with sir, the relationship between these countries. i, for myself, i have been, you know, for the last i was 30 years. i have been you know, are trying to suggest that pakistan belongs to the region and that pakistan should develop the greater economic and strategic relationships with the russian federation with the people's republic of china. and understand any darn in all these, you know, or turkey or so i think that her, i like her, the former prime minister's narrative her. but i'm not sure whether he's actually whether, you know, he actually grab used it to when he was so sort of for losing power. so he used it politically. i'm not sure. now, many people have argued that pakistan and others need to sort of free themselves for a western guardianship. but i think he, you,

in your writing went far more radical. you've been actually suggesting that many countries in asia, in the middle east, in africa, i still under the yoke of colonialism which is a pretty strong statement and very hard statement for any particularly minded person to talk step on to being too harsh. no, i think that that effect, at least in pakistan and many other countries as well. for example, in pakistan i'm, we are ro, an independent country 6 supposedly i'm a, but in spite of that, or you know, the, a lot of our important positions are set a, you know, appointed by our booth. you as he and you get, ah prime minister and her other ministers, all the economic managers grant from the international financial institutions. and then if you look at our policies, whether it is economic policies or whether it is strategic policies or political, they're also made in the us and you get a saw, i posted,

you feel that we are independent though. oh it, you know, i mean, like we like to celebrate independence and people like to think that they are independent. but i personally feel that, that we are independent only, you know, in name. you know, for example, the colonial trash was that used to take place. went pakistan and all these other countries were, are in the colonial mode. i feel that they're still continuing in some form. sometimes they're given motor spec to build. and so it's interesting that you mentioned that because in one of the interviews, are you sad, for example, that pakistan got no sing for the american use of the infrastructure during the so called war on turn. despite the fact that the, you not only lost and term a lot of in terms of resources, but also, you know, tens of thousands of lives, of your, of your people. and that's a fascinating fact that you have sacrificed them provided so lunch without what?

well, what actually did you, did you get in return? and yeah, actually, you know, there was this condition support fund and that the united states used to be us be nuts for the use of our infrastructure. and all night was such a guard or, you know, destroyed because of the use of, you know, those vehicles and things. and for a few days for 11 days, ran back, assigned, refused to give its facilities because of the incident, a trailer at that time. some sits while centralization, early public, made billions of dollars. i heard you saying another engineer, the pakistani political forces, regardless of their ideology, may sound very patriotic when they are in opposition. but once they come to power, they tend to become quite compliant with, with foreign interest. and i wonder if it's in a way, logical because a,

if you look around there, very, very few countries, if any, that can afford to be fully insulated from foreign influences. if you look at pakistan, the governments particularly him, if you look at the last government, i mean the prime minister had made so many commitments and he had said so many things. but i think her, after he came to bar i'm, he said that he will get himself rather than go to the i m f. and then when he came to bar he went to the i, m f. and then there was this. so did he have a choice? do you think he realistically had the choice in his economic policies to pursue some other boot or you see a lot of people used to say that there is no alternative. and that, that, that only alternative with to go to the i, m f, and i being an economist, every time there was a change in government or used to write an article and send it to the, you know, the potential, you know, pragmatist, et cetera. and i should tell them that this is a do alternative and that they should not go to the i m f. but every time,

even all the governments that came to par, they used to be criticizing the sitting. gov went that went to the i'm if, but dave, the moment they came to pass, they would themselves go to the i am if. so i gave them an alternative and i publicized my alternative, and i give seminars on the alternative and i give conferences. and i said the cook, this is the alternative, and this is my alternative. is a foss repeated alternative to the i'm if. well, let me ask her specifically about the issue of the central bank and telling me, because i know that you criticized around. i'm very vocally for that. i, on the surface, it seems that giving the autonomy to a central bank as a way to secure it from corrupt local interest with you. in fact, argued that it is a way of delivering the country directly to the i, m f. do you believe there is any middle path that would allow the country to go its way, protect itself from vested interest from vested interest, both inside and outside. actually i,

i feel that if the state bank was actually being made autonomous, then all the institutions in the state bank, you know, the committees and the woods should have been strengthened. but that didn't not happen. actually, the, many of the know the executive board was a dismantled and to a very important executive committee was dismantled and all the powers were transferred to one person due to the governor. now if you are daily making the state bank autonomous, then you should be strengthened its institutions and its committees and you know, boards. but there did not happen. all the powers were transferred to one person governor who was in. i am a for employee, so strengthening you means a, you mean diversifying the influence, you know, a pre introducing many stakeholders who would influence the policy rather than making it so. centralized? is it not with making it so centralized? because you see everything depends on one person. and for example, earlier there was this board and the board had its own, you know,

