to operate in venezuela territory and extract crude oil with the simple objective of replacing imports of crude oil producing russia. was rough. now my name is peter scott's. i'll be back again to the top of the hour with another rundown of the weekly rights here on the international. ah, ah, me, the me ah, welcome to work some 30 years after the collapse of the soviet union. russia is once again at a cultural, trying to choose the path of development. going west no longer seems an option,

especially to be in your brain. but going east or turning is, is not that either it has russia past that point of no return. and where is it likely to go from here? to start that i'm now joined by and undone. christian distinguished fellow at the observer research foundation in new delhi is great to talk to you, sir. thank you for inviting. in one of your interviews, you said that you feel like an indian cosmo, polite with russia being your 2nd motherland. you spend a lot of time here as a child and as, as an adult, as a professional working here. how do you feel about the current state, about the current circumstances of the, of the country that you once hopefully hold your 2nd motherland? will we have to keep in mind that my 1st motherland is india. and i look at the world through indian eyes. and what is happening today in eurasia, particularly between russia and ukraine, puts india in

a very difficult situation. it increases the pressure that india is facing from multiple direction and narrows the space that india has to take decisions. so from that perspective, of course, india is not very happy. however, india at the same time recognizes that it is not a binary question of your either with us or with them. and therefore, india needs to exercise choices which reflect its national interest. india has had its own fair share of neighborly disputes, less put in diplomatic terms, but when it comes to the russians and ukrainians again, i want to rely on your personal expertise or personal experience of this region. do

you think this huge bit then, you know, russia and ukraine, the 2 countries are the 2 people that used to pull themselves brothers? do you think it was inevitable? was in a way, mandate conflict with all conflicts between human beings or men? mean, they are not inevitable, but yes, i think now looking back at history with fresh eyes, i think the tensions were developing between these 2 countries. long, long ago it was even before 2014. i would go back to the early 2, thousands. and i think that is the turning point when ukraine felt that it wanted to move into the western orbit. and russia, as a big, great part obviously felt that it needed certain countries to

on its borders, particularly not to be hostile to it, even if they are not with russia. but at least they could be openly hobnobbing as it were, with the enemy. and it is quite clear that near ukraine was headed into a very close embrace with western countries. it was not just about membership in you, they were military relations developing. but can i ask something? he said that it was not just about the membership of the you, but the membership of the year is that it's a beautiful dream perhaps for the ukraine is. but was it really ever offered to the ukrainians in concrete terms? because from the russian perspective, ukrainians have been used to the maximum by the military in the military aspect, but in terms of offering them prospects of better live democracy, etc. we directions don't see much there, but perhaps we are by no,

i would tend to agree or draw even in till february 24th 2022. i don't think anyone would say that ukraine was an example of democracy. it definitely wasn't. ukraine is a good upstate, it was the lowest in europe in terms of rankings. so all that is understood. i also would have to agree with you that ukraine's membership in the you did not seem to be something that would happen tomorrow. but i think there was a distinct worry that the military days of ukraine with nato countries were developing much, much faster than ukraine's economic days with the western nation. and that was the worry that i think govern russia decision. i'm not saying whether the decision is right or wrong,

i'm not getting into that point of it. but from a perspective of an indian, i can understand what has led to this, this. now, the indian strategic thought has a long tradition and i'm not even trying to compliment your country, but i think there is a certain de fashion approach to events, even though some would argue that perhaps the most recent government has taken on a more emotional on a more psychological tone, but generally speaking, the indians and many other powers have the skill of considering what's in their interest in what's not in their interest, even when they deal with something that they don't like. and i think what many russian analysts and noting in relation to ukraine and in relation to the west is the absence of they are strategic thinking capability, they call it they the whole idea strategic thinking because many of the decisions that nato are other big players are taking think to be contradicting

their own mo, term interests as well. is that something that you also observe or is it something that you would object to? you can definitely disagree that this government is in india is a little bit more emotional. in fact, if anything does government and india is far more transactional than previous governments. and i think, i mean there is very little too big on, in those to governments policies on foreign policy in terms of the ukrainian conflict. and i think the foreign minister of india has said it in best terms, he says we are not making a choice for the rest of russia. we have made a choice for india and coming back to lack of strategic thinking. i don't quite agree with the concept. you see there are different ways of looking at western

