law and bought it and concrete, security interests and threats to those things. i think interests. what we have to understand is that increasingly we are living in multiple over in a multiple word garden cruise, which are far full have this series of security concerns or what this seems to be areas around them, which are critical to the manage, the, all of their security perceptions. once you understand this, then me again. perhaps. i'll try and understand the more you wish to be, and i think rush, i was fortunate intervention. great. i see unfortunate because the building toward

which has led to a great deal of damage and destruction. it's led to loss of lives, and it is fundamental or transcription of a sovereign country. so to that extent, rochelle stands gullible, but in diplomacy in history, it is low, black and white for let it. i'm the ones that are shades of gray, and we have to see where the today, the accused are as guilty as the accuser. well, ambassador, let me ask you specifically about that, because whenever i talk to american officials, they always make the case that the russians are dangerous. paranoia that puts in lost his marbles or that he is the psychotic magdalen many. and that moscow maliciously distorts the intentions and nature of

nato. i understand that you know, the mental health professional, but who's version of reality. you find that more to be more rooted in the facts on the ground and in the realities in the norms of what and geo politics. you see a diplomat and i have been a member of parliament. and now in london, politics, i have a pity that you should never judge larger of the vin since the 1st little demonized fish off. you may have a perception of walked on there. trump was like, you may have a perception, a walk precedent is like, but there are individuals who are trying and sure within a given set of circumstances,

what is best for their national security. so i don't believe in it, dr. and i don't endorse and i don't accept this attempt of trying to show you who as some kind of a megalomaniac who is who is beyond the bill of rational thinking. let's get out of that debate. so we have to now say, overall circumstances analyze. and then try to see what the solutions can be. well, speaking about those overall circumstances, 5 weeks into this operation, russia and the west still sees and starkly different terms for the west. it's an actual unprovoked aggression with absolutely no antecedents did. for russia, it's about a horrible i would say, but inevitable last last resort means all why protecting what it

considers to be in security interest you have the benefit of well, i don't want to go and do a graphical distance. do you think those visions of reality do you think those perceptions of the world and of security concerns you think they could be somehow reconcile? so at some point, the grill world balance became a skew. the berlin wall gemini, real night in common for section it signaled a defeat of communist soviet union and the. ready war, so back and so the perception grew not unfounded, that it has become a world in which the united states and its allies in particular made to

have become the real custodian of what is good for this world and what is not. and in that capacity, i think for a considerable period of time, the united states act to lead lead out the rule of the song, create global policeman. and the various rules that vicious to applied to other nations will act in response to what the perceived to be their security and chris, those rules, america for it is not applicable to them. so it could with impunity go into iraq on the basis of a suspicion that iraq has weapons of mass destruction. there was no legitimacy to that action. united states felt that as this so claimed

custodian a, what is good for the global order that meters are separate, you know, want to water should be and can do what it was to live as warm as somebody as a new country casa, was created. and most important the expansion off the united states and made oh, we don't talk off what expansion or village group bring me to other countries with respect it's not like this issue rose. yes. today, i mentioned what we didn't send back in 2007 and already and then the unit security conference and many other occasions russia was sounding is displeasure. it was just explaining it agreement with that strategy. pretty straightforward terms,

and i understand that the americans, whenever i had talked to them, you know, like they are very forgiving of themselves. they always sort of appeal to the best intentions and then some mistakes would be made along the way. so they wanted, what's beth for iraq and it's a 1000000 people happen to be killed because of that? well, you know, that's, that's it, that's what happened. essentially, it's not that, well, that's the way history on hold it. but when it comes to rush, it's not like this is something that they weren't really aware of because russia was very, very, very persistent in trying to bring that to their attention. why on earth, when they hear to that, even for their own sake, because if they look at what is happening in the world and even the americans actions that they have to just, that comes back to heard them as well. i mean, it's not so much an issue. all i do all of you for me. i just don't understand the lack of pragmatism here for the essential one understood. and i think all the

fall were specially in europe need to think about is the off of the, of all of the bullet war. subsequently a new architecture of europe on certain basic principles which respects the legit too much security and geopolitical concerns of all major problems. i don't think that will negotiate some of that. i think even america need to just not mr. city and d. ephram shows that russia expressed about unilateral expansion of lead boundaries, better free an influence on what it is, the military hooping we must understand that need to is not some kind of democracy come. it is a live regrouping which has provisions to take

