sure for the world economy with russian oil exports on the fire will join even after chicago's economists and political scientists. professor james robinson of global conflict studies at the university of chicago, harris school of public policy. thank you so much. you have professor robinson coming back on so away from obviously there was a bombing of yemen this week that the bombing of damascus this week. but there's only one story, obviously, as regards some. well, what's in your title of your um chair, vest, ship global. gov. it is ukraine, given now that it appears mosque who may be cutting off energy supplies or threatening to, why didn't they just try that? to avenge the 14000 killed in new hands can don't yet see over the bus to since since 2014 than a full scale invasion. and i think there were some people at the hoover institution saying, why didn't he try cia activities destabilizes and ends. he government, why send in armored personnel carriers in the military and as we witnessed the

pictures of, of death and destruction of civilians on all our t v screens. well, i think, you know, i don't think this is early about economics. i think it's about, you know, some national project nationalist project in to tins. mind you know, that he wants to reclaim about a year ago. he wrote a ranting, a several 1000 word essay about, you know, how there was no basis in history for an independent ukrainian state. and this was part of russia. and so, you know, so i think i think that he's willing to tolerate the independence of belarus as low as that. you know, they're happy to kind of cody up totally up to him. but since a year the regime changed in ukraine, you know, as a much more independent, much more democratic pro western regime. then he just decided he couldn't tolerate that. so he's, you know, so, so i think it's not much do with economics. i,

i suspect this is going to have very negative economic effects on russia but, but i think he's willing to tolerate that because of his nationalistic agenda, if it's not economic. and obviously russia says that it can replace all the demand for my western europe in the united states, from the global south, obviously, from china and india, and other purchases. why? why did washington suddenly recognize the government of president maduro in caracas? this week, after years of saying that some other person was the president of the country with the largest. no, no, all reserves enough. good. i'm not sure i have a lot of insights into that. so i think the attempt to recognize this other person as the, as the, as the governor, as the president of venezuela was not very successful international politics. so i think that taking a new that taking a new strategy a but, you know,

as i got to do with oil, i don't know, you know, that you eso only 3 percent of oil imports into the nicest states come from russia . so, you know, so it's actually pretty easy for the united states to take a principal position and the russian imports that, that's, that's a whole together, different thing. you know, i'm talking to you from europe and from huntington. no, i understand it's a completely different thing in europe and it is in the united states. but i'm just making the point that, you know, i, i'm not sure that the venezuelan thing has anything to do with the oil because the russian oil is the very small thing in, in the united states. and, and, and, you know, but for the european union, the states are very different. it's a very different issue. but i think, you know, there's been a very, there's been a failed policy in diplomatic policy with venezuela for the last few years. so maybe they're just trying a different tack. i mean, obviously if someone else at the university of chicago, john mash, i'm a said, what we're seeing now would happen because of nato expansion. we know the barack

obama in 2016 in peace. it was interviewed for the atlantic. he said, whatever you, we do, we mustn't emphasize ukrainian nato membership because it will implied to create war. what is it about joe blinkin and sullivan that to put their foot down and said, this is our red line. after the red lines of for russia saying it must be neutral for so long. and the minsk accord saying, you must recognize these places which would not allow ukraine to be bought of nature. what is it about the by ministration. that is, that said, dug their heels and said they must be allowed to join nato if they won't. yeah, that doesn't seem terribly sensible at the present and you know, the present context, you know, in the sense that it seems quite plausible. or if it was, could go on for years in the ukraine and, you know,

some sort of negotiated settlement needs to happen. you know, i think what we've seen in chechnya and other places that is, that puts in is willing to engage in hideous amounts of violence and destruction. ah, you know, if he's pushed so, so, so, so you know, so, so we need some sort of negotiated settlement that seems to me and that likely involves some kind of commitment that ukraine will not join nato. and you know, this a better or worse putin sees this as part of russia sphere influence, you know, in the same way as you know, in the past the united states is declared various types of doctrines that the america was it spare influence, central america, latin america, it's influence on it, you know and so i think you know it's back to coldwell politics. no i would say and so it's very much the logical co will politics that you have to make these compromises. so i think i think mish, i'm is right. yeah, i mean, you don't think the hideous construction will be on