strategies that are debates even within the west. but one view is that russia is always going to be an existential threat. so russia must be weakened as much as possible. j not is a threat and he's probably a greater threat. but a strong russia with china is a much bigger problem than a very weak russia with china. so, americans are defining existential threat and similar terms. well, these are the only 2 countries that are capable of totally and hating each other. so data and existing should take to each other and that justifies trying to awaken your adversary. because i mean, we can the adversary with nuclear weapons. you know, one could argue that it's much bigger than, you know, yes or one who, but we can visit with nuclear weapons. would also consider using them in the same manner as it would consider using them. if it's not, we can,

if that enemy is going to defeat me, then i may consider the option off. if the world doesn't want me that way, where i need this one. but i don't think that americans are going to get dressed at that stage. if you do it, you can make li we can. and as austin said, i don't know whether it was a slip of the tongue or it was genuine. he said they want to, we can russia so that it can rebuild. it says to come to this stage from your experience of this country, do you think that approach is going to work? do you think that americans are going to get the desired objective of weakening russia by the set of measures that they're now implementing? that's an easy answer. no. why not? russia is a country which has very serious depth. and the people of russia category that have displayed a resilience. and just in the last century, they went through well one, there was

a revolution. there was the 2nd world war, there were many crises that they went through. there was 1991 the collapse of the soviet union. and yet we are. busy so i don't think these economic sanctions and all are going to affect the people of russia really. we couldn't russia. yes. may be that i don't know about, but will the people of russia give up? will there be a change or something? no, i don't think so. there's something sad about that and i hear that a lot on russian television that doesn't kill us, makes us stronger. it's. i mean, we've lived with this motor for quite some time, but it's, it's also a little bit dispiriting. you know, you would want to look forward to something more uplifting. what's the benefit for the west in pursuit? that's trinity, because obviously in this case, in the case of russia,

it already came back to her them. why are they so oblivious to the pain that they are incurring? what i personally, this is my opinion that i think the rest feels that or the u. s. specifically feels this is the last opportunity. it has to reclaim it as human if hedge, when he was being diluted. the uni paula moment was passed, particularly in the 21st century, the events in iraq and then i've gotten this done. we're showing that there appear to be a decline in us bar. and they feel that this is an opportunity to reignite the unity of the west and to regain the hedge. and we need because what is being threatened is not ukraine alone. but what is being threatened from a western point of view is the whole world order. the good after 945,

and they want that. edu. mon, you know, that world order to continue and russia is challenging that, undoubtedly, but that was the order. i mean, according to admissions of many american economists and political scientists is no longer functioning properly. even for the americans, do you think the fixation on germany, is it more dramatic because it serves the interest or is it more psychological in nature? and well, that's a difficult question. but i think that there are many realist practitioners. and here it is, the addition of international variations in the united states. but i've seen in the last 23 months, that many of them are not being listened to. i mean, just look at the travails of someone like michelle and some others also. so it clearly indicates that the policy makers in washington

are pursuing a policy of maybe a certain mix of realism and idealism to get there. it's not the classical, liberal intervention is policy, but it has elements of that in it strategy or is it just a set of have has their decisions? i don't know. i mean, i think that once you have that particular world where you feel that the voted order that you created is under cedar street and there is an opportunity to restore your control over it. i think anybody would want to believe that they have the opportunity and that they have the capacity to do so. the outcome of this will show whether they were right or wrong. but at this point of time, i would say the julius did well. okay, well at this point of time we have to take a very short break for a little bit back in just a few moments vacant. ah

for, with just to look up some literally a muscle around noon. she kitty doesn't being in the green show on a nurse to me as close to my cook as goose creek to somebody tamika. but i put his ashley of dc, wanted to work with you, but he has not put the key for the chino, brian's can that work for phones or something like that. and then we got that boys did that with grey. lisa had them

