still the case, indeed, of course we have to, the war is politics by other means. if other forms of politics have fails, that means in particular if diplomacy has for it. but certainly, whatever may have been said since 1945 since the foundations of the united nations, the use of force by one state against another state, is still a kind of almost regular method of the conduct of international affairs. we are told quite often that this was supposed to have changed with the adoption of the united nations. but unfortunately, that is not true. and sorry for interrupting i just wanted to sort of narrow

our attention a little bit to the complaint that the whole thing attention to now. and by that i mean, of course, the lens, ukraine. he's a very difficult decision for the russians, and we will have to deal with the consequences of both moral and economic and political consequences for many years to come. but the question i hear opened here in oscar is whether it could have been awarded whether russia could have a see what it means as, as a stand. so goals without the use of military force. if we look at how things develop, it could have been avoided if one would have implement those points that were agreed upon by both church by both parties of the conflict during done in minsk and in particular,

i mean the very precise agreement on specific measures on a picture of measures in the course of the negotiations are called means to in the year 2015. and i just would like to can recall here what i see at this time, i issued a statement in connection with negotiations in february 2015, where i outlined the basic principles that were contained anyway in the agreement. namely, the principle of self or, or local self determination, which are also in place of friendship will offer candle federal state structure. and i added to that the policy of permanent neutrality, which anyway, was all what it was initially when grain was founded. and when they agreed on,

on a clear the statues of the country in the ninety's, that was always an idea that shaped somehow the foreign policy of ukraine. so that should also have been followed up. and if this would have happened in the armed confrontation, which is going on right now, and which is very unfortunate also by the way, in terms of international humanitarian law that could, can, should have been avoided if everybody would have acted in good faith. unfortunately, i don't remember i did raise this issue of autonomy, 40 eastern provinces with national speaking majority, around 2018 in a conversation with the presidential candidate of ukraine. he was defeated,

who was the former minister of defense. i did release the issue. i asked him, frankly, why do you not implement the pro vision of autonomy in the eastern territories? it has been agreed upon. it is on paper and by the way all of this has been and then sure has been confirmed. i think you would agree with me that it wasn't paper, but from the very beginning, i mean the next day after these agreements were signed, the ukrainian side will be helpful. that western partners essentially suggested that you know, those agreements were reached under duress. there were sort of a political ploy i q when time and to change the situation on the ground, the military situation on the ground that they should not have been implement. and that may impact implementation of those agreements and even acknowledging and the support of those agreements were i came to the trail,

cleans national interest. and this is, this is, this is what was transmitted, not only in ukraine, but i think the wes largely want to do. there was course, there is a very heated debate in domestic politics in ukraine about this issue about the rights of the minorities under rights of the russian minority. but anyhow, i would say it was the leadership of the government of ukraine that agreed to that measure of amending the constitution of ukraine. and the stalks were facilitated by germany and france. and i do not see how one could say that this all was achieved under duress. what i remember me if i may just get back to that discussion which i was a former minister of so few trained when he was

a presidential candidate. he came to vienna and he wanted to explain his positions as part of his candidacy and his son play. when i asked about 30 to me, provision was no, we can have it because this would mean this integration of ukraine. but this, what if this is the idea from the outside? i do not understand how they could have signed it. and just if i'm a give one example, we have an experience in austria. how through an autonomy arrangement for a national minority, a crisis between 2 states and conflict can be avoided because we had almost the same problem with our german speaking korean minority in italy. that was oppressed as a result of fishes policy. some miscellaneous, he wanted to italian eyes, the german speaking audience. so he bent the german language and so on. and as

a result of this, after the 2nd world war, there was an armed resistance by an entire audience in italy and the situation. the problem could be solved ultimately by austria acting as a protection power for the south orleans. and by reaching an agreement as the bi lateral level with italy on full autonomy, a very advanced form of autonomy for the south orleans. and we had almost floor, i do remember that our military was stationed along the border of italy in the mountains after since the receipt reached that agreement. we are, australia, italy, are in good terms. that historical analogy only applies if you believe that both sides one here avoid what you said, that there was almost in war, but avoid it because i see were genuinely interested in finding

a solution and mutually agreeable solution, which i'm not sure is the case in the ukrainian cause and do you actually believe that the ukrainian side and our partners in the west actually wanted to settle that issue for the best of everybody in? well, this is difficult to answer. officially, the western side would always have said that they are in favor of full implementation of the means agreement. at least that was my understanding. as regards to, to co sponsors off to meeting germany and france, they would never, they never said that they are not in favor of full implementation, but they did not follow up visa ukraine on it. that for sure, they should have done it as far as i can see. now, the real problem is one of the mystic politics in ukraine

as far as the statues of the russian c to some sort of ukraine is concerned. because every politician, even, i mean also the president who is now in office as i saw some video documents of conversation she had with the leaders of the commanders of the he did not succeed to convince them that they should keep out of politics. and the problem seems to have been over all those years. if you're going and going, titian would have been in favor of a correct and full implementation. also of these domestic revisions, this would have been exploited by the competitors off. the other part is always a problem. and i mean, whenever politician pursue certain agenda, he always encounters here. he always encounters difficulty,