a scale similar to what the 10s of millions killed wounded or displaced by britain in the united states in iraq or 377000 killed in yemen, or is not the scale of nato destruction which will here or do you think fusion will beat even the nato destruction from the i don't know, but i think, you know, what's happened so far suggests it could get, it could get very ugly. you know, he's, i think he's here, he's not going to be affected domestically by military casualties by destruction and ukraine. you know, he's control, he controls the media. you know, he managed to control a lot, you know, most, most independent media basically disappeared in russia. so what the average russian, those about this is going to be, you know, is going to be limited. and also we don't actually know what the average russian thinks about this. you know, like i, you know, we don't know how much support groups and actually has, for kind of annexing ukraine. you know, you didn't hear

a lot of russians protesting about, you know, the dog boss, all these places in the east, the ukraine being effectively annexed or crimea, did you see russia was complaining about crimea being annexed? well, i mean that there was certainly been massive arrest. thousands of russians been arrested demonstrations against putin's decision to invade and media well since 2014. and the maiden revolution is continually said boot and should act. you say that we don't know. i mean, there been some opinion polling even quoted in nature, nation media, that it is popularity as often happens when leaders engaging will, has gone up and jumped by 10 percent. but obviously there's this, i mean, there is a media blackout in europe at the moment. no, no other side is loud. i mean, as you may have heard russian cats a band, but more seriously, all media and journalists are being banned slowly across. i'm sure. in chicago,

you can't turn on and hear a voice that supports the boot in invasion. i don't know, you know, there's some pretty ambiguous stuff on fox news about the putin invasion, you know, i thought, so. i, you know, i think, i think it's, it's thrown a bit of a wild card into the republican parts of republican party because president trump was a big fan. and so, you know, i think so the trumpet, trump put on the fierce a sanctions on russia during his tenure to me. i mean, he but he also said complimentary things about puts in as a leader. yeah. so how far do you think individuals as way of processing history, you're talking about putin themselves work your academic field because i thought that that kind of fashion of thomas carlyle, we lost that maybe 50 years ago or more? no, i think you're right. i think i think that the tendency in social science is definitely

to down play the role of leaders, you know, and i think it's difficult. i don't think we have a really good sense of the extent to which puts in is kind of reflecting a more general russian sort of position. but that's sort of why i said, we don't really know how popular or unpopular this is. you know. sure, thousands of people are protesting because 150000000 russians, you know, so, so, so, so what does the average russian think about this and is pretend reflecting on this kind of post, soviet angst. or is he, is he really just a brilliant sort of dictates, of manipulating everybody i, you know, i, i personally think that, you know, it's, it's hard to imagine that china would be the same, had it not being for thank shout, pings, sort of political scales or singapore would be the same without leak one use of the project to transform the society. i think social science has a hard time dealing with, with the role of these individuals. but i think it's probably undisputable that

they do play some role. yeah. but you don't think that george w bush and tony blair would dictators in the west when the illegal invasion of iraq happened. overwhelming support by the people or differently had popular support the iraq invasion. when blair and bush did it. you wouldn't therefore say that they would dictators, would, you know, they weren't dictators, but they played an important role in sort of framing what issues were and you know what the options were, what the consequences of not doing something was so so i think as individuals they frame for people, they frame the debate in a way which, you know, 81 strategy much more attractive and politically acceptable than another. so, so, you know, i, you know, the, i, b, a, so, so, so they had to bring people along with a more than putin has to, you know, he has more freedom to kind of do what he wants. i suppose. i mean, you don't think there are many in the global south which takes

a very different view or you just have to listen to their media to realize how different they are. and that the media is free for you in the global south, obviously than europe to day, which is which bands descent are they? you don't think many feel at last. nature's getting a good kicking this kind of a hedge, a monic power, li vassals, states of washington in europe. finally, they are going to understand economically, if not militarily that there is now new age upon us, the age of china. yeah, i mean, i think, i think there's a lot of history that if you think about this whole brick concept, you know, there's this anti western kind of idea of development. you know, a lot of our own lines and development in our own way without and without sort of humiliating dependence on the united states. western europe. you know, but, but, you know, i find it extremely sure. i find that extremely my, oh pick i'm,

