in fact, the weather is with me. hello and welcome to worlds apart. there's little doubt that there was when you just 3 years ago is no more and it keeps transforming very rapidly. even the nature of change is changing. how have you from china, a country with at least 5000 to your long history, and you have a very adaptive, very agile approach to shifting grounds. to discuss it, i'm now joined by and the more senior research for a center for china and globalization. it's

a mac and 3 to talk to you. thank you very much for time to be here. now i think that would both agree that the conflict in your brain while still localized is a symptom of much broader process. how do you see it? what is it about for you? well, i think the conflict in ukraine is a tragedy, certainly for the civilians that have been effective, but also for the military on both sides. we know that war kinetic conflict is a terrible thing in terms of the human cost of lives, lost people hurt named and also the economic destruction. but i would not agree that it is a localized conflict because as i've written and spoken about other venues, i believe that this really is 3 different conflicts for wars. there is also a media or again,

the war being waged by the western countries with the angle phone countries at its core. and perhaps most significantly, there is an economic war that is being waged, initiated by the us and its allies, its russia. and it's this 3rd war that i think in particular, is having a global impact. and we are only starting to see the beginnings of it. and he's affecting energy prices. it's affecting food prices. it's also affecting further wise prices and for wiser availability which can have long term repercussions for food security. and perhaps most unfortunately for the global order, i think it really has destroyed what remaining legitimacy there is in the us lead financial system, mr. mcdaniel up to impact here. so let's go step by step and i want to 1st

advertise something that you mentioned that the military aspect of this struggle in your view is beliefs significant from a geo political perspective. you're essentially saying that war as tragic and as horrible as it is, is not the most dangerous thing that's going on right now. do i understand you correctly? well, a yes and no. so i do think the military conflict is a catalyst for the propaganda or slash media war and the economic war. so they're not completely separate. also we can see, and i think this is very, very dangerous and alarming is the military conflict does have the potential to escalate both in terms of the, the geographical scope of the conflict as well as the types of weapons being used. and i think everyone around the world is very,

very concerned about the potential of this escalating to some sort of nuclear exchange. so i would maybe modify a little bit what you said to say that i do think the military conflict is important. having. busy broader repercussions, but clearly the economic war is having an immediate global impact. and i think a has a least forces that may reshape the world in ways that many people might not like to see. in one of your articles, you pointed out that many old school american strategies be yours, cannon, henry kissinger, john marriage, hymer, they all warned against crossing russia, ran lines and ukraine, and they did not out of concern for russia, but rather out of concern for the international system that by and large is still shaped in favor of the united states. wouldn't be fair to say that this animosity, i don't know what else the towards or russia or pigeon personally,

is blinding western decision makers have their own peril that they're harming their own interest in doing that. so you're absolutely right. that are people like john mearsheimer in particular are realist and have a very pragmatic view of international fairs, as of course, does henry kissinger and arguably towards cannon as well. so you are absolutely right to say that they've warned against exactly what is happening today. not out of concern for russia, but i think out of a very clear eyed understanding of the nature of the world in particular the nature of europe. and i think this leads me to this idea of indivisible security which has, for whatever reason, either inadvertently, or deliberately been ignored by the west, by nato. and dismissing the legitimacy of russian security concerns that

i think reasonable people can debate. and are you, you know, which of those concerns can be accommodated or should be accommodated? but this kind of wholesale dismissal legitimacy of it, i think, has been very, very bad for russia. but also self destructive were the auto co global international, the global warner, which really, i think we mean the us international order. now essentially, between russia and 800 particular not new. and yet, you know, there is a sounds the. a there's a lot of similarity between divide and administration and the obama administration . their rhetoric is similar. there are a lot of, you know, the same people working for that administration. and yet, it is my perception that during the obama administration, while all those tensions were still present in your brain and sarah, in many other parts of the world,

