do feel free to head over to our web sites r t dot com for more stories, an in depth analysis. my name is peter scott, and thanks for watching. ah ah ah. with loan, welcome to world to part india and pakistan, russia and ukraine at 1st glance that since these 2 pair countries have little in

common, but it's crush me the surface and they're actually quite a few parallels both do us used to be part of a 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 mohammed a college of ed 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? your possible. 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 had of a think tank. so actually it, i don't think so. it will be effective and flash a we can say that it's a relative to, but i, i would save 40 non con, actually, i think here he, he was, he is one of the most to, i would say a wonderful thing happened in politics for pakistan in brown con, had been an instrumental in mobilizing on many national issues in the past 22 years of his tuggle to reach out to power quality doors. he was honest, and he's very honest towards his cause to promote pakistan's independence and 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 inside dependent of the country's 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. i 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 mountain. yeah. 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 rod a few and try. and iran,

hon objected that it was a kind of meddling in the affairs of pakistan by, you know, 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 will not a conspiracy. so they actually bifurcated that what exactly a kent 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 i does that, an effort 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 pro mess 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. ah, non stop in the affairs of other countries because it costs almost nothing to them . they don't have to pay for that with, you know, sometimes when they're treasure they pay. but other than that, the consequences for that domestic population is very limited. g thing, there's anything in the world that could actually put an answer to that way of sort of last are fair dictator intervention in the indifference 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 or intervention, negativity 2 things happen. one is a hate syndrome generates 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 to 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, mitchell lines or some fragmentation may have cut in future due to the economic differences to us. rachelle and other countries, it may end up unemployed because nato was unemployed. often of con, a son near to was unemployed. before of con hassan. so a, so very normal feature of any country. thus, what i, i would refer to that is to see this matter. come to should not use course of diplomacy and audit to and coach on couple of opinions, right off the people before the change of government pakistan released. it's

a new national security policy which specifically mentioned here, countries intention to avoid count politics and be a sort of a bridge between nations. do you think that the vision will be or is shared by the new authorities? was to be honest, new integrity in my view, is that a talk authority? in terms of course that came through proper no confidence motion because the alive pa to beach were potterpin. ron kon goodman, they just left a message on the display. these 131311 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 started a bit more because i was also part of some discussion back in 2011 on the same line. really 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. bass bass support. dear friends, in difficult times, going back to that branch. if you're more, you can call and sort of for the middle earth position. there are a number of countries that are occupying it, for example, are tricky, or even the ukraine try to frame that foreign policy. there's truth and i think one could argue that pakistan is in a somewhat similar position. also a finding itself in between a large powers. and we have seen various examples of how it works. our turkey, for example, despite being a member of nato, managed to charge a fairly independent force, but to ukraine, despite not being a member of nato and didn't succeed. what do you think are some of the crucial factors for those in between faith that tend to be a set of at the crossroads sofa re power engine with?

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 following, pursuing our national security interest, national interest. and we have seen bitterness in of canis thought recently that we did facilitate the her 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 form opting thing. it would not was any, a us based any kind of mitchie hardware. we are not entrusted simply because the taliban government assured that many thanks to the word that they will not let. although we are facing some butch celebration army and the teacher p. s. o. on slot, on our military. from some of the borders the negotiation is on and i'm showed this would be result. but bucks on the 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 pucks on centric policy at which it says that also chinese bucks on. it also elect 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 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 buckets on bill sale out because bucks on has a great relation with the been to list ward and russia. had been in the 100 years ago and 90 years ago, had a great relationship with saudi arabia and all the other middle eastern countries, as i learned from the history. and i would say that to

a 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 interest because we will follow our interests. audit just said the moment had been to men dar economic issues. we are dealing with an almost sick mommy difficulties and the budget deficit inflation. we do not want let bucks on, you know, slide into comp, comp, some kind of social skills. oh, because of the price hike. this who odd number one prior to right now to be honest, if we have to take a very short break, but we will discuss more of that in just a few moments statement. ah, ah ah

ah ah ah hell come back to well, the client's vision will come up a charge of that director general of pakistan house and it's i'm a buy based,

