and so i totally disagree with the idea of nationalizing, i'd like to see more competition, less monopolization and less regulation all all the way through 30 minutes as well. i'll be back with another lecture weekly. this is our transnational, i with welcome to wells of. there is one thing in common between the russians and the americans. it is a deep seated believe that the passage of time reveals the moral truth from st. augustan to martin luther king from president obama to president putin. and now

president vida, and they all have a soul seated themselves and that causes with the right side of history. that is the divide between good and evil. indeed, so stark and irreconcilable. well discuss that. i am now joined by charles corruption senior fellow at the council of foreign relations and professor of international affairs at georgetown university professor captain. it's very rare treat for me these days to speak to western i experts and form officials like yourself. i'm very, very grateful for this opportunity, but i also have to ask you, why did you decide to talk to r t given the in, you know, the potential academic and professional repercussions that you may face? well, i'm some one who believes that we should keep the corridors of communication, even as the relationship between russia and the united states gets worse and worse, even as the war goes on and casualties continue to mount. i think

that that, you know, dialogue is always better than no dialogue. so that's why i'm sitting here, having this conversation with you. thank you for that. and the previous time i interviewed you was, i think in the summer of 2017, when we thought that the relationship in russia in the united states, the lowest point after crimea and all these to the russian mythology surrounding the trump administration. this is the way seen from moscow at least. but in hindsight, it seems that the back back then, it wasn't that bad. do you think we have the rock bottom already or the worst is yet to come? it's hard to say, i mean we're, we are clearly at one of the lowest points in us, russian relations and i would clue include the cold war. yeah. mad. i think this is

as dangerous a moment as we've seen because right now are in a hot war in which bombs are dropping missiles or flying. fortunately, russia is not in a war with nato, but it's conceivable that this war could spread. you know, many of us feared, going back to 2014, that in the russian annexation of crimea and intervention in don boss could just be the beginning of that. at some point, russia might try to create a land bridge between don boss and crimea. that seems to be what's happening as we speak. let's talk about that. what do you think is the reasoning for such dramatic action? because after the crimean operation, i fully agree with you. despite all the domestic support that had had to rush i had to pay, we just have central cars, both in terms of sanctions, you know, diplomatic pressure loss, opportunities, etc. now what we are having in your brain is a of much bigger scale,

human suffering, destruction, a huge cost economic costs to russia. and yes, i think you have studies russia for quite some time. and you, i think know that putin is a rational leader. why do you think that he made the decision that he made? well, you know, i'm, i'm glad you, you raised this issue goodness rationality because i'm someone who did see guten as aggressive as difficult as expansion as but as calculating as rationalist. he took risks, but they tended to be relatively small risks at low cost grabbing south the santa of how's the crimea don boss going into syria, nor gone or car box libya. these were relatively a misstatement. i mean, there,

there were rushes involvement in all those territories, but they were different in nature, you know, south i think is not part of russia at this point of time. and just as no, one of the kind of out by the way, levy is not part of russia, neither syria. so, you know, let's say let's, you know, it be differentiated for the sake of your own students. i think you don't want to lump over there. yeah. stuff, the 2nd i'm has the aren't that different from crimea and done boss. they're both land grabs into their neighbors country. yes, i agree with you. syria and libya are different, but the point here is that these were relatively small operations going in to ukraine. is different. i'm some one who did not think that cook was actually done to invade ukraine, because i thought it was such a miscalculation, such a dangerous and reckless move. and i think that book and really was delusional. he believed what he said. he believed that behind every ukrainian was

a want to be russia and, and that the russian troops would go into your brain. and the russian of the ukrainian military would collapse and everybody would say, oh, thank god the russians are here. that's, that's ukraine, that doesn't exist ever since 2014, including an eastern ukraine. ukrainians want nothing to do with russ. i would have thought that couldn't understood that. that's why his invasion has been such a miscalculation and has gone so poorly. he misunderstood ukraine. i think you're operating on the assumption that russia is, will be trying to essentially swallow your brain, incorporated territory into russia proper. and i hear a lot of high profile russian analysts, i'm hearing again that they believe that that is going to be the worst possible scenario for russia and neither put in, nor any of his generals ever voiced such an intention on the record. so again,

if we try to stay, stay in your previous framework of putin being irrational rather than delusional actor what could possibly be the rationality and impressing you on that because you actually laid it out in, in, in your article. scare me for once mentioned nathan here. well, i mean, i think that the aims have shifted. i would agree with you or your russian colleagues. i don't expect russia to try to swallow. you pray now because i think they've realised that it would be swallowing a porcupine. that it's not going to work that there are $44000000.00 saving ukrainians. who would marshall an insurgency against the russian occupation? that's my assessment of why russia has changed its war aims to try to enlarge its land to grab in eastern ukraine, have a bigger chunk of don boss and connected to crimea. i'm guessing that russia won't continue to push to the west, but who knows? my fear here is that probably isn't as calculating and rational as he used to be.