that the obama nutrition still managed to avoid bringing it to such an acute blow out. that may be wrong. i what i want to ask is whether you see any difference between the obama administration and the vitamin administration and the ability to predict and strategize about how they deal with russian. well, i think certainly there is significant overlap between the obama administration and buy it into ministration. as you say, i think the world use probably a lot to different. i think maybe there has been some difference in terms of the execution of the number of those policies. you know, president obama to time was reputed to him, said, never underestimate goes ability to ask things up. but, you know, as we've seen with, with crawl from afghanistan, certainly, i think the verdict on the western response to russia's,

the russian creating conflict, i think still remains to be seen. i do disagree with a lot of the western narrative that this is proven to be a colossal failure on the part of russia. i think that it's probably too early to tell. so. ready you know, we have to see, i think what difference though is that certainly, while obama in the obama administration there was a talk of the pivot to asia, certainly under the, by, in the, by did administration. there is a very clear recognition that china's the pacing threat and again, whether we'll see a significant change as a result of the conflict crane or not. certainly, i think the rhetoric and the bi demonstrations been very, very consistent that the u. s. is attention really should be on china. but mr. morgan, i, there are a lot of analyst, even here in russia, who said,

just that indirect me. these calls like may be beneficial to china because while the americans keep talking their talk, the ability to actually address what they see as china's problem is now curtailed significant. next time. do you agree with that? well, i can certainly see why some or would say that. but i think that one thing we should bear in mind too is that a chain is rhetoric. and i will say behavior has been consistent over decades. and that that alignment is around the central idea. the peaceful development really has to be the goal. and a corollary to that is that this cold war block type thinking are us versus them. the good guys versus the bad guys are, is really counterproductive for every body. of course,

it's not in china's interest to pursue a new cold war or some sort of destructive a competition or with other countries around the world. i would say that even for the united states, that it would be much better served or if it did not have to devote as much money as it does to our, the military to defend spending. and could we allocate some of that towards domestic priorities. so, but in my view, i think that china's been very consistent in its words, and his actions are to promote peaceful development for all. now, i'm myself, a russian, and we're, the russians are known for him, you know, our emotionality, and sometimes the poor execution of critical thinking. but even to me, when i look at the way how these are conflict and many others are covered in west

media, it's, it's roy, emotion or shameless moralizing, almost. and, and the total at a cost of total exclusion of any nuance, any context, any analysis. and i wonder if it's a tactic of persuasion or what you mentioned as the propaganda war before, or whether it is perhaps even a bigger problem of the west, essentially losing the ability to see reality or to approach reality as it is rather than what it wanted to be i think there's probably a little bit of both. so in fact, one area that i focus on in research is understanding the difference between the chinese system and the western can system really centered around the world. i think one thing that gets really missed is that there really is a profound difference in world view and in the west. again,

starting mostly would be a world where there is a dualistic view of the world that comes from plato. ready from greek philosophy that sees the world is 2 separate spheres. so there is the world of absolute truth . justice freedom exists in some absolute way and the world that we see him live in are these shadows, was plato, calls it shadows on the wall. where's the chinese view? is that in fact there's only one world and where that leads to a problem, then you talk about the moralizing is that for countries like the u. s. and other countries that have very strong certain kind of christian tradition is that the idea of being there only being one true god and being on the side of righteousness is seen is very, very important use. and what we have to take

a very short break right now. we will be back in just a few moments. mm. mm. news. ah, ah, ah, ah. a ah

. the, the news. mm. the welcome back to world boards with the more senior research fellow at the center for china and globalization, which are more before the break. we were talking about these different ontological philosophical approaches between china and the west. and it also has, you know, very practical implications. i think in many countries and, but especially china, very sensitive, very attuned to that of ordinary features of life, you know, poverty and leaving stuff there's, you know, providing for the people. whereas many in the west have taking the prosperity that

they have over the last couple of decades for granted. now the changes start to talk with them as well and you know, people are seeing them at the palms they're seeing in the supermarket. do you think, how, how much longer do you think there was get afford to maintain this godly attitude towards the rest of the world and seeing itself as the only dispenser of common goods? well, this is exactly, but i think the world that we're facing in that you know, we return this idea of the well as having this dualistic view the world. busy and that the us from the western countries being the godly, moralizing seders, what we see replacing terms like religious piety and virtue, now are freedom and democracy. and this is the dynamic that's driving it. however, i think we are in new territory now because this economic war has also

