seeing the davos crowd ukraine's zalinski called for negotiations. one of his chief negotiators refuted this. so where does he have stand? ah mm. welcome to well to part india and pakistan, russia and ukraine. at 1st glance, it seems that these 2 pair countries have little in common, but it scratched me the surface and they're actually quite a few parallels. both do us used to be part of a larger whole 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 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 heard 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, i would save 40 non con, actually i think here he was, he's one of the most, 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 countries economically and 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 u. s. breast you, his fine, like russia has a relation with india. also, india has in relation miles to do partnership with the us. half of the you can be friends with multi here. so you should 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 puck, a son 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'd actually bifurcated that. what exactly 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 of normal in if you call the political diplomats, of course of diplomacy some time. 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

pro mess for that. matter that you reach out to countries politician and tried to intervene, it would in a way make interventions at a very wrong time run a political docile is high between the oppositions because this crosses a line. absolutely. this does cross a 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, you know, sometimes when they're 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 dictator intervention in the indifference pelican cheese. 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 interventionists as it 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 at nicoli, 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 off to 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 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, nature 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. gone to should not use the 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 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 they came through proper no confidence motion because the alive pa to beach were potterpin. ron kon gov and they just left her member join a dispute. 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. this support dear friends, in difficult times, going back to that bridge, india more you can call it that 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 chosen that i think one could argue that pakistan is in a somewhat similar position. also, a finding itself in between a larger powers and we have seen various examples of how it works. our church, for example, this by being a member of nato, managed to chart the f l 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 interest? and he to be honest for buck son for the past, as i said, for decade or so, that is a principle change in the, in the, in, in following, pursuing our 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 had lost, but we did not bucks on, did not provide any bas is afterwards. bucks on will not host in my personal assessment, an odd assessment for marketing dang, it will not host any a us based any kind of mitchie hardware. we are not entrusted simply because the pub on 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 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, india 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. we missed the bus and then we had the former soviet union. now we have this, this option i think would, is viable. and we believe that buckets on will sale out because bucks on has a great solution with the been to list board and russia had been in the 100 years ago or 90 years. go 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 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 interest audit trust at the moment had been to men dar economic issues we are dealing with,

and nama sick mommy, difficulties and the budget deficit inflation. we do not want, let bucks on, you know, slide into comp can't some kind of social curse. ah, 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, ah ah ah ah ah

0 one main thing is important for knox. ism internationally speaking to that is that the nation's presence allowed to do anything. all the mazda races, the reason us, hey jim, it is so dangerous. is it the by the sovereignty of the country wars business and business is good, and that is the reality of what we're facing, which is fashion. mm hm. mm. mm hm. well, come back to worlds acquired vision will come on a charge of that director general of pakistan house and it's, i'm a buy based thing tank message i've 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 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 their willingness is not enough. sometimes there are no stronger powers that could, 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 to continue deepening your relationship with china, which the united states also watches with very zealous size. i have to be re who we already candid about chinese volition that bucket. some

a u. s. and know of the country can disrupt this relationship. what our cost may come back, hasanti chinese relation as we call them, iron brothers, the al we dish said the deeper than 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 know, many 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 buckets. 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 becoming difficulties can come. but i have a question to ask to even to the global options if they can, than well we the chair because of the sanctions we faced since ninety's because of our independent, we have, we followed deterrence, the route to titans to india. and that is our right to do it as a national interest. so. busy having said that, i do sting that pock his son has come long way. we have a political good because of stated to sions, it sank in with the state or policy, then 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 interest of the country and this one incident on round. com. you mention, i think this is also lesson lun 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 this when you say competent anal damian, actually are professional on government professional, or 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 bach, a son many times on because the build on transaction relationship because lot economic dependency. what focus on is trying to do for the boss ticket as a set to get out of this. i am a while back thing. trying to be more dependent fun,

internally, 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 of gone his thumb and our, our pursuing us relation with russia. i daunting that now us can do worse. what we have achieved in the boston, it won't up. 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 the large extent of great britain, a. 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 preventive 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's 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 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 spent 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 it says clearly says 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 proximity, some history, we share geographical history. i think it would be absolutely remarkable if both countries come together and i did mind this president prime ministers in brown cons. fairly good statement at this or taking that we will take. you take one

step to premise um all the i'll take to we will take 2 steps. it never happened. we tried our best. we are still trying to bring india into that full where we discuss all issues including the court issue of chill, moine, 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 via used as, as a weapon against russia. do you think there was 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, 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. yo crispy 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 check polish and all that. but reaching out to backdoor with the full fled membership or any membership which can legitimize them to, to mobilize their hot fear 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 butter 2 lenses and dead lenses. it's very sensitive in terms 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 snooze into ah, you know, blood tails and brushes into a ukraine and fight the conventional force. you, we all know the conventional floor cannot flood all degree loads, but he does have special trending 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 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 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 would be bloss oh for 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, but 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 bent up and germany in all other countries for 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 opened alleging leadership and making a lot of claims against the country,

which is our security council member and a huge of a source of 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 a relationship with mutual respect, equality basis. and i think it is fairly important that russia must. you said that you prudence to o word, further expansion of the conflict, but data and us. these destructive 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 breasted 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 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 peace must be from the strong position. negotiation must come from the, your strongest position, not in the weakest time, 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 see her again next week on well to part. ah.

ah, lou needs to come to the russians state total narrative. i've stayed as i phone and the most landscape div us. mm hm . then the june house house, lots of a group in 55. we did. okay. so 9 is 25 must be the one else about with we will van in the european union, the kremlin media machine, the state on russia for date,

and school ortiz spoke neck, given our video agency, roughly all bands on youtube and pinterest, and with pushing dignity even close to channels with me. well, the west maintains as anti russia rhetoric and backed up with ever more sanctions. the position of official kit is not so clear when addressing the davos crowd ukraine's zalinski called for negotiations. one of his chief negotiators refuted this, so where does he have stand ah .