you know, i'm sure that there's a lot in that, you know, the legacy of colonialism and all sorts of things. so, so, so, so you know, i think that's understandable whether coming from but, but i find, i find it a little surprising that india, for example, you know, would, would be, would be happy with what was going on in ukraine. you know, like in some sense, moving to a world all the room where there are no rules. you know, that seems like a fairly frightening thing to me. and i would say, i would think it was fairly frightening to india. you know, after all, india was with china in the relatively recent fact they have an ongoing port dispute at this moment. you know, so it seemed kind of all that india would think this was sort of so, so, so ok, i mean press james robinson. i'll stop you that more from the economist, political scientist, professor of global complex studies at the high school, the public policy of the university of chicago, up to this break. ah,

i the west liberal world order is collapsed in the hedge of money and sought to maintain and expand the conflict in ukraine as a proxy war. the real target is russian and indirectly china. the law of unintended consequences is in play. in the end, it will be europe that pays the highest price. ah ah

. with people welcome back. i'm sure leo james robinson, professor of global conflict studies of the the history of chicago's or a school of public policy. as, as a scholar, what do you think about the fact that even questioning the historical context of what the russians have done, is to make yourself be a put in apologise. it's as if, i mean, i don't know if you, if you look at too much about the treaty of versailles and churchill, are killing of maybe 250000 in the rhineland. in 1919 or something and trace routes of world war 2. you won't call the nazi,

why is it now that if you start to look at these contexts of global conflict, you watch a magic mirror calder, your putin apologist. yeah, i will. it's very emotional moment. is this way. ah, it's like football teams or something. no, i, yeah, i don't, i, it's difficult to have a sort of rational discussion perhaps about these historical roots of these conflicts, or, you know, territorial disputes in the middle of a conflict like this done where you draw the light in history also is buried is difficult and ambiguous, do you, do you think that china can replace a demand that may be lost from nato countries, from european countries? how can they replace all the demand for commodities and services? well, i think that depends on what happens. so china's economic growth over the next summer . what, what period of time with talking about, you know, but, but i think most people would be expect, china,

china's economic growth is likely to slow down more than anything else. you know, and there's many contradictions in, in the way the chinese system works, which, which, you know, which maker sort of reversal. but all of this very dynamic economic growth over the last 40 years. much more likely than that kind of acceleration. so, so i don't know, china has some sort of strategic interest in buying up vast amounts of oil, natural resources. but i think if you just looked at the economic fundamentals and asked, you know, with the, with the trajectory of the chinese economy make up for european demand, i'd say the answer to that is not. and well, i remember very well the foreign policy magazine front cover in 1999 saying there anything, all this talk about chinese economic development is exaggerated. china's actually just your average developing world, the country. but of course there is a relevance here regarding she didn't bring inclusions meeting at the winter

olympics in that. and john bolton was particularly concerned about it. on our show on saturday, the former national security adviser and us about the un that join made a statement saying taiwan is not you grain. because taiwan is part of china. i do think that the china will take a more aggressive militarily aggressive strands as it lies. they're surrounded by ever more u. s. bases and weaponry. i think that's quite possible actually. yeah, i mean, china does think about taiwan in a similar way to russia. thinks about you crate. i would say, you know, if there's more not formal historical precedent for ukrainian independence and the risk of taiwanese independence, you know, well, it depends how you think about it. you know, touch, i was independent for many years during the imperial kind of periods in china as a sort of, you know, was a not really controlled by beijing or whatever. but,

but i, i do think it's very worrying. yeah. because i think you know what the chinese see is that nobody's going to really protect, go to protect you crate neck. undersigned weapons, but nobody's really going to protect your grade or, you know, or do anything militarily, if russia and next is it. and i, you know, i suspect they think the same thing would happen in taiwan. but, but i, you know, i think the chinese are perhaps kind of more strategic and long, you know, kind of for cited then put in this, you know, the chinese have an ideology, you know, and they have a kind of institutional set up that couldn't, doesn't really have put in this a one man show, you know and yeah, present. she, he, you know, he's a, he's a very kind of, you know, he's a manager or thing again professor. i think that's the difference in china. i think, you know, i think it's much less individualized in china than it is in russia. you know, i mean, that's actually the good. you see that in some sense what putin goes, it's hard to sort of see one can, you know,