a style action against anyone else who to not a part of the doctor. so the relentless east expansion of made good. the read it under been the off, russia was bottled through walk a reaction in my view. at some point, i'm not saying this justifies the division of grid. i'm trying to give a perspective to it. and i think america and need to end the list in general for that they could get away with actions because russia was a diminished power and would continue to accept walk were obviously trips to own perception of sphere influence of security. and by the way, it was not always an innocent expansion. by that,

i mean countries. i went in, you grid, there was a 20400 countries a frequency leave. but there is some evidence of pity bed, though the west was listed in the troy of one leader of your grade and his replaced one by some one more for us to more amenable to more inclined toward the west. we have to take a very short break right now, but we'll be back in just a few moments agent. ah,

thank you for being patient with me for that already completed. done with that you put it in yet or did you buy the well. ok, so yeah,

i was oh ah ah,

welcome back to the parts with a lot of our my career in deployment and former member of permanent mission to the united nations ambassador before the break. me. yeah, i'm talking about the international system and how during certain historical moment, americans seem to believe that the end of history has come and they are sort of the custodians, the forever custodians of this world. but that is clearly changing and i think you would agree to be events in ukraine like salary, the speed of that change. and i think at the core of that process, a very simple, but on that i had a very difficult question and that is whether they american view of themselves as the leader or as a head german of the world is compatible with other countries. developmental i, john does what other countries can be, what they aspire to be with american being who they insist on being on the question

is definitely not for russia, but i wonder what would be the answer of a definite, you know, for us. but i wonder what it is for a country like india can indeed be what it is to be with americans holding on tightly tonight, self appointed lead. i didn't want to believe that in diplomacy dialogue and i think the guy must come for dial make leading powers of the word. let's conclude to the news. the world is still an increasing and becoming a motive for know what the united states is a powerful be just the world's largest democracy. the nato is a far full miller crew. but at the same, you have

a concrete like russia, which is in its own right off to mission a remarkably cause chill. and if i may add that because psychology is very important in the understanding of diplomacy, i think russia is still coming to jones with the dismember rent of the soviet union. so other count grease leads to be careful in dealing with the crew would just still read it off. that's as powerful of the united states and military terms. but, and that's it, that they should be turning the other way around because i totally agree with you that especially and your poles psychology is paramount. i mean, it explains pretty much everything bad in the acceptance, all the multiple a reality and it's not like it just appears they've always been like that in a well with like some 200 countries. unilateralism is unsustainable to begin with

because everybody has their own divergent interest, but that substance by the americans of these multi polar reality. also with me in the end of that vision of themselves and the end of that vision of the world, they will have to redefine who they are in this world. do you think psychologically they can take it on some level? it's very similar to what the russians have done had to go through back in the 1990 is the total collapse of that own self perception. do you think that americans can hopefully not take on that level of a cognitive dissonance, but at least to redefine themselves in the world, in diplomacy and in the unfolding. at some point, reality makes in america for,

but it is the so global power of the word russia asserted itself. unfortunately, by reading your credit, but nevertheless give it to the americans that are limits to which, unilaterally you can push a singular agenda on the go. we also have j. china is arising bar and in the, in the pacific you have a situation where the american, it is not uncheck assuming that if i may say so, india is emergent as one of the concrete words, most populous countries, foster splitting the economy's a nuclear bar of light and genuine democracy and a great civilizational header that goes back to the dawn of time. so these are

aspects that matter, in terms of self perception of how color is that gonna receive those. china looks upon it so with its own rhonda street as ultimately came and glue the high table on the word rush. i'd been there in the, in the spiting to be the united states is seated there, but it must give room for other people to join it, you know, to, to give that to room or other people in other countries to join it. if need to know something about those histories that you mentioned, and i think part of the problem in the world today is that americans are not only arrogant, but actually even or end of the world. and it's, you know, cultural heritage is history for the differences within its people, et cetera. now, you mentioned china and i know that in your other interview you expressed concern

that the latest developments in ukraine rhetorically and very vocal. but given that to clean, very timid response of the western may involve and china into a more masculine way of defending what it defines as it's national interest. how concerned you are about that, and how likely is it that in china will undertake a similar action or comparable action be in taiwan or in the on board of disputes with its neighbors? you see this is concerned about now you can understand why we are both too large issue groups share are disputed border recent history of conflict on the board us every wars as well. and we are concerned about aggressive job that have been incursions in dr. 3 for recently and the chinese seem to be guided by the notion that