and my evidence for that is the invasion of ukraine itself. it was a mistake in a move, as far as nato's concerned. there's no question that be enlargement of data going back to the 1990 s has been a major source of grievance between russia and the west. but i do say that there was a conversation taking place late last year into early this year. that gave me the wiggle room that he needed by then said schools out ukrainian membership is not under consideration. the president of france talked about finland, ization, president zalinski himself said, maybe this nato membership thing isn't going to happen if guten had wanted to. he had trade space, he could have picked up on those leads, but he didn't. and that says to me, that he wanted to invade,

he had already made the decision to invade, and that's why i did. well, i was a captain on that specific point. both you and i know that there was a diplomatic effort to settle this peacefully without the use of military force. there were a couple of phone calls in the kremlin and the white house did all the year. and there was a meeting in geneva. we've been putting them by then a long meeting during which they, according to my sources, discussed different ways that russia and america exert that influence. it influences on neighboring populations and neighboring countries and peoples. they also discuss security sensibilities. and i was told, at least that they reached a 10 year agreement to lee lee been left leave. and that's why the diplomatic effort continued after that. why do you think it didn't work out at the end? i don't know what the kremlin is thinking was on ukraine,

but clearly they were considering military intervention for quite some time. we saw the mobilization of forces earlier last year than those forces pulled back van late last year. we said, we start to see a very substantial deployment of forces close to 200000 on 3 sides the south, the east and the north are really threatening to carry out what has happened, which was a full scale invasion of the country. why put and decided to do that rather than to stay at the negotiating table? i don't know. this is an issue that could have and should have been resolved through diplomacy. for some reason, you probably know better than i guten, decided that his preferred option was to use military force. i think part of the problem here is that he realised that he was, quote, unquote, losing ukraine,

that ever since 2014, after the russian ins and intervention. ukraine was really beginning to chart its own course. it was no longer wanted to be part of a russian sphere of influence that appeared to be intolerable to mr. brewton. he said, as much in his speeches, he said, ukraine is part of russia. ukraine doesn't deserve to exist as an independent state for the sake of china. you are not accurate. he never said about ukraine not deserving to exist as a sovereign state. although he did say that there are many cultural historical ethnic links between our peoples. and he doesn't believe that the russian and ukrainian people historically apart. so one collective. now having said that, i do think that he was afraid of losing ukraine, but on the different ground. because starting in 201314 ukraine was increasingly militarized by various natal members without even assuming nature

treaty obligations. don't you think that in and of itself presented a major strategic vulnerability for russia. nato using ukraine, prosecuting essentially ukrainian territory for its own means without even taking the obligations to protected when i comes to shop the world. number one, he did say that ukraine is part of russia, and he, he did refer to the linguistic historical religious ties. and yes, there are such ties, but that doesn't mean that russia has a right to invade and try to occupy it's country those days are long. i agree with you 100 percent, but it also doesn't mean that you bring have the right of again prostituting its land to allow i have been hostile, military alliance to poses a major strategic rev for us. and you, yourself are on record saying that all major powers desire strategic breathing room

. how else could russia ensure that strategic breathing room without your brain being either neutral or in some other, under some other agreement that would allow russian not to be fearful about, you know, 3 minutes that it would take for rockets to be launch from key of to moscow, well, i object to the language that keith is prostituted itself. he was making its own sovereign choices about how it wanted to conduct its foreign policy. first of all, 2nd of all, this, the military support that nato gave to ukraine over the last several years. going back to 20. 14 was actually quite limited. nato provided eventually under the trunk administration, a limited number of javelins, anti tank weapons, but was otherwise giving mostly small arms, mostly training, mostly advice. it was not given ukraine, the ability to pose

a military threat to russia. there were no missiles, there would not be any missiles that ukraine can use to strike against russia, but i will grant you this. i can understand why russia would feel uncomfortable with nato coming closer, closer to miss borders. but that's why i think this is an issue that could have and should have been resolved at the negotiating table. but let's be honest, you brain was not given the kinds of weaponry. and it's still not being given the kinds of weaponry that pose a threat to moscow or russian territory. that is simply a false claim. professor captain, i really really want to return to this going, but after a very short break, can we do that in a few moments? sure. ah.