it seems more difficult to imagine that this agenda will continue. whereas the chinese, the gender is much more deeply seated and institutionalized than, than goods into gender, white or in them. obviously, the russian duma, in its entirety supported, supported the decision of vladimir putin. and i think russians would beg to differ about it being some monolithic place where everyone just worships this cult of beauty. and similarly, as you say, obviously in china, but how quick was china to immediately replace visa, mastercard with union pay, the credit card 2nd biggest credit card in the world? how quickly were they just say we will start to take wheat? and how quickly are they stopping bank systems to enable moscow to enter parallel economic system? you said it wasn't economic. clearly, every analyst you talked to in china or russia says, this war and your grain is economic because it may presage the end of the dollar.

well, i mean, it's a, it's not economic in the sense i don't think it's motivates. it's not motivated by economics. you know, it may have economic consequences, you know, but i, you know, i think it's much too early to see, to see, at least for me, it's too early to see what those economic consequences are. you know, could be, you know, china could make russia dependent on its technology or its institutions or whatever, you know, that maybe they'll be able to make rush or a client state of china. i don't know. i mean, i do think, you know, the child, china, china is very sophisticated technologically, in many ways. you know, it's been competing on many margins with western technology in western institutions . and this, another instance of it. and it creates a kind of pretext for them to, to do things that perhaps they, they didn't think of doing before. but you know, but i think it's hard, it's hard for me at the moment to see what the long run economic consequences. all

my point was just, it's not motivated by economics. i think the economic consequences are russia should surely go to the regular consequences. the ukraine are surely going to be disastrous. i think the economic consequences to russia are going to be disastrous to what are they going to be for china? i, you know, i don't know. he's only russia was tired and the sanctions, all the sanctions have gone on for so many years. just as iran is tired of the sanctions, venezuela's died of the sanction the, my impression is that there, thanks. she didn't really have much impact or anything in russia. you know, the russian elite went when i went, when told, with their business in their life styles and, you know, they capital selling natural resources and guten, you know, so i, i didn't seem to, it, it didn't seem to really have a big impact on what was going on, so i'd be surprised if that was what precipitated this. i mean, always he, china's been annoyed about sanctions against china too. but the only way to alternately evade sanctions is to destroy the power clearly of,

of the dollar. so i was one other aspect to this is sadie, arabia could it fill the gap in terms of energy resources that is being removed from the market and resulting in. i don't know what the gas prices are like, as a petrol pump, as we call them over here in chicago. a working class is a pangs with their lives in new grain and, and who has come to the ask and they're paying a price now not being able, having to choose between eating and eating. as we often say on this program, where you live with 40000000 can only to night by virtue of food stamps. yeah, i, i, i'm not sure what the, the centers of the saudi arabians. i'm sure that the yoga, the united states government would be leaning on them to to, to increase production. but i expect the saudis, a very happy to seen oil prices increase. you know, so, so,

and it's very good, you know, for some governments like venezuela, we were mentioning you mentioning earlier, you know, because the venezuelan government does well when the oil price goes up, they have money to spread around and i support and popularity. so i didn't know that there would be a big enough increase in production to actually they may be as low media, right, the price wise, but i expect oil prices are going to go up and we'll be stuck with that. you know, so is this conflict a global conflict? i wouldn't say, yeah, i think that's a good question. you know, is having global repercussions, you know, going to go with repercussions politically, economically. you know, i think it's actually having the role, the good effects of, of making european western european countries realize that, you know, many of their institutions have atrophied and you know, and that's probably probably a bad thing, you know. and so it's going to make the in, i think the european union is reacted in a way which is much more which of us more, which is much stronger than people anticipated. and perhaps, you know, they understand that they understand they can't rely on the united states. they're

