crane at 1st glance at santa stub, these 2 pair of countries have little in common, but graduating the surface and they're actually quite a few parallel. those do us used to be part of a larger hole. both have lots of cultural similarities and both now find themselves in conflicts that have to a reconciliation be also somewhat similar to discuss that i'm now joined by, well, how much a charge of the director general of pakistan house and some of our base, i think tons integrated, talk to you, great to see you here in russia, even though judging a recent experience of pakistani thinker traveling to moscow or to russia may not be such a good omen for your career. i'm talking about the former prime minister making a visit to russia and then losing his position in power, which he blamed on western meddling and saw a sort of punishment for reaching out to russia. do you think he is departure

from office? has anything to do with his job with a sense? 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 had of a think tank. so actually it, i don't think so, it will be effective. and in flash a we can see that it's a relative term. but i would say 40 non con, actually, i think here he, he was, he is one of the most to i would say wonderful thing happened in politics for pakistan. iran khan 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 bach hassan'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 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 his fine like russia as a relation with india. also india has it alicia morales to do partnership with the us have so you can be friends with mountain. yes. i believe when a nation nation state and, but the point which you raised is important that the controversy, the kibble 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 unite states and buck a 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 specialists look at the all the controversy all countries matter. while mattel add china, you play a role in the affairs of each other that influence? yeah, end of normal initially quoted political diplomats of course of diplomacy sometimes . okay, let me ask you personally, when i does that, an effort you project your influence becomes meddling. yes. when 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 of for us to plants and any to promise 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, you know, sometimes been that treasure they pay. but other than that, the consequences for that domestic population. 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 by the 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 incident after incident on race shouldered, motivated incidents, and this is a tendency that if you generate a conflict or 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're 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 office, mitchell lines or some fragmentation may occur in future due to the economic differences towards rachelle and other countries, it may end up unemployed because nato was unemployed. often of con, son near to was unemployed. before of con son. so a, so very normal feature of any country, thus what i, i will refer to that a cecilia's matter con, to should not use course of diplomacy and ordered to, and coach 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 count politics and be a sort of a bridge ship between nations. do you think that the vision will be or is shared by the new authorities? with to be honest, new authority in my view, is that a talk authority and terms of course they came through proper no confidence motion because the alive pod 2 which were potterpin, ron kon gum, and they just left a message on the display. des, 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. it started a pit for because i was also part of some discussion back in 2011. on the same line will be 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 their friends in difficult times. going back to that bridge, india, and where you can call it a for the middle earth physician. there are a number of countries that are occupying it, for example, are tricky, 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've seen various examples of how it works. our church, for example, this, by being a member of nato, managed to charge the a fairly independent force. but ukraine, despite not being a member of nato, didn't succeed. one, 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 puck sun, for the past, as they said for decades. so that is a principle change in the, in following, pursuing our national security interest, national interest. and we have seen fitness in, of commas 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 pub on government assured that many thanks to the word that they will not let. although we are facing some bridge 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 will 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 bucks 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 word. 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

a box on would choose the option of now a mutually inclusive relationship in which we will not be following transsexual relation of the united states interest because we will follow our interest audit just said the moment had been to men dar economic issues we are dealing with enormous economic difficulties and the budget deficit inflation. we do not want let bucks on, you know, slide into comp time some kind of social skills. oh, because of the price hike. this who 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 hm.

i think with . mm hm. welcome back to world required with more come up at hard job director general of pakistan house and it's, i'm a buy base bang tank. mr. job i had before they break. we were talking about pakistan's intention to pursue independent foreign policy mind it's interest 1st and i think most ventures would tell you the same thing,

but that want you to do that is sam is quite constrained in a thing. 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. and 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 am to be rude. we already candid about chinese alicia. that book a song, a u. s. and know of the country can to so this relationship what our costs may

come, because psalms chinese relation as we call them item brothers the al week this saved the deeper dempsey and sweeter than honey. and tony has always come through at a difficult time, a box on a desk 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. still you manage to protect them and protect of interest buckets on the other hand, as it is a nuclear power, we have them one of the most professional army we have all institutions. second,

they're becoming difficulties can come. but i have a question to ask to even to the global audience if they can that 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 wit because i've stated to sions, it sank in with the state a policy than if 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. we're looking at the national interests of the country. this one incident on round

. com to mention. i think this is also lesson love for him, 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 on global 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 distant buck a saw many times on because they billed on the transaction relationship because a lot of comic dependency. what focus on is trying to do for the pos ticket as a 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 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 i index centric relation ash, relationship that pakistan has and many a political scientist, historians argued that not only the united states, but it's a large extent, great britain, 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 are suggesting that perhaps when it comes to russia, ukraine, the west is trying to do the same thing to create this. i'm ending 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 is any truth to that? do you see any similarities there and to live me living 1st on said the 1st one about bucks on india, the, the petition. it's about joy cushman, dumb when dish 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,

went 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, 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 unite 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 with shared graphical history. i think it would be absolutely remarkable if both countries come together and i did mind this president prime ministers around cons. fairly good statement at this or taking that we would take you take one step to premise from all the i'll take to we will take 2 steps. you

never happened. we tried our best. you're still trying to bring india into that full beard. we discuss all issues including the court issue of jim when kush 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? it's been 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. d. think their way, i think this is too much or simplifying the issue. back in 97, i wrote an editorial for one word 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 spare, speak russians. but take this trick and tactical tools used to disrupt this relationship. first was created, insecurity in the minds of ukrainian leadership. then they brought this that, okay, you are in secure, we're going to give you security. then this nato's expansion towards east word, what exp 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 hot fear close to russian borders of course was strategic trapped, 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 into 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. you, we all know the conventional floor kennel fired on degree loads, but he loves have special training, special services, and all that. so a dept shame 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 united states need to decide that they don't want to let say continue with this constituent 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 am factor, some of the calculations, some of the motivation 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 may be, but there will be bloss oh, 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 an offensive intelligence operations or psychological warfare continues to demoralize russians, sanctions continued, i don't think that russia would step back the show pressure deterrence of all kind of strategic weapons out on the table. and i think bubbling 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 to 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, which is our 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 it. okay, 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 your relationship with mutual respect, equality basis. and i think it is fairly important that russia must eustace 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 russia 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 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 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 physician, not in the v cosign, because it is 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.

with ah, only one main thing is important for naziism, internationally speaking to that is that nations that's allowed to do anything, all the mazda races, and then you have the mind, the nations who are the slave americans, brock obama and others have had a concept of american exceptionalism international law exist as long as it serves the american interest. if it doesn't, it doesn't exist. i turning those russians into this dangerous go. you man, that wants to take over the world. that was a caught your strategy. so some golf out of it, on your own english v i n b,

i not leashed off to exhibit in tablet loc. nato said it's ours. we moved east. the reason the address had gemini, is so dangerous is it deny the sovereignty of all the countries. the exceptionalism that america uses in its international war planning is one of the greatest threats to the populations of different nations. if nature, what is founded, shareholders in united states and elsewhere in large obs companies would lose millions and millions or is business and business is good. and that is the reality of what we're facing, which is fashion. with

ah, traces the size of a truck and burned down military vehicles. as of cell is the epitome of obliteration rti. fill in the exclusive drone for a child. they devastated landscape of the mario called steel plants as russian and dpr forces gainful control of the area or so head on the program. you industry leaders predict turbulence for businesses and thousands of last jobs as a result of sanctions on rochelle to be discussed by the flux politician. wimbledon comes on, stuck and top tennis star is this site to boy kill off the grand slam after it's stripped of writing for following the tournament. political. this is.