for to 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 open, 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 ah

welcome back to was a part of it. charles corruption, senior fellow at the council for foreign relations and professor of international affairs at georgetown university. for his a question before the break, you mentioned that it was a false premise of mine to suggest that, you know, nato was militarize in ukraine than ever presented any military. so i had to rush and i want to mention 2 points here. before doing this show i was there workers funding and i was on the ground in libya and syria, and it was pretty easy to observe there that you don't need to heavily on the entire population. the entire country to destabilize it. you know, it takes, you know, only a small minority to wreak, care, rushes, history itself is, is a good example of that. and the 2nd point is that i'm sure you know, following the medic security conference that said top security conference in the, in the west. and it was at that conference that president allows you earlier this

year, openly talk about acquiring the idea of acquiring nuclear weapons. and no one in the audience or no one in western capitals said anything today to that effect, even though presumably there are still non pro nuclear, non proliferation regime in place around the world. don't you think that that in of itself, the kind of signals that are well, possibly anxious moscow could have interpreted, not the way that you would want it to interpret? well, again, it's kind of a preposterous idea that ukraine is going to attack russia. ukraine mines its own business. ukraine has been reform, it gets military, making it more capable, but showing no signs of having aggressive intent against anybody. so the idea, the idea that russia invaded ukraine to neutralize a threat that's simply not. 0 credible,

it's simply not credible. the bigger issue of nato enlargement and nato membership, i understand, but there was no imminent threat that warranted rush and military intervention. this is a problem that should have been resolved, but the negotiating table putin owns this war. well, professor captain, i agree with you 100 percent and owns this war in those just put in, but also russia. we will bury this. we will carry rather this send for years decades and perhaps even generations to come. this is a huge tragedy for all of us. we all have relatives in ukraine and they call us actually every single day we are, you know, very much connected to that conflict. no illusions about that. but at the end of the day, put in is the president of russia, and he has obligations before russia in defending its strategic security. don't you think again and we keep circling around that question that the west could have been

a little bit more accommodating, if not for the sake of russia. then for the sake of ukraine, in providing russia with the security that it asked for. and what it asked for is simply the guarantees of neutrality and ukraine, not joining any other military alliances. what's the, what's the goal was the purpose of repeating that ukraine can join neither one day . what's the benefit of that? tell me? well, i think we're in agreement that this war is a tragedy, and that there are no winners. i do think that that the, the rub here was the tension between the principal, the west wanted to stand by its principal, but nato's doors were open. that countries in a world of sovereignty and liberal democracy should be able to make their own choices that russia should have a veto over the choices of free and independent countries. but the reality was the

ukranian membership in nato. precisely for the reasons that we've been talking about was not under consideration. it was not eminent. it was not on the agenda that should have been that should have been enough to provide mr. pohden and his colleagues the needed room to find a way under the circumstances. i don't understand why mister poodle opted for a military invasion, which was going to be a huge cost for his country for a very long time to come. i really want to ask you about the matter of principle because, and this is a very hot issue here, and you wrote recently that washington's commitment to keeping native doors open to ukraine speaking about not being under the consideration was a quote, a laudable and principle stand against an autocratic russia, and as far as i can see that i have an extended family in ukraine,

some of them i in bomb shelters. and these people believe that ukraine was very cynically used by america and abandoned by america in the time of need. it now has to deal one on its own with a much stronger army. can you explain me what is so laudable? what is the principle about that? what's laudable in principle about it is number one that the united states has in its dna. the idea that people should be free and it has seen later when large went as a tool for standing by that principle, i think that's one of the reasons that mr. biden, the secretary general of nato. other name leaders, were unwilling to renounce that principle. but it's not accurate to say that ukraine is on its own. ukraine has enormous support. ukraine is getting a huge amount of political, economic,

and military support from nato countries. even though a decision has been made correct in my mind, not to escalate not to put boots on the ground, not to enforce the no fly zone. because that would mean war between nato and russia back could mean world war 3. now, you mentioned that need to supposedly being very deliberate not to, you know, make provocative gestures to who is russia and just the other day american secretaries of defense and state met with some of their allies at the american military base in germany to discuss the possible supplies of weapons, which are going to be used against the russian army. now, i know that you advise president obama on european affairs, so i'm sure you understand implications and sort of historic associations, annotations of anyone meeting at a military base in germany to discuss the supply of arms to be used against the

