holidays, on the other hand, along with the united arab emirates, they say some ability or some sort of autonomy with the decisions that there are states may in regard to the u. s. so that is why. 1 they're not so eager to just get on the bandwagon, criticizing russia for actions and following the us and launch them. and that's where they are. t use team that said good bye for now, but don't go too far. as our programs are only starting, see what it's showing in a moment. ah, with

me. hello, welcome to was a party back in 2007 when the relations between russia and the west, we're already showing signs of distress, but we're still manageable. not to mention remark to the death of mahatma gandhi, it's hard to find somebody to talk to and be understood what was dismissed as a joke, proved to be a prophecy picked in years on russia. and there was a talking and our security disputes lay out as it military confrontation in an over

ukraine is a return to known while it's still possible and on one conditions. to discuss it are now joined by a career indian diplomat and form a member of india's permanent mission to the united nations. ambassador is great, great to talk to you. thank you very much for your time. 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 that would put abstract international law, a bomb? it's immediate and concrete, security interest threats to those who are 3 interests. what we have to understand is that increasingly we are living in them multiple over in

a multiple word current cruise, which are far full have this, see there's of security influence or what this seem to be areas around them which are critical to the manage the all their secure perceptions. once you understand this, then me again. perhaps i'll try and understand the more you wish to be, and i think rush hour. i'm fortunate intervention. you great. i see it unfortunate because the building and toward it has led to a great deal of damage and destruction. it's led to loss of lives. and it is fun to link a transcription of a sovereign country. so to that extent,

rochelle stands gullible. but in diplomacy in the history, it is low, black and white for let it i'm the one says that our 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 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 parliament. and now in london politics, i have a pity that you should never judge larger issues of the vin. since the 1st flo demonize ish, you may have a perception a walked on there. trump was like, you may have a perception, a walk person 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 has 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 say, overall circumstances analyze and then try to see what the solutions can be. speaking about those overall circumstances, 5 weeks into this operation, russia and there was still seed in starkly different terms for the west. it's 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 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,

even 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 reunite and common perception. it's in the feet of communist soviet union and the. ready war so fast. and so the perception grew not unfounded, that it is 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 solid, green 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 ordered that mirrors are separate, you know what, the, what it should be. it 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 2 of without thought off. what expansion or bring means to other countries with respect. it's not like this issue rose yesterday. i mentioned what, who didn't send back in 2007 and already 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 it's a 1000000 people happen to be killed because of that? well, you know, that's, that's the, 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 that attention. why on earth, when they hear to that, even for their own sake, because if they look at what is happening in their world and even the american actions that they have to just that comes back to her, them as well. i mean, it's not so much an issue. all i really do for me. i just don't understand the lack of pragmatism here for the essential one. you have to understand. and i think all the power specially in europe need to think about is that off of the, of all of the bullet. 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 invasion of good. 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 mean in you grid, there was a regime change in 2040 oh, countries of frequencies will be there. but there is some evidence

of pity that 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. we will be back in just a few moments. stay tuned. ah, a ah .

ah ah, welcome back to wells apart with a lot of my career engine diplomat 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 the 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 your credibility salary, the speed of that change. and i think i think world process a very simple, but amanda had a very difficult question and that is why they, they american view of themselves as the leader or as a head german of the world is compatible with other countries. developmental, i've done this with 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, self appointed lead i didn't want to believe that in diplomacy of dialogue, and i think the dying must come for dial made leading powers of the world

understand that concluding to the huge the world is still an increasingly becoming a lot of people know what of the united states is a powerful it is 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 remarkable culture. and if i may add that because psychology is very important in the understanding of diplomacy, i think russia is still coming to do with the dismember, rent of the soviet union. so other count grease leads to be

careful in dealing with the group just still reading off that's as follows. the united states, a military jobs. but, and that's it, that these, you can return the other way around because i totally agree with you that especially in your post psychology is paramount. i mean, it explains pretty much everything bad, you know, 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, 200 countries. unilateralism is unsustainable to begin with because everybody has their own divergent interest, but that substance by the americans of the multi polar reality. it also with me and the end of that vision of themselves and the end of that vision of their 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. and 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 this. so global war was russia as a so it's so unfortunately by reading ukraine but nevertheless couldn't read to the americans that are limit storage unit. actually you can push a singular agenda on the go. we also have china is arising bar and in the in bill 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 longer street, as ultimately came on to 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 the 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 you're on the 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 in china, into a more masculine way of defending what it defines as a national interest, how concerned you are about that, and how likely is it that in china will undertake a similar action or comparable action being in taiwan or in the on board of disputes with its neighbors. you see,

this is concerned about you can understand why we are both too large issue groups share are disputed border recent history of conflict on the board. us have rewards as well. and we are concerned about aggressive giants that have been incursions in 3 for recently. and the chinese seem to be guided by the notion that they are deserving of a degree of self unilateralism and go to problems and in there has to be naturally careful about not working or schools those china. ready goal from great, i think that china had already been drawn back, that the united states is not the singular global part in the word

and back in 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 mean, 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 flex the 1st 2nd war world war to be entities, it means sort of the new realities 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 at 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's 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 system could come and represent resent 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 on them from dish. i'm ed wiler, russia and the united states can occasionally be rivals this year on the when you know, being the $51.00 and the security council and the shannon and just to 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 trees of economic power, what aspirations 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 most we require a corporation of the united states, but also russia. second thing, if i may quickly and 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. 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 roches 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 emitted. 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 run, but they are not the on. so in the long run, 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 is there 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 their lockers swarms in africa. and they drought in north

america making the spectra worldwide hunger much more isn't well. and 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 failure, economic stability, and access to basic switch. but as the west has gone beyond, when the rest or 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 in this and we believe in it because as a developing countries, are stakes, are in a stable global, well, economic or 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 through the pleasures my and thank you for watching hope to hear again next week on well, the part, ah with

mm ah, emergency services in ukraine, say firefighters of puddled massive blaze l. a fuel depot in laval with the russian military confirms it conducted strikes on ukrainian army facilities in the city. ortiz, senior correspondent visits the southern ukrainian city of melli, tofal, which has been under russian army control for almost a month. the see what life there is now, like these fully looted, machine gun belt is far from the biggest hole that's been brought in. people have bought it all sorts of weapons including pistol to solve problems, machine guns.