limits to discuss that. and now join from beijing by victor, gal, vice president of the center with china and globalization isn't going to be to talk to you. thank you very much for your time. thank you very much for having me. now, in one of your articles, prior to the beginning of the russian military operation in ukraine, you warned that these crisis made degenerate into a melodrama with potentially devastating global consequences. and. a i think we are all witnessing that melodrama or tragedy. now, do you think though, that it may still lead to some sort of a hollywood style, happy ending, or should we prepare cells for a much more sober, much more darker culmination? you're raising a very important question. i think it is time for mankind to look beyond into the future. i think we can start with the year 2122. that is 100 years from today. and i can see to extremely different scenarios for the military operations or the war

being ukraine. one extreme scenario is the disappearance of the world and the homo sapiens from the surface of the earth and her who is the victim who is the bully? what happened to ukraine? what happened to russia? what happened to the united states? it doesn't matter. the whole world will be gone. now the other extreme is that ukraine becomes one of the wealthiest countries in europe in the world. but it cannot happen. list on several conscience. one is the neutrality for ukraine. a yoke name becomes friends with all an enemy with nom, and you couldn't become a major connectivity center linking north, south, east to the west, and really, really, the volts itself could please welcome allotment and economic growth in that way.

ukraine could, in will be one of the wealthiest countries in the world. i do hope we can see the brighter side of the situation and do our best to prevent the catastrophe all i'm look at them from happening as a result of operations in your crate. now of both of these scenarios are looking 100 years into the future, i think much in line with the chinese trick liberty towards the long view of history. and, but let's say in the moment for now and let's talk about what led to the current confrontation because i think we would both agree that the russia and the united states as the leader of nita, have been on a collision course for a number of years. and apparently, both of them have decided that there is no other way to settle that irreconcilable security difference is that to go to an open conflict. do you think there was any

other alternative, non military alternative to settling their differences on, on the security status of ukraine? well, 1st of all, whatever that is happening, ukraine today is very tragic and very unfortunate in a sense it could have been prevented. a lot of people in the west now argue that russia could have prevented military operations or war in ukraine. i would say the united states could have prevented it from happening on the top, but have prevented it now on february, the 24th people thought that the wall of the military operations were fought between russia. on the one hand you agree? on the other hand, i think today, most people realize that the military operations is between grant your hand and ukraine in the front with the united states and they talk behind it. so this is a complicating factor for the military operations in your cray. i think if anyone

in the west, either the united states or natal members could have made it known that for ukraine to join nato is at that end, it will not happen. and it shall not happen. then i think russia would have no reason to go into your crane to engage in this military operation to start with. now, on the other hand, russia has made it clear that the eastward expansion of nato should not continue to rush a stall step. russia did not mention this one day. it has mentioned this for yes, for several decades. as a matter of fact. and the continued expansion of nato is in control of it all promised this the united states made to russia after 991. when the former soviet union dissolved, as far as i'm concerned, it's not just a matter of broken promises. i think you even wrote about that in one of your

articles that president putin had ample reason to complete that nader's expansion into your crenan, the deployment of a medium range missiles there would fundamentally change russia's security profile . and this is not some abstract ideological thing because of putin as the commander in chief, as well as the russian army, have the obligation, the duty to react to them. this is not their whim. this is the duty to protect russia secure to interest. do you think people in the was the decision makers in the west understood that because i assume they're also bound by similar obligations before their people. or do you think they consciously counted on russia's being timid, unknown? not responding to that thread? well, ever since february, the 24th leaders in the western countries condemn the military operations in

ukraine. citing the ukraine was a sovereign country, and he could decide which rocks to join are not to join. however, they choose to disregard one fundamental factor that is, the security for one country should not be in security for the country as the double is the ironically, the $96.00 to cuba missile crisis, monday night back in 1962 performance of the unit was a sovereign country, cuba was a sovereign country. so by following this logic that the western countries are using today, then her former soviet union, cuba had absolute sovereign power to decide where to base the missiles of the former soviet union in cuba. so why should the united states jump out? why should president kennedy jump out and obstruct an object to the deployment of

soviet missiles in cuba? and why should president kennedy being ranked as one of the greatest presidents in u. s. history? because the united states and president kennedy did have reason to believe that miss all was to be deployed in cuba, would change the security profile of the united states. and they want to do everything they can to prevent that from have many, let me, therefore at the same time, i think we have to be mindful of the fact that at that point of time in history, the united states wasn't the only superpower. it wasn't the exceptional nation, it was one of the 2 of perhaps one of a large number of countries who with a lot of influence do you think that this fundamental psychological change it within the american psyche allowed with the conflict to happen? and i think now with the of hindsight, the united states up to february, the 24th 2022. did want to see that the

lead off being could be used by the of the states natal member states to base their troops or missiles, which may eventually frighten a clean truce off russia. now, this is truly very mistaken. i think there are responsible people in the united states who objected to the expansion of nato into your cray, not back in 2021 or 2022. but as early as in the last decade. and i think this speaks very eloquently to the risks of ukraine becoming a member, state funding nato. it will really cry security from russia and it will change the landscape in terms of your politics in that part of the world many, many years to come. now there is an old saying that war is what happens when language fails. do you see any signs for months into this conference?

do you see any signs that either russia or the united states specifically, are ready to give language a 2nd chance this time to try to find an end to this war? well, objectively speaking, if you look at nato, it's not monolithic. there are different member states of nato, which are very, very different ah desires, as far as the operations all war ukraine is concerned, europe is not monolithic. i think, at least on the surface, the united states and great britain had all the reason to make sure that the war continues and sometimes extreme elements in those countries even urge that the war be expanded to russia or even drive the russian government, all existence, all human to divide russia into several pieces. now, this is not going to happen. why?

