usually to close or to school coast. i don't know who's gotten appointed, doesn't those with you used to clean it also come with mm. welcome to world to part india and pakistan, russia and ukraine at 1st glance that since these 2 pair of countries have little in common, but it's gradually at the surface and they're actually quite a few parallels both do us used to be part of the larger hole both have lots of

cultural similarities and both now find themselves in conflict, contact path to a reconciliation be also somewhat similar to discuss that i'm now joined by how much a charge of that director general of pakistan house in islam of on base think. it's great to talk to you, great to see you here in russia, even though judging by the recent experience of pakistani, think are traveling to moscow or to russia may not be such a good omen for your career. i'm talking about a former prime minister making a visit to russia and then losing his position in power, which he blamed on the western meddling the source, a sort of punishment for reaching out to russia. do you think that he is departure from office has anything to do with his jubilant offence? yes. well thank you very much. really appreciate to you inviting me for this

exclusive interview. i think my carrier because i am a private person and head of a think tank. so actually i don't think so. it will be effective and flash a we can see that it's a relative to, but i, i would save 40 non con, actually i think here he was, he is one of the most to i would say a wonderful thing happened in politics for pakistan in ron khan had been an instrumental in mobilizing on many national issues in the past 22 years of his tuggle to reach out to power. quoted george, he was honest, and he's very honest towards his cause to promote pakistan's independence in international politics that's he argued for. and one should never blame a leader who wants to self respect and for the country. as for the country stature to be projected, in a way in which that should not look like more dependent. because in charge

dependent of the countries economical you. otherwise, i'm very normal casual element of international relations. international security relation. there is nothing new in it frankly. and also relations, mutually inclusive relations that bucks on can have a relation with russia with us breast you is fine. but like russia has a relation with india also india has it. alicia mouse, did you publish it with the us? have so you can be friends with multi, obviously, i believe when a nation, a nation state. and, but the point which you raised is important that the controversy, the cable controversy basically raised a lot of you and try. and iran, hon objected that it was a kind of meddling in the affairs of pakistan by you not states and back to sunny national security council committee said

a national security division. and the committee said that it was an intervention. ah, it was not a conspiracy. so they actually bifurcated that what exactly a kent a crisis, the specialist look at the all the controversy all countries matter. while mattel at chives, you play a role in the affairs of each other that influence kind of normal in this we call the political deployments of course of diplomacy sometimes. okay, let me ask you personally, when does i an efforts you project, your influence becomes meddling. yes. then you do advocacy for your country, for example, to my definition, you know, talking and meeting the politicians and trying to a say, a good word about your country and project. a positive image of your country, explaining to them what kind of investment we have. thus advocacy of your country and promoting like we talk about bucks on russia, economic relation, gas pipelines,

that's advocacy. i think it is also very pathetic or for us to plants and any to promote for that matter that you reach out to countries politician and tried to intervene. it would a, in a way, make interventions at a very wrong time. when a political, docile is high between the oppositions, because this crosses a line. absolutely. this does cross the line from any restaurant good to. and we know the history of the us. of course you has this history long history of interventions. yes. but you would also perhaps agree that they have a long history of intervention, but also very little history of paying for their mistakes. they can afford to intervene. non stop in the affairs of other countries because it costs almost nothing to them. they don't have to pay for that with in

a sometimes been that treasure they pay. but other than that, the consequences for that domestic population. very limited g thing. there is anything in the world that could actually put an answer to that way of sort of last are fair dictator intervention in the, in the affairs of other countries. i think it is very difficult for us to understand that the conflicts, jeb grisham also comes back and haunt the generator. the subordinate formula, if you unleash some kind of project into a country of interventionist as a, negatively this dis can. and may effect the security of that country. because internally, united states also has a very obvious fault lines between different segments of the society, ethnically, regionally, all that is a big country, but it's an obvious state we have witnessed during previous elections we owe

witnessing now on of incidental incident on race, shoulder motivated incidents and this is a tendency that if you generate a conflict on intervention, negativity 2 things happen. one is a hate syndrome gen race and that country which you up against and you did something wrong. the other is internal instability. because after all the taxpayers of a country, if they're really vis wise and prudent, they will like to question the state where you are spending our money and sending men to die. so i think united states had a taste of it during all these was in iraq, iran, iraq, libya, and celia. i've gone a son is a very big, big example. so my, my personal assessment is it is always better for a country like us, because u. s. size, of course, is big is huge because of the multi alliances nato, it as

