ukraine war 1st, what's happening is a watershed moment in international relations. this marks the advent of a new law whose family occasions will extend to every corner of the world. the russian invasion of ukraine and the sanction centred reprisals of us and its allies are compounding the national crisis because the politics was already quite lucky in for the russian mission. but things have come tragic and all the time since a nation began. and the current crisis has the makings of a growing out and dangerous confrontation between russia and the west, particularly nato. and as we all know, the crisis is already affecting the global economy. with high energy prices and supply chain destructions said to fuel inflation and it's low economic growth and india cannot skip these medications. and of course,

the larger issue is that the rest is snapping. it's supposed to close war ties with moscow, despite the risk of meeting strategic instability globally. in fact, the us live response appeals in that affecting regime change in moscow eventually. so this is a critical modeling, the national relations, and i think they have been miscalculations both by president gotten and also by the western block. well, i think nato countries would surely say, miscalculations would be made in delhi. why? when albania in the united states had the chapter 7 motion water down to chapter 6, did. did prime minister moody say he wouldn't support it? why did they not supported when there's a time of war? and certainly here the view is that any refusal to vote with washington

and nato prolongs the misery of ordinary ukrainians. what would have been here, chief by condemning russia and damning a country for the sake of condemning it doesn't advance foreign policy interests yet never. and even the boss condemn united states for meaning iraq or libya or any other country. condemnation is part of indian diplomacy. in any case, russia and the united states are both close friends of india, india to walk into medic tightrope. that's to do a balancing act which was coming with me this quote. given the fact that what you're seeing is that went up a nuclear wall that's going to seriously compound in this strict and it challenges

also affect its close. defense stays with moscow. for example, given the financial tension said, the wester's in boating, russia, how will it be? what the weapons at bias from russia? there's just one or many things. and there's also investing in russian oil and gas sector implants to invest in the russian far east. how will these plants truck defy given these mounting sanctions 2nd, it's russia? so for india, this is the crisis really is complicating its diplomacy and also its pursuit of long gums, credits, interest complicating it or speeding up the adoption by india of alternative methods of financing. as opposed to say the brussels based

swift system and others. now, india can use new methods of financing, often discussed in bricks meetings, shanghai cooperation, organization meetings. no, no line move would meetings. so many trans national meetings that have occurred over the past. what 50 years? 70 since world war 2, you ascii, right? and i think by eliminating the system weaponized being an energy pipeline and by cutting rochelle off from western lead institutions, the us is actually undermining those very institutions because countries will be forced to choose alternatives or develop alternatives. so russia example will have to trade

in rubel and ruby as it did bring the solid ice. so any guidance situation? well, have to be met with innovative methods. so i don't expect the russia and the relationship to snap because of the financial fractions, all require a lot of work. both in utopia must go to maintain in relationship. that's why, for so many decades. in fact, it, as it has solidified. despite the profound changes in the world, in the past half a century, that relationship has been seen in new delhi as a relationship with a cried in test, a trend. but at the same time, in i says, has also become increasingly important to india. so how does india balance 2

important relationships in a new cornwall? that's going to be a huge challenge for policy makers in new delhi. well, some would say it's very easy and your hesitancy is because as you know, he well, because you see china is a big adversary, that it may necessitate closer ties between your foe. he across the valley between pakistan and india, and china. and that's why you're hesitant about this closer relationship with russia without the u. s. and nato countries involved because it will necessitate closer relationships with china. that's your problem. and surely, anthony blink and the former west exec consultant who's now secretary of state that alone jake sullivan. realized full well that there are dangers of moving russia closer to currencies other than the dollar. and his thought on par made the calculation banner from the dollar while you brought in china,

which is so important. look at the international crisis that was created even before fortran launched the invasion of ukraine. yet, how many people in the world know that for the past 22 months, india has faced it. chinese aggression, it carries aggression and roaming up to 200000 chinese troops. that invasion. what do we call it began in april 2020. when try these forces furtively encroach on several key border areas in the northern was indian region of the dock. since then the military build ups have only escalated creating the danger of a full scale wall. well, we, we invite the chinese bastards in the un united nation, but basically what,

so your point and the point of many in the leads in india is they don't want us to abandon its relationship with russia because they went to russia alongside them in their attack. on china, russia and india had fairly similar views on stability in asia or, or ratio. and that bilateral relationship has stood the test of time. china, clearly an important factor in this relationship. even in this present military crisis, based with the russians have been so helpful. especially in helping get to fortify its defenses. so that really underscore the importance of russia for india. i don't think you can afford to see that relationship

degrade in any manner, but i wrote it clea, the pakistani prime minister iran guy was in moscow at the time that we put in was clearly planning sending the troops into ukraine. brazil is not being that supportive of nato countries in washington bricks. never been stronger than that. now given that brazil india and india is perceived. emily nuclear fellow enemy, about your son, since they all seem to be against the nato and the u. s. line. well, as in the unique position of having to nuclear armed adversary's china and focused on that i actually close alliance. so it's a strategic triangle in which india against china and pakistan.

