professor of some strategic studies and new delhi center of a policy research rela, celine. thank you so much for visiting me for coming on. what have you made of putins, violation of the un chartered? why have you said india will not be able to escape the largest or the larger strategic ramifications of the ukraine war? first, what's happening is a watershed moment in international relations. this market that went of a new law whose ramifications will extend to every corner of the world. the russian invasion of ukraine and the faction centered reprisals of us and its allies are compounding the national crisis. because the politics was already quite lucky in for the russian ambition. but things have become tragic and all the time since the nation began. and the cutting prices have the making of a grown 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 disruptions said to fuel inflation and slow economic growth. and india cannot skip these medications. and of course the, the larger issue is that the rest is snapping. it's post war 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 the critical moment in 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 deli,

why when albania, in the united states had the chapter 7 motion water down to chapter 6. did. did prime minister moody se wouldn't supported? 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 be achieved by condemning russia and damning a country for the sake of condemning it doesn't advance foreign policy interest yet never. and even in the boss condemn united states for meaning, iraq or libya or any other country. condemnation is strong part of indian diplomacy . in any case, russia and the united states are both close friends of india to

walk a different amount of time to do a balancing act which are becoming, making me this growth. given the fact that what they see is that been of a nuclear wall that's going to seriously compound in this strict challenges also affect its close defense stage of moscow. for example, given the financial tension said, the west as imposing in 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. all of these plans truck defy given these mounting sanctions against russia. so for india, this is, this crisis really is complicated. it's diplomacy and

also it's pursuit of long terms, credited him, chris, 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 disgusted bricks meetings, shang, i, cooperation, organization, meetings, non align movement meetings, so many trans national meetings that have occurred over the past. what 50 years, 70 years since world war 2. you're actually right, and i think they're by eliminating the subsystem or weapon ising an energy pipeline. and by cutting russia off from western lead institutions,

the u. s. is actually undermining those wedding institutions because frankly, will be forced to choose the alternatives or develop alternatives to russia. in your example, we'll have to trade in room will andrew p as they did great. so at times, so any guy situation, well, we'll have to be met with innovative methods. so i don't expect the rushing the relationship to snap because of the financial sanctions, will require a lot of work, both in italy and must go to maintain it. relationship that has survived for so many decades. in fact, it has, 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 where they cried in test to 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 add to the blink

and the former west exec consultant who's now secretary of state that alone jake sullivan. realize 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. well you, 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 in yes, faced chinese aggression. it drives aggression, involving up to $200000.00 chinese clubs. that invasion, aggression, whatever you call it, began in april 2020. when try these forces furtively

encroach on several key border areas in the northern was the indian region of the dock. since then the military build ups have only escalated, creating the danger of being full scale wall. well, we, we invite the chinese bastards in the un united nations, but basically what, so your point and the point of many in the leads in india is they don't want the 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 you ratio. and that bilateral relationship has stood the test of time. chinese kelly, an important factor in this relationship. even in this present military crisis,

based with the russians have been if social help for india, 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 enemy nuclear fellow enemy of august sun. since they all seem to be against the nato and the u. s . line. well,

but india isn't the unique position of having to nuclear armed adversary's china and focused on that. i actually close alliance. so i would say strategic triangle in which india against china and pakistan and given that stock reality. and given the fact that drake increasingly has come under the chinese shadow, india has to be very cautious in relying on pricks as a institution. the bricks have this value, but practice is currently not a credible alternative to other international institutions, but very much investment in rates. but so there are 2 exaggerated importance of

bricks. the fact is that a country like india given this 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. was american president spoken, even though word on the chinese bottom ration 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 alternate support though they still stand against russia? if you have a dog in the fight, nothing from taking

a position that could undermine its relationship with moscow. you know, the same time india has done not c. joe underwriters, we bought relationship with, with washington, and they are people in the state department to help set on set off the record to the media, the understanding the as dilemma and the dynamite as to why abstain from the security council? i don't, you know, i don't see how the us or its allies are going to take revenge on india just because in the abstain from what the un security council for as a barometer lady. i'll stop you there more from the national security specialist and america's professor of strategic strategies that new daily's sort of a policy research after this break with

a z a still up on. yeah. so can you go, i don't know who to speak with, but the way would it be a good, a good huge, but you're more difficult. it was too late to 3rd up, up, up, reload the day of school or pro that then you shouldn't have been really well. yes, you said last time i was actually in this particular way thinking so if you can push yeah, you can push a somebody see wayne lee today due to

them by ah, the welcome back. i'm still here with professor brown much laney international security specialist, an american professor of strategic studies, a new daily center for policy research. so in the attacks shiner over perceived un violations un resolution violations, but refuses to attack russia. after the secretary general of the united nation set, it violated international law. well, in yet another attack, china over. why did any un resolutions criticize china for violating bilateral agreements, binding bilateral agreements? of course, many violet violated while it bilateral agreement to violate an actual law. because

bilateral agreements are bottom partial 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 and nations of sovereign states in this century alone. the year, 2000 and began with the us invasion of afghanistan then followed an invasion which is monday by a un resolution. while the, the us has become increased marginalized and human stamp of approval. on anything mean little humans camera pro can come even ran a country flow to international law. for example,

the us invasion of iraq and occupational the country using the protection weapons of mass destruction in iraq have 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 it was century example. today, the western block talks about upholding the rules based order. what, what to order is that the fact is that those look at in order others make the routes for the world have been a trade or weapon,

ising energy recognizing surf. it's certainly not upholding enrolled space. well, one can mention syria ref canister 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 u. s. at the security council. as i mentioned, it never, never fits in adjustment on any countries, aggression, a case in the country has never condemned any military and nation sorry and condemns package. it condensed focused on the use of terrorism as an instrument of policy against india, against our guy miss. was india, the rectum kind of use of terrorism?