a backbone to medal or threaten other country. but frankly, if you isolate united states, often motel lines or some fragmentation may occur in future due to the economic differences to us, rachelle and other countries. it may end up unemployed because nato was unemployed, often of contest on near to was unemployed. before of con hassan, so a, so very normal feature of any country. thus, what i'm, i will refer to that a cecilia's matter come to should not use course of diplomacy and audit to, and crotch on. popular opinions, right? of the people before the change of government pakistan released it's a new national security policy, which specifically mentioned here. countries intention to avoid can politics and be a sort of a breed ship. it's been nations. do you think that the vision will be or is shared

by the new authorities? with to be honest, new integrity. in my view, the adult authority and terms of course that came through proper no confidence motion because the alive pod to which were potterpin, ron, kon goodman. they just left amended join the display. these 13 people, 1311 bought 2 consortium or the alliance. i think, to be honest, this is the principal doctrine of the national security policy. this has been since 2011. it started a bit more because i was also part of some discussion back in 2011 on the same line where we proposed that we have to abode, come politics. but we have to reach out to russia and we have to create a tangible relations based on mutual respect. but also russian has a history about their friends that they're not transactional base. this support,

dear friends, in difficult times, going back to that bridge, india, where you can call it a for the middle earth position. there are a number of countries that are occupying it. for example, are cherokee, or even the ukraine try to frame the foreign policy. there's chosen that i think one could argue that pakistan is in a somewhat similar position, also a finding itself in between larger powers. and we have seen our various examples of how it works. our turkey, for example, this by being a member of nato, managed to try the, a fairly independent course, but ukraine, despite not being a member of nato, didn't succeed. what do you think are some of the crucial factors for those in between states that tend to be sort of the crossroads of re power interest? and he to be honest for pock son, for the past, as i said, for decade or so, that is a principle change in the, in the, in following pursuing odd national security interest,

national interest. and we have seen bitterness in of canis thought recently that we did facilitate the whole process. we did not provide any basis. maybe they have lost, but we did not box on did not provide any biz afterwards. bucks on will not host in my personal assessment, an odd assessment for marketing day. it would not was any, a us based any kind of mitchie hardware. we are not entrusted simply because the pub on government assured that many thanks to the word that they will not let. although we are facing some butch celebration army and the t 2 p z o on slot on our military from some of the borders the negotiation is on. and i'm sure this will be result, but bucks on has the right to respond. of course to, to those militant outfits on account of this bucks on is not matching turkey or because we have all different dynamics. we have india next door in the us bucks on

centric policy at which it says that also chinese bucks on. it also alleged off in the us centric policy, but we also have started, i think, maturing in terms of understanding because a sion option came aaliyah very early to us after the petition a we, we missed the bus and then we had the former soviet union. now we have this, this option i think would, is wible. and we believe that bucks on will sale out because bucks on has a great solution with the been to list word. and russia had been in the 100 years ago and 90 years ago, had a great relation with saudi arabia and all the other middle eastern countries, as i learned from the history. and i would say that herb their box on would choose the option of now a mutually inclusive relationship in which we will not be following transaction relation of the united states interests because we will follow our interest audit

just said the moment had been to men dar economic issues, we are dealing with an almost sick mommy, difficulties at the budget deficit inflation. we do not want let bucks on, you know, slide to into come come some kind of social skills. oh, because of the price hike. this is odd number one, prior to right now, to be honest with you, we have to take a very short break, but we will discuss more of that in just a few moments statement. ah, mm mm. for only one main thing is important for naziism, internationally speaking, that is that nations that's allowed to do anything, all the most to races. the reason us had germany is so dangerous,

is it the law is the sovereignty of the country wars, business and businesses. good. and that is the reality of what we're facing, which is fashion. mm hm. mm hm. welcome back to. well, the parts of it will come up. i tired job, bad director general of pakistan house and it's my, my base big chunk mr. job. before the break, we were talking about pakistan's intention to pursue independent foreign policy in mind. it's interest 1st and i think in most countries, but tell you the same thing, but the ability to do that is so is quite constrained in a thing. again, the experience of the premier previous prime minister shows that the willingness is