and given that stark reality. and given the fact that drake's increasingly has come under the chinese shadow, india has to be very cautious in relying on pricks as a institution. the bricks has value, but pricks is currently not a credible alternative to other international institutions. but it's very much investment in rates because there are to exaggerate the importance of bricks. the fact is that a country like india given it is security predicament has to deal with the realities that it faces. what, what is, what do you expect the u. s. and nato to do to india because of its lack of support,

arguably for the civilians dying in the streets of ukraine. what has the american president spoken, even though word on the chinese potter information against india has any best and head of government supported india in the current military crisis that in that conference, usually chinese aggression answer is no. so why should be supporting the western standards against russia if you have a dog in the fight, if nothing, from taking a position that could undermine its relationship with moscow. in the same time, india has done not see joe undercarriage. we bought relationship with, with washington. and they are people in the state department who have set on set

off the record to the media that they understand in the ass guy. lemme and the dynamite as to why it abstain from the what the un security council. i don't know. i don't see how the us or its allies are going to take revenge on india just because in the abstain from from a lot the un security council for as a barometer leaving. i'll stop you there more from the national security specialist and america's professor of strategic studies at new daily's sort of a policy research after this break. not another way you while you easy while furnace is yeah. do you say one slide? yes. self. the yeah. rational

was actually getting your dog carson boys. now watch them up. all me at the double up. right. peter is emma? yeah, pulls video from sheila. this is kim sylium. she thought, can you say a yes my thought or jane in the are you going to you watching very up in the bill at about it more than just a natural ah ah, a wrong went on just a kid

and engage him in the trail. when so many find themselves will depart, we choose to look for common ground with welcome back. i'm still here with professor brown, much delaney, international security specialist and emeritus professor of strategic studies and new delhi center for policy research. so india attacks shiner over perceived un violations un resolution violations, but refuses to attack russia. after the secretary general of the united nations said it violated international law. well, in yeah, never attacked china over while any, any un resolutions criticized china for violating bilateral agreements, binding bilateral agreements. because then you violate, violate,

while it, bilateral agreement to you while international law. because bilateral agreements are part and parcel of international law. yeah. not even un resolutions, and yet with russia, you won't vote with international law or against moscow. well, if you look at the history of this century alone, they have been so many multiple foreign military invasions of sovereign states in the century. along the year, 2000 began with the us invasion of afghanistan, then followed an invasion, which is monday by a un resolution. well, the us has become increased marginalized in human capital, approval on anything mean human kind of

a pro can come even ran a country flow to international law. for example, the us invasion of iraq and occupational the country using the protects, that they were weapons of mass destruction in iraq had the human stamp of approval . but that'll make a legitimate international law s b, c. it is powerful against the policy and policy against the powerful that's the harsh reality might makes right is still very much intact. and really for century example today, the western block talks about upholding the rules based order. what, what order is that? the fact is that those look at in order others make the routes for the world

have been a trade weapon. ising energy recognizing served is certainly not uploading and rules based. well, i can mention syria ref, candice on iraq livia and so on. but then what the view of prime minister moody is 2 wrongs make a right therefore don't vote with the us of the security council. no, as i mentioned, it never, never fits an adjustment on any countries, aggression, a case in the country has never condemned any military animation story and condemns package. it condensed focused on the use of terrorism as an instrument of policy against india, against dot com is because india victim of that kind of use of terrorism.

but certainly, india has demonstrated a moral judgment on the military actions of any bar that's never been part of indian diplomacy. do you think the united states for saw what was going on as it pulled out of afghanistan after it's longest war? and his defeat in afghanistan, that that's why it was boring weapons in the ukraine ahead of what fusion says is a provoke provocation. and what nato in the u. n says, was his illegal invasion on the garbage tons defeated humiliation. united states was a watershed moment, and thirdly, but by that on the defensive. and he tried to divert

attention. he made some important strategic miscalculations just the way couldn't have made some sort of different calculations. a fast miscalculation on the part of binding was that he could use the thread of sanctions to deter russia from in reading ukraine. the problem is that the us true will use of sanctions as blanket instrumental sanctions by repeatedly slapping sanctions on russia for the past 8 years or so. so the object of preventing ratio from a meeting ukraine failed miserably. and miscalculation was not to take warden's tread often an invasion serious me by giving him the security assurances they demanded security or trans the us. and they don't want to turn ukraine into a front line launched by the russia, by,

by deploying offensive weapons on new created inside. well, almost 3 months or so, who didn't talk to, to guarantee it is wanting to ignored repeatedly. and there was also a bottomless combination. ma'am, you, on the, on, on the part of putting in international relations. you can, by mounting a critical liquid credit achieve an object without the need to actually execute the correct where you put a long term military against ukraine. we compare us to abandon its policy of native creek to russian borders. he woke up the world, the dangers of natal expansionism, commentators even in the us began asking whether expanding and natal russia borders, and thereby prompted russia to re militarize was an american interest. in