a lot of members and there was the column. but what they did was that the column consisted only of the governor. and when deputy governor sure was 2 to 3 people that constituted the court m. so with the result that if they were given any orders from washington, they would comply with those orders because they were just 3 people who met the court. m. i heard you say that the premature departure from around home from office was do not so much to the differences in policy between pakistan and the united states. but to the personal relationship between abraham and joe biden, that they had some sort of a falling out. if that was indeed the case, isn't that even worse than the colonial is because there seems that you know, they, the entire fate of the 220000000 people is dependent on the personal relationship between 2 man act. actually what happened was prior to joe biden, coming to bar, trump had a very close relationship with her. in ron hahn and with ge bought his johnson and

with moody they had formed some sort of a, you know triangle and they were very close. it would been the presidential elections were taking place, both in van han and no in that movie had gone to the u. s. to muster. so auto oh, on the surface. no. the bad thing i'm in there. we are so used to pakistan in india, arguing that the may for the good video and yeah, but you see the problem is that when you buy do begin the president. i think you got offended. he thought that they were totally woods tramp, and i think for some reason, rob, because india is a big country, joe biden, couldn't afford to continue with this antagonism towards woody. but i think he started ignoring back as i knew, prime minister, and he was doing all the business widget or with her, you know, general badge was. so i think that irritated him brown hand. and now i feel that i would have been totally supporting him. brown han, if he had picked up the serve,

then you, she, the narrative was very good. i am talk all out for the narrative because if he had taken up this sort of fight her own account off state bank autonomy or i miss her coming so much to the i'm if or on cash leave or an honest. and then i would have been very supportive or for brandon, but i feel that it, when it came to pakistani national issues and mankind gave in completely. and so did general bi dwaa. what of them did a, but i think pakistan and other developing countries need to get out of this colonial more than i think what is wanting to me is i'm i recently written article in which i said that actually what's happening is that we have this by the western country, especially the united states and a u. k. they're taking, the developing was back to the colonial order to the 940 i warder and i think this

started happening immediately after 911. and that way, a lot of people have seen that a 911 was actually a staged thing. and i think that that is why, you know, the 1st attack was on of randy stein. and after that attack had 20 years of laundry sources. and although, you know, determined you danielle was taken out of a plan to stand and then it up or i was attacked this for the 2nd time in 2002. and also, i think the difficulties being faced by she didn't go and pakistan and turkey, so close legged. all these countries are standing in a queue and they're being hit one by one. and if you look at what's happening is that the established order is being dismantled and data sources are being taken out and did it. and for example, i ship of bitches of it, aki, you know, good results being taken out by us. you know, you can national for while

a professor is that right? we have to take a very short break right now, but we will be back in just a few moments stating, ah, ah, ah, ah luis hunter rush,

him state full narrative. as time goes on and the most, i'm skiing with this is beverly middle keys on i need to speak to you about this evening. ah, we will ban in the european union the kremlin media machine, the state on russia today, and ortiz, that even our video agency, roughly all planned on youtube, said with a

welcome back to his appointment. she there is or as professor at the institute of business management in karachi, pakistan, professor and just before the break we were talking about, you know, various developing countries suffering through war through sometimes economic aggression nowadays through our many sanctions. because you know that fuel and food prices are rising because of the crisis in ukraine, and many of the countries that have already very little resources have to pay a lot. now i mentioned in the beginning of our program that the 2nd world war, formally at least led to the end of colonialism. and i, i hear many experts here in russia suggest that we are now in a sort of a 3rd world war hybrid war. but the war and on the last g thing that war may change

to any significant change in the way things are both economically and geopolitically in the world. absolutely. i think that, you know, in many countries, like you said, because of the war in ukraine, there are lots of problems for many countries, not just developing countries, but for even such a big country like the russian federation, and also other countries or the casa smiling. and so usually what was going to happen is that i think the strategy is different for different countries. now some countries are going to be facing economic meltdowns, and that is going to result in dismantling their stablished order. and i think some countries might actually be facing actual war. so i think that bought, you know, for example, war, actual war and economic meltdown leading to civil strife and economic turmoil

living to a, you know, instability in the country will leave leaving to finally collapse of the system. i think both are going to be used at to be down established order and developing countries. and then then obviously which means that the, these countries within, i will not be able to protect themselves. so i think that they're the established order, and i mean, other countries will come over by will got profit countries with come with and kick their resources. now, i think there is one thing in common when comes to security between russia and pakistan is that we, we both were sort of seduced by security promises. you weren't given certain promises when it comes to the war on terror. we were given certain promises when it comes to indivisible, security in europe. i think both of our countries are more insecure as a result of believing in those promises. but russia came to

