is mahogany, it's hard to find somebody to talk to and be understood what was dismissed as a jo proved to be a prophecy. 15 years on russia and there was a normal good talking and there security disputes layout as it military confrontation and over ukraine is a return to known violence still possible. and on one conditions. to discuss that, i'm now joined by a career india and implement and form a member of india's permanent mission to the united nations. ambassador is great to see you, great to talk to thank you very much for your time today, you're pretty straightforward. in characterizing the ration operation in ukraine as that quote brazen attack and that contravention of international law. and i think many russians may agree with you on that, but is there any great power or a major power in this day and age done? would put abstract international law. a bomb is immediate and concrete,

security interest threats to those cigar 3 interests. what we have to understand is that increasingly we are living in tupelo in america to, for the world, which are far full have this series of security goods. or what this seems to be areas around them, which are critical to the manager of their secure perceptions. once you understand this, then again press i understand the more you wish to be in, i think rush, i was fortunate in direction. great. i say unfortunate because the building toward

which has led to a great deal of damage and destruction. it's led loss of lives, and it is fun to live or travel expression for solver. so to that extent, rochelle stands gullible. but in diplomacy in the history, there is no black and white polarity. i'm nuances 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 and dangerous paranoia 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 tax 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 does. all of them are now involved in politics. i have a pity that you should never judge a larger issue of the this is the 1st little demonize ish. you may have a perception of walked the on there. trump was like, you may have a perception, a walk precedent is like, but there are individuals who are crying and sure were been given some circumstances what is best for their national security.

so i, 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 of megalomania who's, who is beyond the bill of rational thinking. let's get out of that debate. so we have to now seeing the 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 seed and starkly different terms for the west is an actual unprovoked aggression with absolutely no antecedents did for russia. it's a bad a horrible i would even say,

but inevitable last last resort means all for protecting what it considers to be insecurity, 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 that could be somehow reconcile? so at some point the grill. whoa to 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 what a considerable period of time the united states actually lead out the rule of the solar green global lease. and the variables 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 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. it felt that as this so claimed

custodian a, what is good for the global order that meters are separate to know what the, what it should be and can do what it was to live as long as somebody has bought a new country casa, was created, and most important the expansion off the united states and made to 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 did 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 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 this 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 and all that. 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 that for me, i just don't understand the lack of pragmatism here for the essential one

understood. and i think all the while were specially in europe think about is the off of the, of all of the bullet war. subsequently a new architecture of europe on certain basic principles which are 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 middle for just not mr. city. and the apprehensions that russia expressed about just unilateral expansion of lead boundaries, better free an influence on what is the military grouping. we must understand that need to is not some kind of democracy come. it is

a military grouping which has provisions to take a style action against anyone else, which is not a part of nato are good. so the relentless east expansion of made good. the read it under been the off, russia was bottled for walk, a reaction in my view. at some point, i'm not saying this justifies the invasion of good. i'm trying to give a perspective to it. and i think america and need to, and the list in general for that they could get away with that actions because russia was a diminished power and would continue to accept what 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'm an in you grid, there was a kid to call them 40 o countries of frequency will lead death. but there is some evidence of pity that though the west was complicit in the old throwing off one leader of your grid and his replaced one by some one more for us to more amenable to more inclined to warps the west. we have to take a very short break right now, but we'll be back in just a few moments they tend, ah,

a new ticket with

with us with all those years. ah welcome back to wells up a lot of our, my career engine diplomat and for my member of the permanent mission to the united nations ambassador before the break, we began talking about the international system on how during certain historical

moment the americans seem to believe that the end of history has come and that they are sort of the custodians, the forever custodians of this world. but that is clearly changing and i think you would agree that the events in ukraine will accelerate the speed of that change. i think at the core of that process, a very simple but amanda had a very difficult question and that is whether the american view of themselves as the leader or as a head german of the world is compatible with other countries. developmental agenda . what other countries can be, what they aspire to be with americans being who they insist on being on the question is definitely not for russia, but i wonder what would be the answer rather is definite, you know, for russia, but i wonder what it is for a country like india can indeed be what it aspires to be with americans holding on

tightly to that self appointed lead. i generally believe that in diplomacy dialogue and i think the guy must come for dial made leading powers of the world understand that concluded to the world is still an increase in becoming a lot of people know what of the united states is a powerful the just the world's largest democracy, the nato is a power full miller crew. but at the sit, you have a concrete like russia, which is in its own right off to mission a remarkably because joe. and if i may add that because psychology is very important in the understanding of diplomacy,