with the who's the mm the mm. or the welcome back was the parts done. christian distinguished fellow at the observer

research foundation in new delhi before the break. and you mentioned a number of western thinkers who are criticizing the current approach. you american policy making, and i also want to mention people like henry kissinger, richard, you know, people who are part and parcel of the mainstream who have also been warning against opting out of the ants here indefinitely. and henry kissinger, in particular, returned to his i guess, the message or keys live that pushing or yes, pushing russia and china together, it's dangerous for the united states. and that the administration needs to do something to change that. is there anything as far as you are concerned at this point, that washington can offer either to moscow or basing to sort of encourage them to

not necessarily change sides, but to change the trajectory of the development? well, i think washington can do a lot at the end of the day while we are not in the unipolar world anymore. the fact is that the united states remains the most dominant 5. so the united states undoubtedly has tremendous influence and has a capacity to influence events that are taking place in europe right now. and i think what india has been seeing for many days now is that what is required is an end bloodshed and diplomatic solution to negotiation to try and resolve the differences and the united states. definitely as the ability to get you can to the negotiating k, but for some reason they're not exercising that. and i can only imagine that that is because they feel that russia capacities are not yet weakened,

sufficiently speaking on the sidelines. and they've all died discussion, clap, and people who belong to this conference, sometimes voice and opinion that one of the strategies that the americans are pursuing is essentially similar to what you guys have between india and pakistan. this post of mutual containment that takes a lot of resources that keeps both countries locked onto each other instead of pursuing other development opportunities. do you think there may be something to that, that the americans of the west would love to see russia locked into a permanent future with one of its fairly large neighbors for the sake of keeping it busy and perhaps for, for the sake of some blood letting both, you know, of literal and economic. well, yes, i mean, i can imagine that if someone in the united states makes that analytical

decision, or comes to the conclusion, analytical conclusion that russia does not have the capacity to fight more than on one friend. and therefore, if it is engaged with ukraine, it will not be able to react to situations in other parts of the world. then yes, i mean, it would seem to make sense to do so. but i am not sure that that calculation is a good, excellent, and it's a risky calculation to make. so that is what i definitely don't think that the situation between russia and ukraine is the same as the one between india bucks. that although some of the general motivations for this differences of opinion could be very, very similar. now, for the time being we've discussed the job political implications. but i also want to touch on economic and social aspect of this crisis because india has just been,

it's with experts, exports after recording some of the highest price hikes in a decade. do you consider that as one of the unintended consequences of the, of the ukrainian affair? i mean, the question of what is happening with the wheat is definitely a problem of that. you create a war or it's an intended may be, but it is a consequence of that or that is point number one. point number 2 is yes, india has decided to prohibit exports except in certain exceptional cases. but there is a 2 food reason for this. one is, it was to protect the braces within the country and to ensure that food security would be protected within the country. because if the prices abroad are much higher

than in the country, the temptation to export would be much, much greater. that is one aspect. the 2nd aspect is it was also worried that international traders would end up buying and holding and driving braces further up for the rest of the way. so india has said that and he's in talks with countries like egypt and all 4 supplies, wherever the lack of retailers created, humanity and traces and government to government agreements on supply will be mean better word or humanity. crisis has to be avoided. i know that the deli also cited, of course and heat wave as one of the factors, and we're seeing more and more of such, extreme weather and nature events, droughts, heat, wave, locust, invasions, etc. it looks like india is actually stalking up north for the rainy day, but for something far more dangerous. is this the right perception

that their decision makers and your daily may be hearing that the current situation in the world may, may worse. and rather than improve, i don't think that will at this point of time be the main concern. but yes, climatic conditions are a concern. and in india, agriculture is very much dependent. monsoon is yet to come, it's predicted to be a decent one. but we have to wait and see if the monsoon is good, then i don't think in any trouble of producing green, but of all things not just read, but it will, a lot will depend on that. i'll be hoarding because the way that we may not have a good monsoon. i'm not so sure because even storing wheat at the end of the day, you'll have to protect it in certain conditions. maintaining those conditions is