a point where it is now waging and military operation against its neighbour. as honest as you can afford yourself to be, how do you look at it? do you think it was inevitable? g, a thing? russia realistically have perhaps a more humane and better and more efficient option to deal with its concerns. i think it's really unfortunate loss of life and ukraine and russia is very unfortunate because this is a human lives. so, i mean, i would feel sympathetic to would, to the loss of russian life as well as ukrainian lives. i don't know much about it because i've been concentrating, there's so many problems in boxes than so not normally you get a bog down in your own drug meant what to actually i would hope that, you know, the, the ukrainian conflict would be resolved peacefully and they both parties will try and try to resolve the problems, like i would also hope that pakistan in india would try to dissolve the gush. me

problem. but is, is that, do you think that's in line with what we have discussed previously? the sort of poster neo colonial aspirations of certain western powers. because i know that many academics, let's say in india, or even in pakistan, believe that one of the reasons this, this culture has been going on for so long is because it's in the interest of the u . k. and then you have to see those 2 neighbors fighting. and there are many people here in russia who, including president putin who said the other day that he believes that although supplies of western armed to grain, i'm motivated by one goal only to prolong the conflict and to have the russians and the ukrainians are continue to fight, do you think that's all part of the strategy or of the same strategy, or am i stretching it too far? i think it good really will be, because you see the fight. you know the conflict. i mean the war in ukraine. i think it's after a long time that there's been a conflict in europe,

and i think that no, no, from that point of view, it's a, it is a big, quantitative change. because after the 2nd world war, ah, what though western countries are said to have decided was no more war. because there was so devastated by the horrors of war that this had normal war. but i think what the western world actually said was normal war in the rest and weren't because after the 2nd world war, all the wars were exported to the eastern countries or to the developing countries . now if you look at the present a situation or you find that there is stalker conflict, and it looks like that all the developing countries have been turned into a what here do. but from that point of view, this is a very big qualitative change that there is a war in europe and irv ivr rates are interviews of people, eob, eob, question, countries, european and america. i mean,

they said that the thing they say is quite offensive. this is that, you know, people like us is getting killed. i mean, they don't realize that the wars that have been taking place in the developing countries that are human beings getting killed there as well. but it looks like enemy williams. in fact, yes, but it looks like they were just, you know, like a vaccine mouse that they were getting killed and they were being bombed it. but when, or something like this happens in europe, then it's a very serious thing for data. i think i find video fence and i also ask you a couple of questions and china because i know you're, you're written a book on china specifically on what lessons can pakistan, perhaps a lot of countries draw from china's economic success. los russia and pakistan have strong ties with this nation, and i guess one can argue that we're essentially trading one dependency and the dependency on the west for another independence in, in this case,

dependency on china. how is being partners miss china differs from being partners in the united states and you, good christian, i think you see if you look at pakistan for the last 75 years, ah, pakistan had been trying very hard to develop the country now using an help from the international financial institutions. we 1st got some, you know, a project based training for our, our infrastructure for our, you know, dance that bit, our game in mont ladamme. and i think the same time, ah, because the soviet union was there and americans were there. i think this was the best time for developing countries to develop because the environment was not hostile for divided. he had the best of both worlds. you can't yourself alone. but what happened was that m o. o, especially when the of ition tigers became industrialized and the late coming asian tigers became industrialized. then there was this so feeling in the west that the

interest elevation of the developing world was responsible for the deed distillation of the advanced risk in countries. because a lot of industries were closing down in england and other western countries. so what happened was that there are a lot of thank the change, the, even the grooves endure for the international financial institutions. instead of giving dodging miss lending devoted to policy based lending. and her, the point that i'm trying to make is that with policy based lending, i take the example of pakistan. i mean, we have, we're devastated our economies through trying to get money for budgetary support. and wherever you go, you go to the i am, if their policies are very contract nitty. if you end up with it using your output grow to your employment growth, you increase your rate of inflation. you increase the, the ask units and the distribution of income and you increase poverty. and then you

also invite the social crisis because in poverty level is increasing so much crimes increase he plant. do you think that's intentional or is it just the lack of foresight? i'm in the policy, is that because they way here and describing in it, it gives you a lot of trouble for very little benefit. do you think that was and designed or do you think it's just, you know, the economic dogma that the west wants to hear? you know, when i was talking about the rest and i said that there was this feeling that there was in the industrialization and the developing countries was responsible for the d industrialization and the advanced countries western countries. so that way they went around changing the rules and then the, they had the counter revolution. the counter revolution was actually a reaction to the keynesian evolution. and the count of evolution actually, you know, it resulted in the implementation of new liberal policies. and those same policies were adopted by the international financial institutions when they were giving it