i think russia is still coming to with this member rent of the soviet union. so other countries need to be careful in dealing with the group, which is still better off. that's as powerful of the united states and military terms, but and that, that the should can be turned the other way around. because i totally agree with you that especially in jewel psychology, paramount. i mean, it explains pretty much everything, but you know, the acceptance over multiple a reality and it's not like it just appears they've always been like that in a well with like 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. it also would mean 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? because on some level, it's very similar to what the russians had done. had to go through back in the 1990, the total collapse of that own self perception. do you think that americans can hopefully know, 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 this. so global follower of the word rush hires, so it's so unfortunately by in reading ukraine but nevertheless

conveyed to the americans that there are limits to which, unilaterally you can push a singular agenda on the globe. we also have j. gina is arising bar and in the, in the pacific you have a situation where the american does it is not uncheck or similar if i may assist. so india is emergent as one of the concrete words, most populous countries, fastest growing economies, a nuclear bar, live, 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 followers that gun received from china looks upon it so with its own wrong history as ultimately clement

glue, the high table on the word rush. i've been there in the, in the spiting to be the united states is seated there, but it must get room for other people to join it, you know, to, to give that to room or other people and other countries to join it. it needs 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 ignorant of the world. and it's, you know, cultural heritage is history. 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 and ukraine rhetorically, very vocal, but given that typically very timid response of the west and may involve in china, into a more masculine way of defending what it defines as it's national interests,

how concerned you are about that, and how likely is it that in china will undertake a similar action or comfortable action being in taiwan or in the, on board of disputes, minutes, 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 border, several wars as well. and we are concerned about aggressive giants that have been encouraging the not that are 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 now what are some of those china. ready

from great, i think that china had already been drawn that, that the united states is not the singular global pod in the word. and becky, less than the has mean reinforced by russia action in view. great soul, 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. it reflects the 1st

2nd war world war to be entities. it means sort of the new realities of a new global in which that is far more extra. 2 of my people are word and you have to negotiate the areas of influence on the accommodation with each other, rather than believe that one can get can the site what the should be. so we are looking for a new architect, gerald, secure to do the work. you spend years working at the united nations representing your country. and i'm sure you know from the inside, how manipulative, 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 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 joint 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 the represent, resend 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 made it while the russia and the united states can occasionally be rivals this on the when you know, being the 5 when and where most of the security council and the shannon are

interested not allowing that to expand. so we have to change the architecture of the united hello other countries who also we considerable influence, who are good for the trees of economic power. what aspiration to be bought to support in the genuine sense, in reality, deliberation about the next phase of the kind of word order. we need to learn that gross. we require a corporation of the united states, but also russia. second thing, if i may quickly, is that the europe in particular today needs a dialogue where it will settle the principles of the new edifice of security which needs to be better after the

fragmentation of the soviet. for now, we have only a few minutes left and i will try to squeeze in 2 questions. one about the comment because we talked a lot about security and how it may change in part because of russia actions, but the global economy is changing rapidly to you at this time because of the american response to ration actions on the implications are far and large 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 work. my view

is that the west made so dependent upon rushing gas and crude and other roll sources will also feel the binge of the sections. sanctions can bite in the short trucks, but they are not the answer. in the long run, especially where crude oil is concerned, oil and gas. there will be an attempt to stabilize prices by boosting production on other oil supplier nations, especially in the middle east and venezuela and iran, or whenever possible to compensate for sanctions against russia. but i think a much better resolution. economic demands is a cease fire, a negotiated fees, and

a return for dialogue on the diplomatic table. one of the major concerns right now is the rapid growth of the price is not only because of the ukrainian development, but also because of their lockers swarms in africa. and the drought in north america making the spectra world wide hunger much more isn't well. and not only talking about the western population, 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 international 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 of economic stability and access to basic switch. but as the west has gone beyond what the rest are world is not. so therefore, india has always taken the stand on this issue as fairly, as it was possible that the war short 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 peace period of stability and prosperity. so we have been tell this and we believe in it, because as a developing countries, are stakes, are in a stable global, well, economic or while, and that's there. thank you very much for your perspective. and i may add for your wisdom, and it's been great pleasure talking to you through the pleasures my and thank you

for watching hope to hear again next week on well the part ah with mm ah ah ah

ah, i headline story today emergency services and crane say fire fighters have put out a massive glaze l. a fuel deaf o in la evolve. that's of the russian military confirmed it conducted strikes on ukrainian army facilities in the city parties. senior correspondent visits this southern ukrainian city of melli, tow pulse which has been under russian army control for almost a month to see what life in the region in these fully loaded machine gun belt is far from the biggest hole that's been brought in. people have boarded all sorts of weapons including pistols, a solid rock.