not enough. sometimes there are, you know, stronger powers that put, so to say, put you in place. do you think, when the current level of confrontation between russia and the west, pakistan has enough resources and political will power to do that? because in a while to argue that you have already suffered because of your intention to deal with russia. is it safe, for example, right now it's you continued to put in your relationship with china, which the united states also watches with very zealous eyes. i have to be very rude . we all very candid about chinese volition. the book has some us and no other country can to. so this relationship what our costs may come back, his sobs, chinese relation as we call them, item brothers the this saved the deeper dempsey and switch to them. honey. and

charges always come through at a difficult time bucks on, and that's for the friendship is not the political will. i do not think buxom would ever said and or given to at the cost of chinese that they should we at a mentally convince the u. s. and the european union and nato, the look your own relations with other countries, despite a very poor country in the european union, greece, spain, portuguese, you know, many country, those who are not really doing well according to the rest and powers and the par in defense in economics and social development stim, you manage to protect them and protect of interest pakistan. on the other hand, as it is a nuclear power, we have a one of the most professional army. we have all institutions. second, there becoming difficulties can come, but i have a question to ask to even to the global options if they can, than well the we the chair because of the sections we faced since ninety's. because

of our independent, we have, we followed, determines the route to talents to india and that is our right to do it as a national interest. so. busy having said that, i do stink that pock his son has come long way. we have a political with because of state institutions. it sank in with the state a policy than you can hear him. ron hahn's previous statements that we are very so famous. pre said that the both military and the government on the same page, actually it has been a fact that bucks some built institutions supported every democratic government. we're looking at the national interest of the country. this one incident on ron comes you mention. i think this is also lesson lun for a round. com and his team and also those who were maybe not really

competent enough to manage and sustain develop economic policies. so we would not have reached to this, let me say competent, and our team in actually our professional are going on profession. or is it more about building alliances and do what the american schools look about to look, americans have been forcing focused on. it's not, it is an open secret. a medical said been distant buck a son many times on because the build on transaction relationship because all the comic dependency what focus on is trying to do for the boss ticket as they set to get out of this. i am a while back thing trying to be more dependent on internal economic development. that's not happening. that's unfortunate. we are trying now. and we consider that it is impossible for united states to do was our strategic thinking on economy and

on afghanistan and our, our pursuing us relation with russia. i daunting that. now you ask him, do worse, what we have achieved in the boston, it won't up. and now you mentioned that india censure relation ash, relationship that pakistan has. and many a political scientist, historians argued that not only the united states, but to a large extent of great britain. your former colonial muster benefited from keeping india and pakistan so focused on the child there, you know, wasting resources or spending resources depending on your point of view on containment. you know, being so much focused on facility, animosity that it prevented them from looking around and perhaps, you know, developing synergistically. and there are some analysts here in moscow who are suggesting that perhaps when it comes to russian ukraine, the west is trying to do the same thing to create this. i'm ending feud between

a former only 2 privately nations so that they are locked into the hostility rather than developing a synergistically. do you think there's any truth to that? do you see any similarities there? okay, let me, let me 1st on so the 1st one about bucks some india the, the petition. it's about jam. when kush me jim, when dish meet left out like this by british of course. and you said deliberately, i'm sure it is a very plausible possibility. and the supported the intervention of indian troops at the time when they were about to because there were muslim majority. and then soon after that, of course, fin bucks on became independent very quickly. i can tell you that the sentiment so puck to sunny's are not against indian people. it's an indian people's sentiments

are not against us, i'm sure. but some wants a peaceful resolution of tom when kush me to shoot according to the united mission charter. and which have says clear leaves right to self determination. and this agreed by india, actually it was not a box on did not go to you not to mission india. and so we'd really want to move forward with india to have it economic trade relations. because after all, both countries are very close proximity, some history was shared a graphical history. i think it would be absolutely remarkable if both countries come together and i did mind this president prime minister's round cons. fairly good statement at this or taking that we would take you take one step to premise some movie i'll take to we will take 2 steps. he never happen. we tried our best. we're still trying to bring india into that full. we're we discuss all

issues including the court issue of jim, when cush me and i think pakistan and india must sit on the table and negotiate and to sorry for drawing attention to our neighborhood. but what do you think about this parallel between russia and ukraine and the west trying to support ukrainian similarly, ukrainian efforts at independence reach out. some would argue our hijacked to via, used as, as a weapon against russia. g. think their way, i think this is too much or simplifying the issue. back in 97, i wrote an editorial for one world maxine being published for 2 years from denmark . exactly about eastwood nato expansion. i think this is actually the problem is it is correct that ration ukraine to brotherly country. they had a history, they have lived together. you can speak russians, but take this trick and tactical tools used to disrupt this relationship.