seen the shattering of the legitimacy of the us lead financial system. so the seizing of russian bang central assets, i think really has caused a reevaluation around the world. and it's not only russia a ron dennis wales that have suffered these kinds of sanctions. but now i think many, many countries are thinking that, you know, it's probably not a bad idea to have an alternative to swift, to alternative to the us dollar. and that, i think will unleash profound consequences that the u. s. may very well come to regret, but those that have suffered under dollar germany may have caused to celebrate one potential luther in this conflict. even though it for now proclaims its allegiance to the united states. is europe, it's interesting that many western or rather european countries,

while they continue a pledging or paying lip service to their unity, it's pretty clear that, you know, they share or of the burden from the sanctions. and from the economic disturbance where the with russia is very different from, for, from country to country. how much longer do you think these unity can, can be maintained given how differently the fallout is distributed. the geo political logic of europe after world war 2 was to keep germany down russia out of the u. s. id. so now as we see germany announcing much greater defense spending as a result of these recent events. we have to see again, you know, this, if this indeed does lead to a significant re militarization in germany, i think that will have repercussions within the u,

but also globally as well. we also then need to look at the, just the pure economics of it. and, you know, i've spoken to hedge fund investors that focus on the energy sector. and you know, there's a feeling that in fact, not just the most, some investors, but i picking some germans as well that their economic interest in future actually are more aligned with russia. they let the united states, and this could be the catalyst that fractions, this unity, again, you know, i think predicting the future is incredibly difficult if not impossible, but i think certainly it raises these questions. you mentioned this, this new trends of germany reshaping its stance on. busy reservation and a couple of days ago, there was a major meeting of nato countries or nader representatives, one of

a military basis, american military base in germany, where they discussed the supply of weapons to ukraine to fight their regular russian army. and as a russian, as a person who was born in leningrad, i can tell you that, i mean, even with cool, strategic approach. and, you know, they have here as to reality tickets. extremely, extremely difficult for the russians. you, you know, to see germany being a center of military is ation against the russia. again, how concerned are you about those irrational factors? you know, you said that it's difficult to predict the future, but we also have a very, very difficult history in the lives of many people in the psychology of many people is still alive. i completely agree. and i think this is what makes these security challenges. so that thing,

so to see it in simplistic terms as russia launched an unprovoked attack and gives you ukraine i think is overly simplistic not to say what russia did is justify, are completely justified. but these are complex issues that are partly crowded in some objective factors like economics, like national security, but also the experienced live experiences of different people in that region. and clearly, you know, the history has been tragic, but also i think, plays today's still a very, very work role. now, let's also not forget the economic aspect of it. and as you mentioned before, it's not just an issue for russia and the ones there. there's the rest of the world as well that is forced without even being asked to carry the burden of certainly

unilateral decisions. and there are many countries in africa and asia that are genuinely concerned about the danger of hunger because of the arising fuel and with prices. we don't know what the future may bring yet. depend damage is not fully over. do you think the rest of the world which is keeping you can try to find now i think by and large, do you think it will remain quiet or stable as is not stable but and non protesting for now or do you think there would be some conversation some initiative launched to sort of reshape the system so that it is not a how, hostage by the decision of any group of entries the russia let's say. busy or the united states, i think every country around the world shears a common interest in seeing this conflict being resolved as quickly as possible. but i'm afraid that given what's happened so far, the economic effects,

including the impact of food supply will be with us for quite a while. so we need to understand that ukraine, russia dollars are, are important sources of grains like corn wheat ah barley, but also important sorts of fertilizer as well. and one of the issues is even if the caught, the military conflict were to start tomorrow. or there has still been damage to court facilities, other infrastructure that may constrain the ability to ship for food and other commodities. so i think unfortunately of the world war read the suffer as a result of this. now the question is, how bad will again, and again, it's not only rising energy prices as we've seen now,