regular russian army. do you understand how dangerous it could be? i mean, i'm asking you as a person who was born in saint petersburg, i mean my own family suffering under the siege. us has put his family. i mean, you can laugh at that, but we all carry that in in our blood. no, i understand that i am, i'm, i'm smiling because it's, it's russia that has attacked ukraine. russia has started this war and made oh, in the united states are providing the ukrainians, the ability to defend themselves. and they have been quite explicit about avoiding the kinds of weapons that could lead to potential escalation. so on the contrary, the u. s. is not abandon the ukraine, it's helping the ukrainians fight back. am ukrainians? have done a remarkable job. but let's be honest. the risk of escalation is still considerable

. russia might decide to interdict weapons coming in from mayo territory. we've heard russia threatened the potential use of nuclear weapons which is unthinkable. and that's why i think we need to see d escalation and a ceasefire and a diplomatic effort as soon as possible to avoid those much more dangerous outcomes . you mentioned recently that the united states in the light of all that danger needs to return to reality. and when i was a student in america or a professor is used to insist on operationalizing abstract concepts. can i ask you for the same favorite? can you actually explain exactly how the united states would return to reality? because as far as moscow is concerned, american actions are totally illogical when it becomes both to russia and much of the rest of the world. you mentioned the idealistic orientation that the

united states supposedly has and you know, bending the art of history towards justice, we see in a completely different lives with millions of people sent to that data in the middle east in afghanistan. and now in ukraine, by the americans trying to make this world a better place. well, you know, i think i balanced the united states has succeeded in making the world a more decent place for our international audience. one recent example when american efforts, especially defense associated efforts, you know, related to nato and spreading of democracy. when that lets you lasting piece of stable piece as you like to talk about. well, you know, i would go back to world war 2. when the united states intervene to help defeat nazi germany and imperial japan, and we've seen a major expansion in the footprint of democracy and freedom of the rule of law.

ever since, has the united states made mistakes? you bet. did the wars in afghanistan and iraq turn out? well, no, they did not, but i would say this, they were motivated by good intentions. they were motivated by the desire not just to take down extremist groups in afghanistan, but to help afghanistan stand up as a democratic pluralist, liberal country, and that effort failed. i cannot attribute, benign intent to russia's use of military force. it's invasion of ukraine is a, is a, is about of aggressive territorial conquest. russia, unfortunately, does not have the same noble aims as the united states. professor captain, what matters in reality is not your intentions. you can as correct yourself whatever. no, because if you want, what matters is the results and i'm asking you again, can you mention

a single conflict? the united states got itself and well then over the last, let's say 20 years. that last you a lasting piece. because if you mentioned 2nd world war, we were allies back then we have no problems with the united states, a little problems with the united states. now we are enemies precisely because the united states to give it upon itself to change the world by military means and make it far more dangerous that it wasn't the beginning. now actually world war 2 is an important one. and again, it shows that russia and the united states can work together, and maybe one day we can get back to that, although i don't think it's going to occur while mr. brewton is the president. but i do think that even in the post cold war era, we have seen number one, the it states and nato go into a ball into the balkans and stop the conflict there. there hasn't been any bloodshed in that region since the end of the dissolution of yugoslavia. and the united states has in many respects helped to bring down and fight extremism who led

the counter. i so campaign, the united states, that's a war that worked at the benefit of russia. again, has the united states made mistakes? yes. but has it succeeded in largely taking down the islamic state and al qaeda? yes. has it made the world safer from a sonic extremism? yes. so it's a, it's a mix texture. but over the course of his history, i think the united states has been on the right side. it's been on the side of democracy and freedom and justice. unfortunately, i cannot say the same thing about russia. we are out of time, let me again express my gratitude for engaging with us in this conversation has been great talking to you. thank you very much for that. it's been my pleasure. let's keep the conversation go. thanks and thank you all yours for watching hope to see you again next week on the world's apart. ah

ah ah ah ah ah ah a

ah it ah, a new guys. we report from just outside the fiji as a stall steel factory. the last part be premium nationalist resistance and are you as the forces there allegedly used civilians as human fields also this hour? we need the worlds that is multi polar with multi level institutions, while the un tooth and other powers called for more multiple already in the world. the us tries to convince countries to oppose that initiative with no more russian gas for poland and bulgaria after they refuse to pay and roubles, but they try to minimize the impact of.