to developing countries at do you think those policies are they ultimately serving the developing countries or, and they are designed when they developed world in mind. they were designed with a view to d and to soliciting developing countries. for example, if you look at pakistan, industries have we have lost, a lot of the industries have closed down and several let people have been digit unemployed. so in this couldn't have been, i mean the couldn't be, it's not that their economics are so poor that they have those ph. d. 's in economic sitting there. and bringing in policies with would lead to such massive unemployment, massive deduction and outward growth. so obviously they have formulated the policies in such a way that this developing countries are faced with c, his problems. when they joined to the i m f, saw this was in contact with china and trying to connect to china. so, i mean, we had this problem with us or into 5 years that we did not red development,

although the went to the i miss so many times and our governments went and had ended up destroying our economy. and then we had the sir, you know, the chinese game with this service or one bed one group project and part of the in pakistan, the part of the project is cheap. ag. now when we had the seabeck, there was a lot of antagonism from a year india, from us and u. k. and other western countries. also, it looked like that they will do one to let us develop through going to the i m f. when they had equally adamant not to let us develop through getting, you know, see back to, because said that countries were us and you kill openly, you know, denouncing seabeck. i feel that this is the 1st time that pakistan was able to get some development. i'm having said that, i also feel that if we have governments that term have some strength,

have the knowledge, are honest, then they can negotiate better with the chinese. because in china did his ged trojans for corruption at the highest level. so chinese government are very honest into dealing with other countries and if other countries, godwin said, equally honest, then deacon bought, you know, what term and you think god. technological advanced the division of technological advance between the host country and the investing country. so i think it all depends how much you are able to get out of a any l for the for investor. depends on how well you are able to negotiate. and can i very quickly ask you one question about chinese leadership? because in your book you, you pay a lot of attention to confusion qualities. and you're saying that the, the chinese never look for celebrities with careers. my. instead, their philosophy enjoins upon them to look for substance and it seems like such an obvious and necessary orientation for any country in disdain. age,

but why do thing? it hasn't succeeded anywhere beyond china because at the end of the day we are all paying a lot of attention to you know, careers, man, political statements, but not so much to the actual facts on the ground. can he just make one connection? yeah, that i haven't written this book, this book was written of by ambassador has in jargon, and i wrote a review of, okay, i've written other books, but this book is written by a former, but do you still agree with this? i agree with this. absolutely. because i feel that, you know, did is this thing about chinese wisdom. i think that has something to do with it. like this. we all always think the chinese are very wise people. i think chinese are using their wisdom for the benefit of their country. and for example, other countries where what does go and watch, and they just, you know, look at a personality and the 3 that the bus actually is good looking, dashing and then there are a lot of falling. but i think chinese sir,

look for substance. they look for now they discussed the confusion from confucius qualities for leadership. and i think that's really the way to go about it. because then you know that the person is honest. the person has the knowledge, the person is the, you know, he to make a good leader. he has leadership qualities. so i post, but totally believe that in there you know, so qualities. well, we have to even there. thank you very much for your with them today. thank you very much for having me. and thank you for watching hope to see her again on the walls of my ah with

ah ah ah, ah ah ah, the 1st time in history, an entire country's culture has been cancelled. the very modern weapon cancelled culture the desert. wonderful. i wish i feel my last will and when will you get just me sitting there with the phrase now, particularly refers to counseling russian culture yet don't know what to create

a few hours because it's convenient. my fuel, which will be on there is chill out of it, so that the most to leverage random, he des moines what russia created over the past 1500 years. there's no question. harshly condemned, reviled and rejected. here sort of like a symbol of bramble. there's a lot closer on a whole bunch. thank you said a little short list. joining total condemnation grows daily and now enclosed dostoevsky, to cascade shostakovich that i need to you all left. but yes, she says that what the time will you do? obama lee, you're not going to do that a little bit more a

with the yep. essentially bring in forces just outside of the nets can from there they can. well they can shoot and shell in all directions. mid 5th, i thought on the phone lines on a ledger, the terror attacks behind them on the report on the battlefield in the ukrainian force, a strong hold on the outskirts with the leading italian newspaper identifies individuals who it says are involved in so called russian propaganda we hear from an italian photographer, he was outraged to find itself and propaganda. but what proof of this allegation do they have? i'm just doing my job by reporting what i see.