ah, 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 on, often very dramatic development. only personally, i'm going to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very critical time time to sit down and talk with

me. hello, welcome to wells apart. the former evil empire standing up to the employer of life . when was him, if would move, was announcing his decision to the potentiate ukraine's military infrastructure. it wasn't just resurrecting the growth of the cold war. he made it clear that they use russian animosity never really ended how hot and bloody couldn't still get or to discuss that. i'm now joined by to my fame board. i shall program director of the well di discussion club. so it's good 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 jeff to rhetoric or do you think he is also card or in this battle between the forces or flight and the forces of darkness? well, in a certain way away or 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 after the qu, or 2014 and $2.00, we all know there's in the nationalism. he's one of their wor, asked evils of our, their contemporary history, which emerged 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 asked her to put in say, she never mentioned nationally, he was talking about nat says him, and he was talking about supremacy in the western supremacy and to some extent, impunity. so if it's indeed a battle between good and evil, once again, what diesel, he defines as or as evil. well, i think that he defy he 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 i, mrs. ed the bed. i think the leaders are using it to send the 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 is 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 teacher 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 a previously we've 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 fully practiced? there is an excellent definition about this problem. it sounds like herb 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 others, smallest days. so and the office are on the said, there are other countries thought 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 joe, 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 main role of the game established after the collapse of the sooner was that there is only one country which can

decide for the 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 fresh of which are coming from a years to president is, is not even ironic bed. 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's responsible before the russian people. and he is responsible beer to keys, nissan, which is alexi him 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 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 lease 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 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's just destroys the picture of the universe and they won't 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, the 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 overall schnells 1st. but of course why i am 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 into, into 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 in terms of their or own personal won't, will being. now this is a done that in danger. and the problem of your crank has existed as 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 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 are there leaders and states l. the states and governments do have, we don't have it. i believe there are now we are at their very and

all for the period when the resolution of their problems with 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 nature 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 got abilities you have. and we all know the treasure 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. 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 ah ah ah ah ah ah

ah welcome back to one of the forests with with a bunch of program director of the of all di, discussion club timothy before the break, we were discussing the military operation in the ukraine and vladimir putin defined the goals of the current tribes as demilitarization and de notification of ukraine. now technically, i can't 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 for their activities, which are dangerous for the russian security. full stop. the notification means

that there isn't huge number over into the dual seed 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 countries. so people who committed crimes order their nationalistic pretext. but 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 in that requires a totally different infrastructure that requires the 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 actually take care of the people in their 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 key? if not, of course, this is a main goal. we in russia have been decrying regime change policies in 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 would just accept eager to lead the government that russia would propose so 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 of the people will realize it a little bit later. so i don't think, i don't think it is probably russia has many years, many centuries of the historical experience dealing with this territory which recall your grain well and not very successful experience. i have to say, given how quickly ukraine turns inimical to russia after the collapse of the soviet union. i mean, i think it's widely recognized in the russian analytical circles. decided that russia, ukraine rather, has become so 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 simone. 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 monday or of 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 eve, if i remembered then in 2014 a corner to the old pools, more than half percent of the graham population was supporting the close relationships to rush. i believe that ukrainian pupil 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 there zelinski speechwriter missing his speech and the minute security conference at which here was talking pretty a 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 p r. the idea that nobody in the westward sink, dad, a hassle country, talking about the resurrection of its same military program, would not be, are perceived as a matter of concern in the west. why do you think it is that a sign that the ukraine was essentially allowed everything, or is it there simply the lack of fire? i dunno. political acumen. how do you interpret that? well, i think that one over the biggest challenges to the international security now ease there and stable an 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 their, for the international landscape americans select, trampling americans have strange election select by them may be kamala harris will come to office at a certain but the subtle moments. 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 even giving the error. ukrainian nuclear weapons is about the ukraine's on capacity, because i don't think, i don't think that the ukraine's own capacity could have been a problem. i think what could have been the problem is the united states giving to you cream nuclear weapons as the deed to britain in cities, or perhaps as they did their t o or israel. so, 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 zelinski is allowed to talk about that freely from dean, missouri, doom of the buick 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 a 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 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 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 break away dorm bus republics will join the rest of ukraine 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 autoland 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 later on 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. what have her this 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, goes very much beyond my, my capacities, all of the unfortunate telling academic theoretician for her 0. well, i think i, well, i think 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 or few korean people of numbers, 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 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 nations to 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 human danny? the enlargement of native they'll have to stop one, william and well, i want to say that enlargement of nature to these hers already stopped the we, that this beginning coll freshman to read 3 sion 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 involved in too much

here is still and hit 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 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 ah

ah, the un security council has called for a rare emergency special session on russia's operation in ukraine as part of western powers attempt to isolate moscow. falling 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. but it doesn't mean i'm ordering the defense minister and chief of stuff to put the russian army to turn forces from specialist. you announces the closure of its air space into 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 ukraine billers border after you have agreed

to go.