personally, and broad, immense human losses on the european steeds and societies. we, in russia, we know that nationalism is the one of the most dangerous thinks, if not them, if not the most dangerous thing. oh, about which weekend humans picked a book. but from what i heard, people put in say he never mentioned nationals, he was talking about nat says him, and he was talking about supremacy 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 defines 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 there. 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. in 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 breakaway 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 is definitely north international law. so what is it? unfortunately, it's not a death in 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 prude. these capability to exercise international law, basically before the 2nd world war, the situation to global balance with our was based on the strongest nation and the national vision of justice. but they 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 granted after the collapse of the soviet union. the more to paulo world 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, et cetera. 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 full the practice? there is an excellent definition about this problem. it sounds like of 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 are those smaller states. so and the 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 south congress 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 their part. 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, his responsible before the russian people. and he is a responsible beer to keys. national bridge 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. a didn't started on thursday in the ukraine because the consumer 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 gannon, stan and the list 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 who i think that generally people fuel quit at quite comfortable when only one big nation violates the international law. and this is a reason for down 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 vehicle at all here. gloves. yeah, really close allowed the world view established after the end of the cold war was based on the simple assumption that there is only one country which could violate boiler to the international law and everybody was row or too low key 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 of the international community. so people could leave with it. so this is the background, the fundamentals of the reaction. of course these reaction else stories are result of. ready their natural care, the war is not a nature or condition for people, even though their nations and the steeds of fighting wars for several 1000 of years . still it is. it makes us humans that killing the other humans is not nature for us. and its own usual is very big factor. oh and level their willingness 1st. but of course why i'm very sorry for saying that. some people feel that their personal individual comfort may be, can be damaged, that they will not be able to travel any more 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 boss 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, fine. but in this was somewhat where the things were moving. why do you think you 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 this question properly, we need to have the same information as their leaders and steeds, al da steve 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 capabilities you have and we, oh no, the tricia has significant and danger, as well as united states, significant and dangerous for they should entice humanity, military capabilities. so this war is fought in order not to put russia in the position to war for the survival. okay, so here we have to take

a very short break right now, but we will be back in just a few moments statement. ah ah, how old is driven by dreamers shaped by thinkers and those with dares sinks. we dare to ask oh

she won't come back to work far as west with important health program director of the lol di discussion club. timothy before the break, we're, we're discussing the military operation in the ukraine and vladimir putin defined the goals of the current strikes as demilitarization and di 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 indication what doesn't even mean in practical terms. well, 1st of all, studying was demilitarization over the country means that the territory of this

country will never be used as a territorial bees for their activities, which are dangerous for the russian security for stop. then it's if occasion means that there isn't a 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. but to listen, it's one thing to, you know, order, limited stress and 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 would answer the russian operation, and ukraine is not about occupational dis, 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 supported, of course, by russia in exercising their activities directed to hunt the earth. and bring these people to justice, it's not for russian, well, security authorities to, to, to, to bring these people to jail. and 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 move him the remote country 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 earned him and where as 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 somewhat, 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 the historical experience dealing with these territory which recall ukraine well and not very successful experience. i have to say, given how quickly i 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 valence here. 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 threat 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 to national small nationalism immoral them ukrainian was the biggest in long small nationalists 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 bundled c and all these on cirrus treatment over there, atrocities committed during the 2nd world war by the ukrainian nationalists. so all these people who have grown up in their, in the, in the soviet union,

which supported ukrainian nationalism. do you think this process of fire changing and political hence, gape? 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 if you, i remember then in 2014 a corner to the all pools, more than half percent of the graham population was supporting the close relationships to rush. i believe that ukrainian people give them 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 a zalinski speech, right? m, as in his speech and the minute security conference,

at which he was talking pretty a straightforwardly about his intention to rebuild ukraine's a nuclear military capabilities. and as 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 his pursuit of peaceful nuclear nuclear program. and this, and this seems like a pretty m pretty odd idea that nobody in the westwood 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 a sign that the ukraine was essentially allowed everything, or is it simply the lack of i don't know political vacuum and how do you interpret that? well, i think 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 i american society is facing. now, the become very turbulent for the, for the international landscape americans select, trampling americans have strange electron select by them. maybe come on hurry, so come to office with a certain but to certain lemons. 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 a quote from nuclear weapons. but it's not even giving the ukraine nuclear weapons . it's about the ukraine's own capacity, because i don't think, i don't think that the koreans 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 cities,

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 de la zone jim of the security conference and, and, and her and his role is not to feel that there 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 neighbors, are not merrily for any of its neighbors, but for the international community. as a whole, because the present pathway, korean development could put russian position russia in the position of defending is survival. now let's talk about the survival of ukraine because 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 defraud 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 a request. so as to the question is 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 dorm bus 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 deal in numbers but if you reason will cease to exist as a huge stayed in on, in european terms, huge. oh,

maybe bo see the other. out on them 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 fortune suggested that the and military operation in ukraine could be finalized in early march our which perhaps presents 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 conscious 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 their common fortune telling academic theoretician for 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 don't boss. we have examples in the history when the leaders like middle shoes, for example, who have been accused of committing crimes, have been negotiating agreements. and after that hakan have been taken to just as he mentioned this whole on conflict. a rough test, ah, our does the inability of rush and the west. you 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 and human human danny, the enlargement of naperville, have to stop one way. the man who i want to say that enlargement of nature, to these has already stopped the with this beginning coll freshman, to read the recent against ukraine. and if we, if we are resolved the problem,

which we wanted to resolve within their international agreement by force. i don't see the significant reasons to continue negotiations involved in too much here is still and had to normalize our relations with the, with the, our european neighbors. i'm in perhaps it's not the 1st part here to right now, but it would be better if they 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 with

mm with . so what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy, even foundation, let it be an arms race is on a very dramatic development. only personally and going to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very critical time time to sit down and talk with ah, lose

with it's been 30 years since the soviet union collapsed. um, misconduct. good or chill, the one to what the problem yet nuclear you know, took, so shown where you also trust them. one color them ukraine was one of the independent states that emerge from the ruins of the super bowl. i'm doing awesome . good. would you also get on the little green come a little, i'm surely confusing. some of the i can last new lucian,

west a surface, but it to scribble, spring and finish it does should with watch at the past 3 decades. been likely ukraine. eye witnesses with cooley events. this would be a moral issue of judiciary wilson, the deficiency of chipotle. what i knew to know if that order, i'm not sure. but if i told them once with modern windows and what other forces were at play, you have to do so to whom you show c engine mushy. in you put in the kid what it would occur when you the is this rose ocean moser. the version jordan is take a look at ukraine 30 years out the gaining independence dog with almost unless, unless you mean like unity retorted was late, but a will. it could be issue okay, of lush williston, holding still for a

un security council has called a for a rare emergency special session on russia's operation in ukraine as part of western powers. attempt to isolate moscow. following a raft of aggressive nato statements and huge new arms deliveries pledged by block members. president putin puts rushes, strategic deterrence forces, including nuclear units, on high alert. because luis, i'm ordering the defense minister and chief of staff to put the russian army to turn forces on specialize. the you announces the closure of its aerospace to russian flights, as well as a ban on our t. sputnik and subsidiary companies from broadcasting in the block and russian and ukranian delegations are on the way to the ukraine. miller is border after keith agreed.