they are deserving of what degree of self unilateralism and go to problems and in there has to be naturally careful about my work. yes, those those china. ready from great, i think that china had already been drawn that, that the united states is not the singular global part in the word. and that's less than the has mean reinforced by russia action in view. great. so i don't think it will lead to excessive chinese adventure because i'm out, it's mutually assured destruction i'm in the world is balance. but at the same time, china, i think, is one thing to tell the united states that i,

we have been telling you so many countries in the world. i've been saying that the united mission system is discredited. now, if you flip sleep 1st, 2nd war world war to be entities, it means sort of the new reality of a new global law in which that is far more acceptance of a my people are word and you have to negotiate the areas of influence on accommodation with each other, rather than believe that one can get can the site what these should be. so we are looking for a new architect, gerald, secure to do the work. you spend years working on the united nations representing your country. and i'm sure you know, from the inside, how manipulative and ineffective that process can be. and that, that countries, especially on the most crucial issues they talk at one another rather than to each

other. there's a lot of sharing, there's a lot of preaching. there isn't very little room for genuine discussion or, you know, given and taking, it's more about politics and intrigue behind your back rather than, you know, coming around the table and trying to come up with a join solution. and as we're talking about the changing world order, what do you think could be created? what kind of a system could come and represent, present that opportunity for actually enjoying decision making in some sort of an open ended dialogue rather than the united nations being these, you know, these plays where the countries come to, you know, said that position without necessarily being engaged in diplomatic discussions. ready to did the united nation is essentially under

by and then from dish and i, i, me, and while the russia and the united states can occasionally be rivals this yes or no one, you know, being the 5 women where most of the security council and the shannon are just not allowing that to expand. so we have to change the architecture of the united other countries who also will considerable influence, who are the repositories of economic power. what aspiration to be brought to support in the genuine sense, in reality, deliberation about the next phase of the kind of word order. we need to word that gross we require a corporation of the united states, but also russia. and 2nd thing if i move quickly is that the europe in particular today needs

a dialogue where it will sexual the principles of the new edifice of security which needs to be bitter after the fragmentation of the soviet. now we have only a few minutes left and i was trying to squeeze in 2 questions. one about the economy, because we talked a lot about security and how it may change in part because of russia's actions. but the global economy is changing rapidly to you at this time because of the american response to russian actions and the implications are far in march. when you look at the global commodity markets and the projections of where they may be, you know, a couple of months from now. how does it make you feel you? my view is that there are 2 meds. emily's one is the mutually assured destruction of nuclear. and that is the new truly assured

deprivation of sanctions. sanction. those are not a one way street. it's an interdependent global. my view is that the west made so dependent upon rushing gas and crude and other old sources will also feel the binge of the sections. sanctions can bite in the short trucks, but they are not the on. so in the long i think that especially where crude oil is concerned, oil and gas, there will be an attempt to stabilize prices by boosting production. all other oil supplier nations, especially in the middle east and then in iran, or whenever possible to compensate or sanctions against russia. but

i think a much better resolution. economic demands is a ceasefire, a negotiator fees, and a return for dialogue on the diplomatic table. one of the major concerns right now is that the rapid growth of the price is not only because of the ukrainian development, but also because of the locker swarms in africa, and they drought in north america making the spectra world wide hunger much more. is it, well, not only talking about the western population, they, they have some reserves, they will not be dying of hunger and, but we are talking about, you know, the population of developing countries in the south, in africa, maybe even in asia, given the state of disarray, in national community, the thing is,

it's up for that for that challenge right now? no, i believe not. the world is just recovering from the coven to bend there. countries need a period, economic stability, and access to basic switch. but as the west has gone beyond the rest or world as not. so therefore, india has always taken the stand on this issue as fairly, as it was possible that the war for and that russia and ukraine should talk. and that in europe, in particular, there should be once again, the resumption of dialogue, which leads to an enduring piece period of stability and prosperity. so we have been doing this and we believe in it because as a developing countries are sticks are in

a stable global world economic cor. well, and that's there. thank you very much for your perspective. and i may add for your wisdom, it's been great pleasure talking to you to the pleasures my and thank you for watching hope to hear again next week. when was the part with mm ah oh is your media a reflection of reality?

in the world transformed? what will make you feel safer? high selection for community. are you going the right way or are you being led somewhere? direct. what is true? what is great? in the world corrupted, you need to descend a join us in the depths or remain in the shallows. so what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy even foundation, let it be an arms race is often very dramatic, development only personally and getting to resist. i don't see how that strategy

will be successful, very difficult time time to sit down and talk with .