a very difficult and i think in starting, not only with with for example, i just read that russia has reason from tense to 4th place among indian oil suppliers. so you're buying a lot of russian oil as well. despite this encouragement from from the west, off the doing that it looks like you're stalking out. no, no, i don't think that we put the capacity to keep reserves. avoid is limited. that is point number one. why number 2? when you go to the supermarket, to buy things for your house, if you see something on sale, don't you buy? we are getting cheaper oil. i mean it's, it's a no brainer. we will buy it. if you're getting oil at a discount, we will buy, but it's also a political decision because there been a number of talks between that under more than joseph biden, when joseph white and tried to persuade india not to do that, not to take that russian oil. why do you think it is also clear that off to do

stalk? joseph wade and is not doing anything about what you want him right? because he understands from his perspective, from the american perspective. if the main adversity is china and this is about managing china right, then it requires a strong india to join that particular strategy. and nothing that russia is doing with india, india is doing with russia is weakening india, but only contributing to india strength. so to that extent, i think the united states is rational enough to understand that it can try and persuade india, but it's not dry and pushing that too much. then american persuasion doesn't work on india. could it's more of the other way around. do you think the indians could use that influence with americans to try to at least communicate to them

that they effect on 3rd countries of the of the wave of sanctions is perhaps undesirable. on humanitarian grounds. because i'm sure you've heard that many world economists have warning, warning about the possibility of math, hunger about you know, major social disruptions. and 3rd, countries that have nothing to do with russia. ukraine, on the west. tell me any nation that you think can influence the united states. well, i think actually failed can whack a dog in many ways. and israel, for example, is a good example of that. israel is part of us policy, it's domestic policy in every sense. israel cannot exist without the united states, but israel is not a deal that where the dog of united states is quite the opposite. irrespective of what is read, we want to project the united states has been courting india for quite some time. and they've given you lots of exemptions from the previous sanctions,

they need your ears for their rivalry with china, perhaps for their rivalry with russia as well. do you think india is bargaining power has increased as a result of, of the facility between russia and the west? will india currently is in a sweet space? in that sense, it definitely has room to maneuver. but the conflict between russia and ukraine has definitely reduced that space. and it has, you know, when there is tension between 2 bowers that are of consequence to indian strategy. and both usa and russia are consequential powers for indian international outlook and broached the word then it does cramp. india is ability to evolve and pursue policies that are in its interest

. so india would like to see the tensions between the united states and russia reduced. and obviously that would mean that we need to end as soon as possible the conflict in ukraine and move into a more diplomatic mode of resolution. once things move into more diplomatic mode, if resolution rush of of the have to decide how it wants to develop. and it's pretty clear that it could not be incorporated into the western institutions the way i thought it would be 30 years ago. there are certain limits to developing its partnership with china as well, relying on your knowledge of russia. where do you think it's going to be, let's say, 20 years from now? russia has a lot of factors which are of tremendous advantage, shows a large countries largest in the world. it has a human good amount of natural resources. it has a highly educated population,

a very talented population. and it has the ability at times to mobilize its human and financial resources to achieve particular goals. this happened even in the soviet union, this, russia is capable of doing it even today. so therefore, i think if russia has 20 years of peace as it, well, i think russia will be also in a very good space, it would be more developed, it would be stronger. but the question is whether the current a dominant bars in the would, would like a stronger russia. and i think this whole thing with,

but yes, got russia become strong to develop to with, well, as we like to say in russia, let your words reach about london. beautiful point with thank you for watching focus here again. well, the part with, with a, with

ah, with one of the firing positions that the battalion uses people fire back. they look like a regular fuck so. but in fact, it isn't because it turned out running all the way under ground under the spell all corresponded. repulse from the eyes of salvatore. and now do you pull away? the last 4 kids of ukrainian fights is in the city has surrendered. russian underneath forces are now in full control of the facility where ukrainian troops have been hiding out for a month. joe biden signs legislation to send $40000000000.00 to ukraine, despite the us struggling with its highest inflation rate in for decades. bite and blame the.