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

way we can have made some sort of different calculations. first, which calculation on the part of biting was that he could use the sanctions to deter russia from in reading ukraine? the problem is that the us true will use of sanctions as a blanket the instrument of sanctions by repeatedly slapping sanctions on russia when the boss, 8 years or so. so the object of preventing ratio from in meeting ukraine and failed miserably. and miscalculation was not to take walton's threat of an invasion seriously by giving him the security shortest. and they demanded security concerns that the us and they don't want to turn ukraine into a, a front line launched by the russia, by, by deploying offensive weapons on new created inside almost 3 months or so,

put a truck to, to guarantee it was taken on repeatedly and there was also a bottomless confirmation on the, on, on the part of putting international relations. you can, by mounting a credible liquid, correct, achieve an object without the need to actually execute the tract. where you put in the long term really build up against ukraine. we compare us to abandon its policy of middle creek to russian borders. he woke up the was the dangers of natal expansionism. commentators even in the us began asking where the expanding needed to 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 by them

wanting for days on end of the nation was coming. it's sort of sustaining that threat. putting decided to execute the track even though controlling the outcome of the warm one second 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 believe that their course of action is the right ones and risking all is the way forward in the united states thinks that the united states think that there must be, even if it's perhaps risk nuclear war. the ability for ukraine to join nato, that's where the urban 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 fewer in nato believe that ukraine should be admitted to it's too intimately divided, highly corrupt. there's functional state in the eyes of many nato, and there was a chance of, of ukraine and well being admitted to natal instead of is sort of a screeching, fresh air security concerns. and the most concerns could have been addressed to the war after all, russia is what america has a main level challenger. the main global challenger is china, which is seeking to supplant the us as the global hedges on us. as the u. s. has already said, sorry to interrupt them, but obviously the largest on $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 to major headquarters in brussels at b, a u parliament in brussels and 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 point all against russia, they also crank to enter their kindness on to point all against russia. just the way they in sneered russian in many posts. and i've gone on in a quagmire in the 1980s, by launching the biggest covert operation in history. now, in addition to the high sanctions that have been post on russia,

they are lieutenants they seeking to in and trapped russia. it is similar, like my in ukraine, by boring, huge with sources by arming the resistance, the insurgency, they want to bleed russia. that's the strategy, or whether they succeed or not. but the strategy is when, in fact, biden has asked congress for an additional $6400000000.00 per wide arms and other military id korean forces, whether they are on posters, the resistance forces in seconds, that's driving the amount of money that bottom is willing to warranty grade.

those are certainly the figures being thrown around in the 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 around the sanctions and so on. why do you think politicians in the russian duma, one to boot in, to support the recognition of don yeske and hands and pushed putin, whoever's, he wanted it as well to act in this way. if you believe it, you appear to believe it's a catastrophic geopolitical mistake. that alone, it's the legality under international law. well, recognizing the 2 recommend republics. grabbing seem as part of mounting, credible threat that could have posed the us and nato couldn't see what russia was asking back to actually

launch innovation was something completely different. the tragic and it was a moment of today, it could get worse without cautioning prudence on both sides. but why would such a mistake? is this strategy? but it's very clear for us what the military objectives are in relation to ukraine. what he is seeking to achieve, because as you can see from the lines of attacks, there are 3 lines of attack that russia has mounted in ukraine. it starts thinking to occupy the entire country. what are the military objectives? it's a difficult to guess. he's certainly not getting to an extra whole of ukraine

lease in terms of the military operation so far. but my biggest concern is this, as a history of this says, kill only last rate. foreign military innovations have decent life sovereign states . and as there are syria nikia, yemen on demonstrate such innovations have triggered on ending wireless and bloodshed and russia invasion, and the u. s. plan to om ukrainians to believe russia threatened to turn your credit into assyria or libya. this will have made implications both for russian security as well as well. europe and security. progressive rama jamie, thank you so much. that's it for the show will be back on saturday. 76. he has to the day since then you k prime minister, 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 my role

as social media that has know which country you think is the biggest aggressive ah, with ministry historical just look up from where you're literally muscle around noon, she doesn't be military and she's on a nurse to me as close to mama cook. go through 6th grade to somebody tamika, but i put his ashley of a dc, wondered what to do, but to pieces goes down to one to 3 for the cool position

with you, but now it's not, but with chino drawings in the ownership, right? something like that. and then we got that. what did i see with them? ah ah,

[000:00:00;00] with the russian delegation of wives for 2nd round of pizza, go stations claim to take place today. a question confirms that attached to a television tower in here. and also claims taking control of the southern city of hassan, although the ukrainian side, because my thing is ongoing local from the nets for public has been stranded in ha call since the war started from way he has been trying to get through russia. we will hear from him later in the program and do with president joe biden in his 1st state of the union speech disgust closing is place to russia