. and if it is what makes him believe that it can be more successful than some of its quote unquote partners, we're still going to, we're not doing new him. the remote countries somewhere in the rock or get us that we're doing it in the country we, she's a close to russia, basically, so by russia and which is populated by the people who speak russian. and do you

think those people who speak russian are, would just her accept? eagerly the government that russia would propose selling them eagerly and immune and very soon we'll be able to support the government to which will be friendly to russia and friendly to peace in europe. some of the, some, some of the people will realize a bit a little bit later. so i don't think, i don't think it is a problem. russia has many years, many centuries of this historical experience dealing with these territory which recall ukraine well and not very successful experience. i have to say, given how quickly are ukraine turned inimical to russia after the collapse of the soviet union? i mean, i think it's why they recognize in the russian analytical and circles dad and decide that russia, that ukraine rather has become saw valencia and,

and to ration is there is a consequence of, for it to some extent rushes own policies. so this is the concrete consequence of their communist policies in supporting ukrainian nationalism as a position to russian nationalism. so basically the biggest evil, the biggest fred, which the communist government was fighting in the soviet union, was russian nationalism because russian nationalism was only one danger for the power of communist party. and in order to plight these thread, the communist government supported with national small nationalism in one of them ukrainian was the biggest in long, small national was. and i think that that ukrainian behavior after the end of the cold war after their independence of this country, was supported and was actually based on the fact that those people who came to power have been grown growing up in the ukraine or 60 seventy's and beginning of a cheese where the national is. lord is seely anecdotes about when they're of c and

old is on cirrus treatment over there, atrocities committed during the 2nd world war by the ukranian nationalists. so all these people who have grown up in their, in the, in the soviet union, which support, that's what you bring in nationalism. do you think this process are changing and political landscape i in the ukraine entails be still carried out within the democratic framework, or i suggesting the return to the communist at times when essentially it was more or less straightforward. well, i think that eve, if i remembered, then in 2014, according to the old pulls, more than half percent of the ukraine population was supporting the closer relationships to rush. i believe that ukrainian pupil given the conditions of the free expression of their will without the permanent intellectual and physical and

psychological terror from the nationalist. the will be able to elect a democratic government. one of the statements that was picked up here in moscow with a lot of concern was there zalinski speech, let him in his speech and the minute security conference at which here was talking pretty straightforwardly about his intention to rebuild ukraine's a nuclear military capabilities. and it didn't meet any response or any rebuke, whatever from the western partners, this same countries who have been, i sanctioning iran for the last 20 years for its pursuit of peaceful nuclear nuclear program. and this, and this seems like a pretty m, the odd idea that nobody in the west would think that a hostile country talking about the resurrection of a military program would not be perceived as a matter of concern in the west. why do you think is that assigned that the ukraine

was essentially allowed everything, or is it simply the lack of i didn't know political vacuum and how do you interpret that? well, i think of that one over the biggest challenges to the international security to now he's the unstable and unstable and very dynamic situation in the united states and political instability, social problems, race problems, gender problems, all problems which are american society is facing. now, the become very turbulent for the, for the special landscape american select trampling americans have strange electron select by them. maybe come out of hurry. so come to office at a certain but to certain mom and so we cannot be confident that america will be a responsible member of international community. and we cannot be confident that one the one leader in the united states to morrow off tomorrow. we'll decide to give you credit some nuclear weapons. but it's not that i'm giving the ukraine

nuclear weapons. it's about the ukraine's own capacity because i don't think, i don't think that the greens own capacity could have been a problem. i think what could have been a problem in the united states giving to ukraine, nuclear weapons as the deed to britain in stiff or perhaps as they did to israel. i mean, even in a, in the case of israel it's, it's still kept under the rock and still an international to bore nuclear proliferation is an international to boys. and the fact that the landscape is allowed to talk about that freely from the missouri jim of the security conference and, and, and her and his role is not to fail. that are, what are you suggesting is essentially that they're from a strategic point of view. ukraine is a problem and would have been the problem for any of its neighbor if it was there in the, in the current configuration that we see not for any or for its neighbor, are not merrily for any of its neighbors, but for the international community. as