not the nature of politics. you're not expected to have a smooth, right? especially when you are you and you happen to be present country. that is position right when you major military adversaries. that requires a certain act amendment that requires a so, you know, will a certain willingness to defend your own nation. when you pull the land, he could not persuade b as all battalion not to metal into politics being too diplomatic. i typical european i have to say because as a battalion, the not just new enough to but ultimately nasty battalion is not just involved in politics. it's part and parcel, it's fully incorporated into the ukrainian state machine. you a or different now in describing the facts and the grounds. i know this will tell you what this you'll need. so this fighting group is now officially

integrated into the ukranian army. i think the idea behind was to sort of speak domesticate that little, not to leave them out so they could take whatever the ukrainian government is doing from outside. unfortunately, it has not succeeded this kind of project as far as i understand because the ideology of that particular group, this is without any doubt, it is extremely right when you're faced or whatever you may call it. and the ideology is in favor of a kind of homogenous nation state of your brain, where everybody else, whether russians or for that matter. also, by the way, it would have to see himself or herself under this aspect of being culturally or ethically ukrainian was also the band in the russian

language. and i understand only too well the implications of all of that. because as i said, we had the same problem as far as our i am from 0 myself as a douglas and sisters in italy. we're concerned who were not allowed to use their own language and who were not even taught the language in the school. this is in italy, it was the ideology of facial patio chair, mostly. and that's not an ideology for our time where we believe in tolerance and multiculturalism. so there must be a gang of one must develop a kind of assistance. and in a case such as the ukraine, a kind of a man off the constitution in the direction of federalism would be the way out. it

does not mean that this would be opened the way to this integration of the country, not at all. and as far as i understand russia also under the bridge, it says as a must have become part of the country country, where there are ethnic communities that have their own rights. and also that has in particular situations in particular areas, also local self. and we have to take a short break right now. we will be back to the discussion in just a few minutes state. ah hm. mm.

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 that conflict with the 1st law show your identification. we should be very careful about artificial intelligence. the point obviously, is to create trust rather than fear a job with artificial intelligence. real summoning with a robot must protect its own existence with what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy confrontation, let it be an arms race is on, often very dramatic development. only personally,

i'm going to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successfully very critical time time to sit down and talk a welcome back to wells. of course we're clear, president of the international progress organization, dr kircher. before the break, we were discussing various ways oldsmar bringing that conflict, jazz. one of the things that you mentioned was neutrality, and i'm hearing a lot of russian analyst days, will say that russia has a stake in fact, and that, that a strong vested interest in maintaining and protecting your crane sovereignty on

one condition. that is, if it signs to you a military neutrality, is that something that the west, the americans in particular ever seriously committed, can they commit to not trying to use russians, neighborhood for their own geopolitical goal for as a platform for, you know, injecting di insulins in this part of the world can be turned out on a rational basis, namely on the basis of mutuality. and this is exactly the experience of austria with its own neutrality. after the 2nd world war in the period of the cold war. and this time, austria was occupied by for elijah hours, the victors of the 2nd world war. and our main interest was to regain our full sovereignty and independence and strictly to get rid of all these offered by troops

. the problem at that time was that the great powers and particularly the soviet union at the time and the united states were quite suspicious. these of each other . so the only way out of this last that austria did declare itself a permanently neutral country. and what is important is permanent, that checks if not, does neutral in a particular consolation or in an opportunistic manner. but as a principle of state, as a shaping the identity of the state and is now known as in the history books. it was all for a minister either way. also from all, as i mentioned earlier, commission gilbert, who had the idea that we might sound out at that time with the soviet union. how

they would react as if we suggest that we could commit ourselves to a permanent searches of neutrality. he asked the indian prime minister nero in confidential meeting in switzerland, in 1953 to sound the to find out what these are the distribute union, how the reaction would be. initially, it was a little skeptical as far as i, a minister, one of those. but 2 years later, it happened. we agreed, the austin delegation agreed on a memorandum on utility in the negotiations was moscow. and initially the western powers were rather skeptical. in particular, the british and united states, these are we trying to do, but ultimately they understood that this was a rational measure of real quality because each of the bowers could be sure that

austria would not be gone for a, for any military attacks by their adversaries. you have positive and inspiring historical example i couldn't quite sometime. now in time, do you think if you crean in deep signs up here, a th can be neutral, neutral, and independent fully self sufficient stayed at the same time, releasing its own self interested sounds, guiding policy in other areas. but just keeping the military aspect on the neutral ground is, can be of course, military neutrality means not only, don't know foreign troops stationed on the territory of a country. and that country does not showing any military alliance. it also