fact, as you know, the military build up on nuclear waters kept the us on the ropes with bite and wanting for days on end. the nation was coming is setting that threat, putting decided to execute the track even though controlling the outcome of the warm ones that the launch is literally impossible. so i think he could have achieved more, a sustaining. that's right. this is sort of actually launching the nation. obviously, moscow appears to relieve the, their course of actions of the right ones. and risking all is, is the way forward in the united states thinks that the united states thinks that there must be, even if it, perhaps risks nuclear war. the ability for ukraine to join nato. that's what the european union also firmly believes. so, i mean,

the point here is the rights of ukraine to be able to join nato at all costs. few believe you in nato believe that ukraine should be admitted to men. it's too intimately wide and highly corrupt this functional state in the eyes of many in nato. and there was a chance of, of ukrainian emma being admitted to needle is enough is sort of a 3 g rush as security concerns. and the tim and loss concerns could have been addressed to a where the war, after all, russia is not america lane global challenger. the main global challenger is china, which is seeking to supplant the u. s. as the global hedge it wrong address. as the u. s. has already said, sorry to drop there, but obviously the largest are $850000.00 soldiers in the russian army,

but european union nations, including germany ascending in masses of weapons now into ukraine. do you think they think in washington of nato headquarters in brussels at b, a u parliament in brussels, in strasburg, that ukraine can beat the red army as they pour in these weapons? if not, why would they pour in the weapons? the strategy is very clear now that they persuade not only containment to a point or against russia, they're also trying to enter, they're gonna start to point all against russia, just the way they in, sneered russian in many poses. and i've gone on in a ministry quite meyer in the 1980s, by launching their biggest covert operation in history. now,

in addition to the high sanctions that have been post on russia, they are moved in it's least seeking to instead and trap russia. it's similar military quagmire in ukraine by pouring huge with your sources by arming the resistance, the insurgency, they want to bleed russia. that's the strategy, or whether they succeed not returning the strategy. when a kid, in fact, bite him as asked congress for an additional $6400000000.00 for wide arms and other military ukrainian forces. whether they are on posters, the resistance forces in seconds. that's us driving the amount of money that

by them is willing to warranty grade. those are certainly the figures being thrown around the l in capitol hill when it comes to the budget then so apart from all these countries in the global south using turning away from the dollar to get round the sanctions and so on. why do you think politicians in the russian duma wanted the boot in to support? the recognition of danielle skimmed her hands, her hand pushed boot him, whoever's. he wanted it as well to act in this way. if you believe it, sir, you appear to believe it's a catastrophic geopolitical mistake, let alone it's illegality under international law. well, recognizing the tool trickery of republics could have been seen as botto mounting, credible threat that could have posed the u. s. and needle.

who concede what russia was asking back to actually launch an invasion. it was something completely different. the tragic and what i'll moment of to they could get worse without caution and prudence on both sides. but why with such a mistake? is this a low cost strategy? but it's not very clear for us what the military object, those are put in our, in relation to ukraine, what he is seeking to achieve. because as you can see from the line to the tags, the only 3 lines of attack that russia has mounted in ukraine, it's not taking co opted by the entire country. what are the military objectives of booted is something difficult to guess?

he's certainly not t do an example of ukraine. lisa dumps of a military operation so far. my bigger concern is this, as the history of this century alone lest rates foreign military invasions have decent obliged to sovereign states. and as there are a number of guidance on demonstrate, such nations have triggered an ending while and bloodshed and russia invasion, and the u. s. line took on ukrainians to bleed. russia threatened to turn your credit into assyria on libya. this one have meet implications both for russian security as well as well. europe and security. progressive rama chain amy, thank you so much. that's it for the show will be back on saturday. 76. he has to the day since then. you came by minutes to winston churchill address the u. s. making. he's renowned on good and speech where he warned against the spread of

soviet communism until then keep in touch while a social media that has know which country you think is the biggest aggressive with a completely new industry restock and just look up some of normally a muscle around noon. she kitty doesn't being in the green shield or not to me. yes . but i still mama cook go to somebody tamika, but i for his ashley of and they wanted to work with one to 3 but of cool position admitted to you, but not, not looking for the chino bryant's. can that work for phones or something like that?

and then we got that boy, did i see a need for you? a little grain. lisa brush, a special military operation and ukraine has changed the world in many ways. it is forcing the u. s. and its allies to we think and reassess global security. we should not be surprised by this. after all, the post cold war era is over. what will replace it is still open to question. ah

ah, the ukrainian president's office confirms a 2nd round of talks with moscow is set to start on wednesday evening. you have ads, it's ready to negotiate, not accept russian ultimatum with de 7 of russia's military operation in ukraine. moscow confirms that attack the television tower, and kiya russia also claims to have taken control of the southern city of kirsten.