a whole, because the present path occurring in development could put russian position russia in the position of defending is survival. now let's talk about the survival of ukraine dekaiser. for the most part, we spoke about the, the military action in ukraine bed. and there is also 2nd front and the breakaway republics. when the house of fire, some russian special forces are now being pushing defrauds line are further into the the territory of the ukraine. what do you think is the gall and the limits there? you mean, are you speak about this republics in republics? yes. well this is of course, so as to the question, which it's very difficult to answer because it depends on our vision of the future . the future of this territory. if we see ukraine is a relatively big steed, may be in a certain future, do this breakaway dornbush. republics will join the rest of your career in order to

make it more internally, nationally, politically balanced and more strong, industrially because there's the industries to you in numbers. but if you reason we will cease to exist as a huge steed in on, in european terms. huge, oh, maybe bo see the other out on him was republic, switch or self warning territories will, which will emerge out all the ashes. also, what we used to call ukraine for 30 years, leisure and foot, and suggested that the and military operation in ukraine could be finalized in early march our which perhaps prisons are present, will present an opportunity for the russian and ukrainian leadership. whatever it is to come down to the negotiating table and perhaps discuss the bilateral relationship between the countries. what is the scope of negotiations there? and the thing that you will. busy need mediators of any sort well as a,

but this is a question, was that she was girls very much beyond my, my capacities, all of their common fortune telling the academic theory tish and some of her 0. well, i think our, i think of that having negotiations with zelinski perceive is not an obstacle to put him to justice afterwards. if he has committed certain crimes against the people of ukraine, people of them boss. we have examples in the history when the leaders like military's, for example, who have been accused of committing crimes, have been negotiating agreements and after that, hakan urban taken to just as he mentioned this whole on conflict, a rough test. ah, our does the inability of rush and the west to agree on basic security principles in europe with what happened over the last couple of days and what may happen in the near future when do you think that file is last and do you think those

negotiations will continue on the basic security principles in, on the continent, you know, geo politics matter. and in the very heart of avery procedural question of every organizational quest for both rules, norms and law, we have a territorial problem which territory can be considered as a possible conflict point for the nation. so which are dangerous for the peace in the, in the international community. if we have ukraine like that, if you green her could have continued to be, are closer to west, more distant to russia or their security architecture. discussion could have make sense. but etha we are, we have gone so far as now we can, we can see that there will be no more territory in europe, which needs to be taken by their, by their security architecture. what exactly do you mean? you mean, danny, had the enlargement of naperville have to stop one,

william and well, i want to say that enlargement of nature to these has already stopped the we that this beginning coll freshman to read 3 sion it against ukraine. and if we, if we resolved the problem which we wanted to resolve within the international agreement by force, i don't see the significant reasons to continue negotiations evolved into material still and hit to normalize our relations with the, with the, our european neighbors. i'm in perhaps it's not the 1st for her to right now, but it would be better if that the ties in europe. we're a little bit warmer than they are today. i absolutely agree. and i think that in the couple of years we can come closer to were these issue in practical terms. okay, well we have to live in there. we'll see what time will show us. thank you very much for your time and thank you for watching hope to syria again next week on the walls apart. ah

ah ah.

a russian delegation arrives in batteries for pace told to the crane official, but it doesn't to prove that the location i'm refuses to participate as the conflict in the train and says it's all day while residents to be trained 2nd largest cookie health called phil, what they say a russian forces entering, that is correct. i think it's reported in the area and authorities and then you'd be recognized and yet can again, from a public site the training military day is conducting related, sharing residential areas attack a fuel death, ice fucking a massive blaze. question pad, wrap up sanctions against moscow. preparing to disconnect some russian banks from the square international payment system. china though opposed to you saying it went through so to get trying pricing.