first was created in security in the minds of ukrainian leadership. then they brought this that, okay, you are insecure, we're going to give you security. then this nato's expansion towards east road works. i would say accepted towards this jack polish and all that. but reaching out to backdoor with the full flood membership, or any membership which can legitimize them to, to mobilize their hod very close to russian borders, of course, was strategic threat to russia. i think we have to use that lance as well. that is one lens, you mention battelle to lenses and debt lenses. it's very sense. there were tons of security and defense strategy. so i think it is the very dangerous situation. but that's why i used to the, in my speech, i said that the president putin statement that finland and sweden become members

have no objection. actually have countered that trick or tool which it was applied that drag russia to a conflict and expand that so bleeds russia for example, to some conventional warfare. send much news and to, ah, you know, volunteers and buses into a ukraine and fight the conventional force. we all know the conventional floor kennel fired on degree loads, gorillas have special training, special services, and all that. so the tram for a different purpose. i guess i only have time for one question, but i think it's probably the central one that at a certain point in a powerful countries need to say either yes or no to war or piece at a certain point. the west, or let's say nato or the united states need to decide that they don't want to let

say continue with this facility against russia or india has to decide that it no longer it costs too much to go on with this facility. these every pakistan and the same applies to pakistan and russia. what do you think? i have some of the factors, some of the calculation, some of the motivations that can persuade decision makers to choose piece over war and not just rhetorically, but strategically. there has to be a new strategic designing which must clearly and unfortunately as it's baby, but there will be bloss of at least 3 blocks or unit unit, not maybe multi blocked, you know, middle east and all that. for russia, i think is clear that if nato make and offensive intelligence operations or psychological warfare continues to demoralize russians extensions

continued, i don't think that russia would step back the showed pressure deterrence of all kind of strategic weapons out on the table. and i to you, public of all these countries understand the cannot face fuel prices went up and germany and all other countries were crying because of a very high texan. so my answer to you is that it is better to come back to the negotiation table. eliminate all the mistrust because function of the relationship has to be there. the hot lines of the main key players should be opened alleging leadership and making a lot of claims against the country, riches security council member, and a huge of a source, a defense, and otherwise is absolutely wrong and unacceptable. it shall not be you should not be treated as molly or small country law country should be children are going to be

like box on. we can say, that's why we say when we say to india that we want to meet you in relation to with the mutual respect, equality bases. and i think it is fairly important that russia must use touchy prudence to a word further expansion of the conflict. but data and us, these disruptive tools must be analyzed in the context that what it will entail for russian population, for russian influence in the sphere of central asia and asia, and also in europe and best of your, especially us as well. so essentially what you're suggesting is fighting, not only with when the weapons, but the if you are a strategic capable, it is no, i'm not saying that i'm saying that is for your deterrence. i'm saying to negotiate, to bring back on the table. enforcement of bees always come through war,

but in a limited way in which you defend yourself, but also you have to sometime carry out an offensive. i'm against the war. what i'm trying to say's beast must be from the strong position. negotiation must come from the your strongest position, not in the v cosign, because of the weakest time you will be blackmail to politically. and there will be a diplomatic question on. well, mr. jet, and i think this is a very strong point to finish this interview. thank you very much for it. thank you very much. i didn't thank you for watching hope to hear again next week on well to part. ah

ah, 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 offensive, very dramatic development, the only personally and getting to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very critical of time. time to sit down and talk with

or ah, traces the size of a truck and burned down military vehicles, as of style is the epitome of obliteration the exclusively films. the devastated landscape of the matter. you both deal plan from the, the russian and dpi forces gain full control of the area. president biden kicks off the quality of nations by making ukraine crisis among the key issues. god says he aims to get india on board with punishing russia. ah, the oaks mer declared a state of emergency of the nation wide shortage of baby formula, the existing supply chain disruptions aggravating the situation. it's really, really hard to find it all over at wal mart here. target everywhere like in.