are with countries like poland, ah, and both guerria unwilling to pay and roubles. that's causing energy prices to rise up. now as planting seasons of different crops, passive crops are not planted. there will be long term effects. unfortunately. now you mentioned the issue of currency and russia and china have already switched to on. you nominated a trade in certain m like in oil i, i think also gas, but the rest of the world is still kind of in the middle. there are some talks between china and saudi arabia, about doing the same. and transitioning to you on, i, you know, i, what i want to ask you is whether china is indeed dad much interested in that or raising the propping of the, the importance of young given how significant it's foreign reserves are still,

you know, even the proportion of it's for and reserves that are still denominated in dollar. why do you know country want? it's people are economy to be held hostage. and we've seen, of course, what's happening to russia most recently. but iran has been, dennis whaler has been in this boat. even countries like france and germany that we're looking to work with iran also encountered some very severe constraints and tried to set up their own payment system, i believe is called ins techs so there clearly is global demand for an alternative to dollars in germany. and we can see also india, i believe, a set up a ruby rubel mechanism to continue to trade with russia. so again, i think that the key issue here, which, you know,

i go back to this comments that the binding administration may have inadvertently damaged american interests. far worse than any benefits they could get from their economic war against russia. because the u. s. is not only a very player in the economic arena globally, but also it has been a referee. if we think about the dollar as a reserve currency as a global of accounts swift, which, you know, although in name is but actually is defacto controlled by the united states that seen as a fair, unbiased part of the global infrastructure as now we've seen, can be weaponized, and i think this lots of legitimacy really will have one for re progressions and it's not a question. it's now mr. mark,

speaking about the nature of money as you point out in many of your articles, money be yawn the rubble or diller. just at the end of the day, pieces of paper or bits in the, in the digital database. there ultimately means of accounting and what matters the most of the terms of the exchange and whether there is terms will or will not be changed. mean way as often happens to the us dollar. now as you on rises in permanent, do you think china will be able to resist the temptation of abusing it's a newly found influence? well, that's a very good question. i think there's 2 ways to answer this. so, what is that we can understand global currency, regimes or empires is following a life cycle. what humans have a life cycle ready? galileo, the hedge fund investor,

the founder bridgewater very large spokes hedge fund right extensively about this, that if you look at the history of the dutch field for the british pound of us dollar, you see a period of rise and decline. and this will happen independently. what does regarding the us again, we have to see, i think clearly i think that china has shown a commitment to being a responsible stakeholder in the global system. so i think we have that because the other thing is that i think that the dollar of the grant will not replace the dollar, but certainly having an alternative. it could be very valuable and i think will have profound geopolitical consequences because one of the results

are not just dollar gemini, put the dollar, becoming pure fee money after $971.00. when the link with gold was severed, is that it allowed us essentially to print as much money as it wanted to buy things domestically and globally that had wanted. and one of these things that it wanted was a global military footprint. so the u. s. i believe the u. s. military budget is more than $800000000000.00. now that if the u. s. is constrained in its ability to essentially print, i'll use that or not, backed by old. think certainly that will cause a change in its ability to spend, including spending on the military. so i think this is another very, very important consequence of what we're witnessing as a result of the u. s. as economic was rushed. let's leave it here. it's been a great pleasure talking to you. thank you very much for that. thank you. have

a good and thank you for watching hope to see you again next week. all the part. ah, a ah ah, the group of 7 has vowed not to lead when his war against ukraine announced new restrictive measures. but what about the officially enforced narrative blaming? ukraine is winning. the wes attempt to weaken russia have failed. in fact, the west is weakening itself.

with awe is one of the most beautiful cities and rushes far east. ah, it sits on the, on the river that runs on the rush of china buddha and was for many years the far eastern capital. ah, there is no shortage of historical sites here. the officers club is one of them. this is where in december 1949, 12 members of japan's quinton army stood trial.