the united states, as sort of turned off, much more isolationist. now, after they call the humiliation in iraq and afghanistan. and, you know, and domestic politics is so overwhelming in the united states and disputes about domestic issues that the european union is going to have to think differently about, about politics and an international politics. and so there's also so or, or is it the way the opposite, or is it quite the opposite? the european union in swapping their gas terminals to be able to take in l. n, g from the united states refract gas there. that europe will do what emma, the united states tells them to do. they will send weapons into ukraine to fight a war that ukraine will be defeated in allowing the cannon fodder of ordinary ukrainians in a war that they are obviously going to lose. at the same time has now become wholly reliant on fossil fuel energy resources from the united states. they're like, literally just following everything. washington tells them, i don't think that's united states driving these decisions by, by,

by germany and the european union actually starts to start sending weapons to you. great. i think that's less, it does a change in european policy, which is, which is independent of the united states. i think, i think germany speed realizing, you know, for the last few years that you can't rely on the united states. and so, you know, i mean, that's part of the, the sort of a time to kind of reach a new, a new relationship with russia, which you could say i'd be a total failure. but, but nevertheless, you know, that doesn't mean it wasn't a good idea to try and, and i, you know, i, i think, yeah, i think, i think they'll be, you know, where, where else in the, what else in the short run you do in terms of buying energy, you know, so you have to turn to the united states, but i, i, i don't agree without assistance. i think, i think the european union has understood that it, it needs to take a new path. now, without the young might say ridiculous idea of a no fly zone, even without that zalinski has said that what has happened has in terms of the

violation of ukrainian sovereignty means that the agreement to get rid of the nuclear weapons is also invalid. and that, of course, got a retaliation from the russian saying, and nuclear war and nuclear weapons are now on high alert. they put it to a higher let. there are tactical nuclear weapons that to russia has. what sir, given the nuclear war is now mentioned, i think on every news program in every nation country about once an hour. how likely do you think for a limited nuclear war may be more shy? my room you mentioned earlier, said that if russia really wants to choose ukraine is a line in the sand about the dollar about economics, about all the rest of it, about a new world order of new countries. and the killing may resemble the u. s. fire bombing of tokyo in the 2nd world war, what scale of killing a we can we expect?

yeah, i don't think he's talking about nuclear weapon. so easy. i mean, i think, as you know, with the eventual, thankfully, i mean, definitely everything is bad. obviously. no, absolutely. absolutely, i think, i think, you know, i think he's making analogies to what, what pigeon has been willing to do before, you know, in chechnya, whatever. so. so, well, i sort of all, do you know, because i don't think coaching thinks the chechens are russians but, but, but somehow he thinks the ukrainians all hatch and war was settled quite a while ago, which is why church and special forces of fighting alongside russian really he managed to put a puppet regime in place and a very kind of brutal, autocratic puppet regime in place. yeah. who is now supporting him in ukraine? i think i think profession, mish reimers, right. you know about about the by how terrible it could get. but i, you know, about nuclear war. you know, i'm not an expert on that. he's much more an expert on that. i, you know, i think, i think and during the cold war at least, ah, you know, they managed to avoid any sort of even limit that nuclear war. the either of it's

an oxymoron, the notion of a new, a limited nuclear war. that seems unlikely to me like so far they're stopping short of things, which i think would move to that so. so i yeah, but i'm, i'm not, i'm not an expert on that. profess james robinson. thank you. and that's for the show will be back on saturday. 31 years to the day to job like announced a cost in oil production of 1000000 barrels a day to support world oil prices until then keep in touch by all our social media . and if it's available in your country and let us know if you think europe will cut off, it's russian oil supply. and remember all episodes going underground are available to watch it. are tito ah, a wrong one? i'll just don't a to shape out the scene because of the after kid

and engagement equals the trail. when so many find themselves will to part we choose to look for common ground. i look forward to talking to you all that technology should work for people. a robot must obey the orders given by human beings, except where such order is that conflict with the 1st law show your identification . we should be very careful about our personal intelligence at that point, obviously is to create trust, rather than fear. a very job with artificial intelligence, real summoning with a robot must protect its own existence with

a with hello and welcome to cross top, where all things are considered. i'm people about the west liberal world order is collapsed in the hedge of money. it's hard to maintain and expand the conflict in ukraine as a proxy war. the real target is russia and indirectly china. the law of unintended consequences is in play. in the end, it will be europe that pays the highest price. ah.