i just wanted to sort of narrow our attention a little bit, q and b, a whole listing attention to now. and by that, i mean, of course, the lens and ukraine. he's a very difficult decision for the russians. we will have to deal with the consequences of animals, moral and economic and political consequences for many years to combat. the question i hear open here in oscar is whether it could have been avoided whether russia could have a c, y, d, as in, as a stan. so goals without the use of military force. if we look at how things developed, it could have been avoided. if one would have implement those points that were agreed upon by both sides, but both parties of the conflict during the negotiations in men's and in particular,

i mean the very precise agreement on no specific measures on the 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. 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 main screen agreement. namely, the principle of self road or local self determination, which are also implies, friendship will offer candle federal state structure. and i added to the, the policy of permanent neutrality, which anyway was, oh,

what was initially when ukraine was founded and when they agreed on, on a little clear, the statues of the country in the ninety's. that was always an idea that shaped somehow the most foreign policy of ukraine. so that should also have been followed up. and if this would have happened, the armed confrontation, which is going on right now. and which is very unfortunate also by the way in terms of international nature in law. ringback 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 for the eastern provinces. national speaking majority, around 2018 in a conversation with the presidential candidate of ukraine. he was defeated,

who was a former minister of defense. i did 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 ensured 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 this were signed, the ukrainian side will be helpful. down western partners essentially suggested that, you know, those agreements reached under giraffe. there were sort of a political ploy. i q when time 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 be supported as a group where i can see the trail of your cranes national interest. and this is,

this is what was transmitted, not only in ukraine, but i think largely want to do. there was, of 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. 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 see that this all was achieved under duress. what i remember me if i may just get back to to that discussion which i had with a former minister of defense of ukraine when he was

a presidential candidate. he came to vienna and he wanted to explain his positions as part of his candidacy and his play. when i asked about 30 to me, provision was no, we can consider 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 and 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 only a minority in italy that was oppressed as a result of fishes policies of michelin. if you wanted to italian eyes, the germans be content audience. so he and the german language and so on. and as

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

a solution and mutually agreeable solution. which i'm not sure is the case in the ukrainian constant. 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 co sponsors off to meeting germany and france, they would never, they never say that they are not in favor of full implementation, but they did not follow up the visa, you crane on it. that for sure they should have on 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 was the leaders of the commanders of the she 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 your green and gold edition would have been in favor of a correct and full implementation. also of these domestic provisions, 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. she always encounters, difficulty in nature,

politics. you're not expected to have a smooth, right? especially when you are you and you happen to be present the country that is positioned right when you major military adversaries. that requires a certain acumen then that requires the so, you know, will a certain willingness to define your own nation. when you put a good not persuade b, a battalion not to metal into college. being to diplomatic. typical european i have to say because as a battalion is not just new enough to but ultimately nasty battalion is not just in politics, it's part and parcel. it's fully incorporated into the ukrainian state machine. you a or different grabbing the grounds. i know this will tell you what it is you 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 that they could take whatever the 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 more faces 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 ethnically ukrainian was also the band in the russian language. and i understand only too well are 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 brother 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 study or 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 formal quake system. and in a case such as the ukraine, a kind of amendment of the constitution in the direction of federal to listen 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 understood interprets it serves as a marcia because 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 rule a couple and we have to take a short break right now. we will be back to the discussion in just a few minutes. ah

oh, is your media a reflection of reality? in a world transformed what will make you feel safe, isolation, whole 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 shallow a. it

isn't with the when you know, maybe a bomb with a lot of the life with

a lot of me a to what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy implementation. let it be an arms. race is often very dramatic. that development only personally, i'm going to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successfully, very critical. i'm time to sit down and talk ah welcome back to wells of course with president of the international progress organization, dr kircher. before the break, we're discussing various ways oldsmar bringing that conflict 10. and one of the

things that you mentioned was neutrality. and i'm hearing a lot of russian analyst day 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 if signs to you a military neutrality is that something that the west them that americans in particular ever seriously commit, you can they commit to not trying to use russian neighborhood for their own geopolitical. busy 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 i mean, it was to regain our full sovereignty and independence and certainly to get rid of all these offered by 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 the check stubs not just 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 foreign minister either way also from all, as i mentioned earlier, to mr. 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 center of neutrality. he asked the indian prime minister in confidential meeting in switzerland in that's another $53.00 to sound the to find out what these of you 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 d, and i did stage these are the 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 used on for a, for any military attacks by their adversaries. you have positive and inspiring historical examples. i couldn't quite sometime now in time, do you think if you crean in deep signs up here, a can be neutral, neutral, or an 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 join any military alliance. it also means that such a permanently, militarily 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 also 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 to push your sanctions. well, let's, let's talk. you actually, i wrote that you see sanctions as a continuation of politics. by other means. he also suggested 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 by the way i did raise the issue for the 1st time, internationally in 1991 in connection with the sanctions that 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 then as a result of this thousands and thousands of people die. this is a very serious violation of human rights and i consider human rights as it used organs of general international law. and that the place by the way, also to united nation sections. and of course, as far as unilateral sanctions are concerned in both 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 in 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 as 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 is the, is a text. it may with force, but also may use other forms of forcing julian, 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 affect the rest of the world as well. and there are many aspects for warning about the spectra map or hunger in western africa. people around the world suffering from the increases of gas prices and fuel prices

. how do you think the world will react? he'll be jack to seal. 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 1st the large majority of counselors to work with a new way. not agree with those sanctions. policy, which is been, which is being enforced right now by the western countries. legally, those countries 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 questions 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,

then do they do not affect us negative. in fact, is that rather a promise, if not a statement, if you treat yourself as 2 separate entities and either me or the brand of your decision, but 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 the 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 he stairways and aren't confrontation or a war as we see now. the governments may act against the government of the other country, the policies of which they are. but to take the entire people of that other country, hostage by forms are sanctioned by the way, also in the field of culture. what does it to music, what literature or sports have 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, dr. clair rehab to living there. thank you very much for this conversation. you're welcome. thank you for watching hope to see her again next week with mm news . with

leveling a muscle around noon. she kitty doesn't being in the green shield on a nice to me, but i still mom with his ashley of nbc. wanted to let the dps it goes down to one to move please. this is jason with you, but he has not put the key for the chino, brian's can. that'll work for phones or something like that. we got that with a with

russia has called a un security council meeting following what moscow called the provocation by ukrainian radicals in the town of boucher near keith. that's after ukraine released images of bodies in the streets, blaming russian forces for the killing. the russian investigative committee has opened a criminal investigation into calls by the mayor of the ukrainian city of junior, for the killing of russians. quote, all over the world and in the largest possible quantities in fighting continues in the danielle republics, the city of mario bull, as russian forces move to capture the cities metallurgical plant, allegedly the last stronghold of the as of battalion in the area of corresponded

covers. the story from the ground, one of the tallest buildings in the city.