same chunk message i've had before the break we were talking about pakistan's intention to pursue independent foreign policy mind that's interest 1st and i think most countries would tell you the same thing, but the ability to do that is that is quite constrained. and i think again, the experience of the premier previous prime minister shows that the willingness is not there. now, sometimes there are, you know, stronger powers that put, so to say, put you in place. do you think that the current level of confrontation between russia and the west pakistan has enough resources and political will power to do that? because no one could 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 deepening your relationship with china,

which the united states also watches with very zealous eyes. i have to be very rude . we all very tended about chinese alicia, that bucks on us and no other country can to. so this relationship, what our cost may come back, his sobs, chinese relation as we call them. i'd and brothers the this said the deeper dempsey and switch to the army and chinese 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 give in 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 pod

in defense in economics, in social development. still you manage to protect them and protect of interest buckets on. on the other hand, as it is a nuclear power, we have a one of the most professional army we have all institutions. second, their economy difficulties can come, but i have a question to ask to even to the global auctions if they can, than well the we v chair because of the sanctions 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 bach her son has come long way. we have a political with because i've stated to sions, it sank in with the state, police you than you can hear him, ron hans, 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 war looking at the national interest of the country. this one incident on round com to mention. i think this is also lesson lun for the 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 professional, or is it more about building alliances and do what the americans losing look about to look, americans had been forcing focused on is not it is an open secret, a medical said been ditton bought to son many times on because the build on

transaction relationship because all comic dependency. what focus on is trying to do for the pos ticket that they set to get out of this. i am a while banking 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 of gone his thumb and our, our pursuing us relation with russia. i daunting that. now you can do worse. what we have achieved in the boston, it won't up. now you mentioned a index centric relation, ash, relationship that pakistan has and many a political scientist, historians argued that not only the united states, but the large extent of great britain or your former colonial muster,

benefited from keeping india and pakistan so focused on each other. 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 i suggesting that perhaps when it comes to russia, ukraine, the west is trying to do the same thing to create this unending feud between a former only to brotherly 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? and to live me living 1st on said the 1st one about bucks some india the, the petition. it's about jumbling fish me, jim, when to see me 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 sundays are not against indian people. it's an indian people's sentiments are not against us on shore. but some wants a peaceful resolution of time when crush 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 geographical 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 or 2, promised to move the i'll take to we will take 2 steps. he never happened. we tried our best. we are 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, which are, some would argue, are 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 countries. they had a history, they have lived together. you can spare speak russians. but the, this trick and tactical tools used to disrupt this relationship 1st was created insecurity in the minds of ukrainian leadership. then they brought this that, okay, you are im, secure. we're going to give you security, then this nato's expansion towards east word what exp i would say accepted towards this check polish and all that. but reaching out to backdoor with the full flag membership or any membership which can legitimize them to, to mobilize their hod very close to russian borders, of course, was

a 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 a 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 busses 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's say, continue with this facility against russia or india has to decide that it no longer it costs too much to have gone 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 calculations, some of the motivations that can persuade a 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 would be bloss oh for at least 3 blocks or unit unit, not maybe multi blocked, a 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, sanctions continued. i don't think that russia would step back, but 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 crime 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 open alleging leadership and making a lot of claims against the country, which is our security council member and a huge of a source, a defense, and otherwise is absolutely wrong and unacceptable. it should not be, you should not be treated as molly or small country law country should be children . this is 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 and relationship with mutual respect, equality basis. and i think it is very important that russia must. you said that you prudence to a word further expansion of the conflict. but data and u. s. d 's, disruptive tools must be analyzed in the context. that's what it will entail for

russia population for russian influence in the sphere of cent alicia 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 capabilities. 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 some time carry out an offensive. i'm against the war. what i'm trying to say's peace 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 would 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 foundation. let it be in arms. race is on offense. very dramatic development. only personally and getting to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful,

very care to kill time time. you sit down and talk with us. i for the, uh, cuz i was living in business and usually in the area a, b, e, l does not assume zine. yeah. americans gray, you, when you wrote you who did go through it is just such not critical to those healing in provide you with stuff such and for rocco, he was nice if october 3rd, if not sooner and pull a child voicing, get you thrown the with him the throne in your story, that was true. i wish to lose your ears. i was sick yesterday. she louis louis, this is jim meadows lucas annoies talked to them was chilton watts's cujo of you, you know, some slight.