means that such permanently, militarily a neutral country, is also not taking sides when international conflict occurs. that's how switzerland, by the way, always has interpreted its neutrality, at least until recently. and how awesome also i'm. unfortunately, i have until recently did interpret neutrality in my understanding, it makes no sense to declare yourself, militarily, permanently neutral, if at the same time, the country shines in measures you course measures against another country in the situation of armed conflict. i mean, well let's, let's talk you actually i wrote that you see sanctions as a continuation of politics. by other means you also suggest that sanctions go again,

functions a population at large indiscriminately go against human rights. how do you reset your conclusion? in this, i would say rather easy to provide the argumentation and by the way i did raise the issue for the 1st time, internationally in 1991 in connection with the sanctions were imposed by the united nations security council on the rock. as far as human rights are concerned, if the result of comprehensive economic sanctions is that the population suffers enormously. that for instance, the health services collapse and that as a result of this thousands of thousands of people die. this is a very serious violation of human rights and i consider human rights as abuse or

jones of general international law. and that applies by the way, also to united nation sections. and of course, as far as unilateral sanctions are concerned in boast by one country or a group of countries as coercive measures in a confrontation with another country. those are anyway outside the framework of international law. because according to international law, it is only the united nations security council that has to order to, to impose sanctions as part of the core versus measures. the next step of course, measures according to ensure that would be the use of force. but if countries that use such a shipment measures like sanctions and their own initiative, there is no actual authorization, whatever the situation may be, except it's and the kind of right of self defense would be if

a country isn't that isn't, is a text. it may with force, but also may use other forms of forcing tooling economic or a legal issue, but also a moral issue. and the problem with the current batch of international sanctions is that they just like not only the russians, but they may for the rest of the world as well. and there are many experts for warning about the spectra map or hunger in western africa. people around the world suffering from the increase of gas prices and fuel prices. good. how do you think the world will react? he'll be jack to feel so essentially carrying the brand of the american decision. do you think the other countries would be ok with that or do you think they will voice some objections regardless of what their stands on?

rushes, actions are. i think for the 1st the large majority of countries of to work with a new way. not agree with those sanctions policy which has been, which is being enforced right now by the western countries. legally, those companies have no right any way to oblige other countries, such as for instance, india or china or turkey to go along with those. because these are sanctions adopted by the united nations. as far as the people in those countries that impose the sanctions are concerned, i think what has not been thought through by the western politicians is that what will happen? directions that will happen when the people begin to feel the problems themselves. in such a case,

this mass hysteria which we have seen now in some of the western countries, me quite quickly. the question and people may disagree, let me get to disagree with their governments about some of the sanctions and you seals or concerning the oil and gas. the european countries have made an exception and they always say a minute for me, it's quite ironic. they officially say in the brightness and foreign minister sanctions not must be structured in such a way that do they do not affect us negative. it is a rather a promise if not a statement. if you treat yourself as 2 separate entities and either me or the brand of your decision, whether your creation should not,

you should be somehow isolated from that. isn't that, you know, that sounds a lot. it's certainly supremacy. that's what i would say. and it is the standards, by the way, now we have a game season, high season of hypocrisy and double standards concerning international norms and government. we should impose punitive measures in such a way that only the other side is heard and all the people do not so so to speak. do not have to make any sacrifices. only the other side has to make a sacrifice and we have to push the other side into a certain direction through a kind of collective punishment. because that is what actually what the sanctions in this, on this large scale are. and in that regard,

sanctions against human rights 1 may act if one has agreement disagreements or his dad is an armed confrontation or a war as we see now. the governments may act against the government of the other country, the policies of which they oh, but to take the entire people of that other country, hostage by phone sanctions, by the way, also in the field of culture. what does it to, you know, what literature or sports has to do with all of that? that, of course is collective punishment. and that is a violation of human rights. and that certainly is a violation of most basic legal principles, doctor rehab to living there. thank you. very much for this conversation. thank you for watching hope to see her again next week with

mm ah, ah. so intense interrogation techniques used by us officials were basically designed as techniques to break down the human mind. if you force a human being to stay in a certain position doesn't take very long to the pain involved to become absolutely excruciating. but nobody clean finger on you. you are doing it to

yourself. we started adopting those techniques when i was station in mosul among them were stress, position, sleep deprivation. and using hyper thermo is already beginning to be evidence that these old techniques are now being used on immigrant and children, whatever you do or more me comes home. nobody has been held accountable for the torture that happened in the past. the moral authority that made america later sacrifice. but the shimmer of effective interrogation ah, a with

headline stories this hour, the russian defense ministry slums, as i pro vacation, disturbing footage from the ukranian toner butcher in the key region, stating that no civilians were killed by russian troops. after you've been in officials release pictures of mass graves in the town allegedly filmed after russian forces had left also asia battalion that is said to be nazi affiliated organization, operating as a militia in your country. you know, they are what they are. the answer from the ukranian president when quiz about the alleged atrocities of the neo nazi a self battalion which vladimir zalinski admitted in the same interview fights this part of the country's forces your reaction from locals in.