for but informed about their narrative and not the ration i say, because for the moment people are feeling the birth and the economic burden on their shoulders. and in order to, to sell this work for them, they have to tell them that every cent, every extra sense you pay for your meal, for your fuel, et cetera, you are helping ukrainians. where the fact is they are helping a fascist government. unfortunately in, in ukraine. okay, now the trip to the world to part, she is coming right up in 2nd. stay close for it on a, on her guest today, elsie's a year with mm hm.

mm one. welcome to world to part india and pakistan, russia and ukraine at 1st glance at since these 2 pair countries have little in common, but scratch beneath 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 and find themselves in conflict. contact path to a reconciliation be also somewhat similar to discuss that i'm now joined by muhammad, a charge of that director general of pakistan house in islam of on base think tank . it's great to talk to you great to see you here in russia, even though judging by the recent experience at 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 say that it's a relative to, but i would say 40 non con, actually, i think here he was, he's 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 inside dependent of the country's economical you otherwise are very normally 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 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 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 will not a conspiracy. so they've actually bifurcated that what exactly a kent crisis, the specialist look at the all the controversies, all conscious mattel, while mattel, at chives, you play a role in the affairs of each other that influence. yeah. and of normal in this little, the political diplomats, of course, of diplomacy sometimes. okay. let me ask you personally, when does that and 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 planets and any to promote for that matter that you reach out to countries, politicians and tried to intervene. it would 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 western could

t. 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 in a sometimes been that treasure they pay. but other than that, the consequences for that domestic population very limited. do you think there's anything in the world that could actually put an answer to that way of sort of last are fair dictates or 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 has a backbone to medal or threaten other country. but frankly, if you isolate united states, often mature lines or some fragmentation, mayor could in future due to the economic differences towards 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

a cecilia's matter. gone to should not use course of diplomacy in order to and coach on popular 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 can politics and be a sort of a bridge ship. it's been nations. do you think that the vision will be or is shared by the new authorities was to be honest, new integrity. it in my view, is that a talk authority in terms of course they came through proper no confidence motion because the alive pa to beach were potterpin, ron kon. gov and they just left a message on the display dis, 131311 bought to 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 bill 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 bass, this 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 the foreign policy. there's chosen. 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 various examples of how it works. our turkey, for example, this, by 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 insurance? 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 odd national security interest, national interest. and we have seen richness in afghanistan recently that we did facilitate the our process. we did not provide any basis. maybe they have lost, but we did not bucks on, did not provide any bas, is afterwards bucks and will not host. in my personal assessment, an odd assessment for marketing day, it will not host any a u. s. based any kind of mitchie hardware. we are not entrusted simply because the taliban government assured that many things to the word that they will not let.

although we are facing some bridge celebration army and the teacher p z o onslaught on our military from some of the borders the negotiation is on and i'm sure this will be dissolved, but bucks on the has the right to respond. of course, to, to those militant outfits on account of this box 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 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 ally 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 bucks on will sale out because bucks on has a great solution with the b to list word and russia had been in the 100 years ago

or 90 years ago. i 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 you 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 trust said the woman had been 2 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 comp come some kind of social skills. oh, because of the price hike. this who odd number one prior to right now, to be honest, if you did it, we have to take a very short break, but we will discuss more of that in just a few moments fits you and ah, mm mm

for what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy confrontation, let it be an arms. race is often very dramatic. development only personally, i'm going to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very critical. i'm time to sit down and talk ah, how 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,

big time message i've had before the 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 the ability to do that is it is quite constrained. and i think again, the experience of the premier previous prime minister shows that the willingness is not enough. sometimes there are no 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 no one could argue that if you have already suffered because of your intention to deal with russia, is it safe? for example, right now it's you continue deepening your relationship with china,

which the united states also watches 5th, very zealous eyes. i have to reweigh it. we already tended about chinese volition with bucket some us and no other country can disrupt this relationship. what our cost may come back, his sons, chinese relation, as we call them, i'd and brothers the al week. this said the deeper then see and suit than honey and chinese always come through at a difficult time, a box on and that's what the friendship is. now the political will, i do not take bucks on what ever said and or given to at the cost of chinese that they should. we add 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 name, any country, those who are not really doing well according to the rest and powers,

and the par in defense in economics in social development, still you manage to protect them and protect interest focused on on the other hand, as it is a nuclear power, we have a one of the most professional army. we have all institutions such and there economy difficulties can come. but i have a question to ask too. he went to the global options if they can that well the we the 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 having said that, i do stink that pock the sun has come long way. we have a political good because our state institutions sinkin with the state policy than you can hear him, ron hans previous statements that we are very so famous pre said the both

military and the government on the same page actually it has been a fact that buck some built institutions supported every democratic government. we're looking at the national interests of the country and this one incident on broadcom to mention i think this is also lesson lun for iraq. 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 this, let me say competent, and our team in actually our professional on global professional for is it more about building alliances and do what the americans look about to look, americans had been forcing pakistan is not it is an open secret a medical said been ditton bought to sun many times on because they're built on

transsexual relationship because a lot of comic dependency. what focus on is trying to do for the pasta could 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 ours, to dig, thinking on economy and on afghanistan, and our, our pursuing or relation with russia. i don't think that now us can do worse. what we have achieved in the boston, it won't up, and now you mentioned an index centric relation, esh relationship that pakistan has and many, a political scientists, historians argued that not only the united states, but the 2 large extent of great britain are 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 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? so the 1st one about bucks some india the, the petition. it's about jumbling cushman jim when cash be 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 fed bucks on became independent very quickly. i can tell you that the sentiment so fuck, sundays are not against indian people. it's an indian people's sentiments are not against us. i'm sure buck some wants a peaceful resolution of tom when kush me to shoot according to the united mission charter and which it 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 bed. so we'd really want to move forward with india to have it economic trade relations. because after all, both countries are very close in proximity. some history was shared a graphical history and 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, but to promise movie i'll take to we will take 2 steps. he never happened. 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, which are, some would argue our hijacked to via used as, as a weapon against national g thing. there was, 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, basically about eastwood nato expansion. i think this is actually the problem is it is correct that russian 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 in security 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 jack 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, david, toms 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. you, we all in all the conventional floor kennel fired on degree loads,

but he las have special training, special services and all that. so a deb 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 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 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 off 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. extensions, continued i taunting that rachelle 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 they 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 to 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 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 very important that russia must use strategy 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 off. bees always come to 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 beast must be from the strong position. negotiation must come from the your strongest position, not in the vicar stein, because it is the weakest time you will be blackmail to politically. and there will be a diplomatic question on. okay, 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, blue. only one main thing is important for naziism, internationally speaking to that is that nations that's allowed to do anything, all the mosse to racism. the reason us, hey jim, it is so dangerous. is it deny the sovereignty of the country or is business and business is good?

and that is the reality of what we're facing, which is fashion and a besides of a truck and burned down military vehicles, as of style is the epitome of obliteration r t. fill in the exclusive drone footage of a devastated landscape of the martyr. you paul still park. those russian on dpr forces gain full control of the area. also coming up, industry leaders predict tribulations for businesses and thousands of lost jobs in egypt. as a result of a possible sick rhonda sanction set to be imposed by brussels on russia. wimbledon political decision had been russian on beller, russian tennis players leave. the grand slams reputation severely bruised as high profile stock.