because russia is not only a very proud of nation. it has the largest most lethal nuclear weapon system in the world. and i don't think anyone should realistically expect that they can quote russia into the coma cumulate to russia and achieve their goal. and i think a negotiated involving ukraine is the only way out of this dilemma. and it requires only 2 to tango that is russia and ukraine. it because russia, the one kent and ukraine plus the not a space plus great britain and many other natal members space to tangle together collectively to make sure that the water is not prolonged and peace be restored. now in my introduction, i mentioned a host of unforeseen consequences that this crisis has already been put on the global economy. and if you look at the western economy in particular,

and all the forecasts that we're now seeing for where fuel prices are going to be, the oil prices projected to hover around $140.00 per barrel per barrel, some of the year. and that changes production calculus in the west, the, the production side for many companies to significant extent that in itself presents a huge risk to western industrial base. as western strategists are thinking about sanctioning russia, punishing russia for what it has done. do you think they are calculating in the cost of this policy for themselves? well, 1st of all, sanctions themselves will not achieve their goal. the united states sanctioned the cuba for decades. and cuba, by the end of the day, is still standing as a proud member of the international community sanctions against russia for walked,

it will make a russia very, very difficult to make life in russia difficult, or whether it will all force russia to be crumbled, more force russia to coal, uncle? no, i don't think so. i think i have no doubt that russia will survive, but let's focus on on the implications for the west in your writing. you often refer to the golden rule that don't do on to others. what you don't want to be done on to your sound, do you think we're now at the point where when the golden rule is becoming a boomerang low? absolutely, the economic sanctions against russia are mutually destructive. it is very bad for the european countries and western countries in general. why? because it creates all lots of pressure for countries like germany and no countries exempt it, even the united states of great britain suffering from the record. questions of these unilaterally imposed sanctions. it causes financial crisis, any crisis cooled crisis, you name it, it really destroys piece and growth,

for example, not for russia along before so many other countries and the international community itself is a victim. we are all loses in the sense. therefore, i think it is crucially important to bring the sanctions to a stop to lift all the senses and also allow me to emphasize. i don't think there will be lasting peace in europe by extruding russia all there will be lasting peace in the world by extruding russia. eventually. these countries need to come to terms with the fact that russia is an important in the world of politics today. and russia need to be engaged with rather than excluded extruding, right. has all the perils involved in it? it will not solve the problem. it will make the whole crisis even worse. well, mr. gower, essentially,

you're saying that these nations have to come to terms with the reality and do you agree whether or not they like russia, russia exist, and this is a fact hard to change, but the time being we need to take a short break, it will be back to this fascinating discussion in a few moments. ah, who who is the aggressor today? i'm authorizing the additional strong sanctions. today russia is the country with the most sanctions imposed against it. a number that's constantly growing. a list of course renewed as we speak on the billing is pretty much the morning we're banding all in ports of russian oil and gas, new g. i. g,

of course with regard to joe by imposing these sanctions on russia has destroyed the american economy. so there's your boomerang, huh. so what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy confrontation, let it be in arms. race is on, often very dramatic development. only personally, i'm going to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very critical times. time to sit down and talk with

. mm welcome back to was appointed victor, gal, vice president of the center for china and globalization. basic out before the break, we were discussing various implications of the war in the ukraine, and many a russian and not not only russian thinkers, see it as part of a much broader rebalancing of the international system. spurred in part by china's rise and china's struggle for now contains struggle with the west for influence and development opportunities. do you think these sign no western rivalry which is primarily economic at this point, but also have security elements to do you think there is a possibility of it blowing out openly? well, allow me to measure several seats in the world of today. china and russia has strong

peace and our low ball more than 4300 kilometers long, has been peaceful, ever since 1989 and the people to people relations between china, russia are very, very solvent. this is a fact, and no one should change this, and no pressure for any country in the west, including the united states, can change the fundamental nature of good, a friendship and a good label in this, between time out of russia. now, on the other hand, china has completely transformed itself over the past 43. yes. by embracing the world order as it is. even though we acknowledge, there are many effects of problems in the world order. mainly because there was, there is one superpower. that is the united states, which wants to dictate tubs to other countries. and china does not want to be

dictated, and to be imposed to wave the, all these values or systems, etc, unilaterally to being caused by the united states on china. therefore, china as no one could destroy the parent international order. after all, countries like the former soviet union and to these russia and china, we sacrificed the so much to defeated naziism and the japanese imperialism. in 1945, we were the contributor and the builder of the current international security older as it is today, is that right? so we want to make sure that the international order is maintained by all the pro rooms and defects are corrected. we want to rally around the united nations. this is what china stands for. china's stands for peace and development. and china wants to be friends with all an enemy, with none. and china wants to further in house it's relations and cooperation

with all the countries in the world. if they want to treat china as an equal and deal with china with respect. he mentioned development and i recently came across a fascinating fact about china that your country has the largest network of bullet trains with the same distance covered in 3 hours as compared to 22 hours in the united states. if we take that metaphorically 1 may wonder if there is anything that the united states can do to stop china in its tracks. and given how far and how fast you have gone over the last 40 years. what's the worst that your competitors can do to you? well, 1st of all, i see the continued, the rise of china is inevitable. it is the trend of our times. china is already larger than the united states economy. if we use purchasing power parity, it is about 80 percent already of that of the united states. if we use officially

exchange rate, and china is the largest, the manufacturing country in the world, the largest trading nation you in the world. china is the largest trading partner with more than $130.00 countries in the world. so this is the fact the united states has to come to terms with this fact rather than deny, this is the case or tried to change it all to reverse it. i would say to deprive the chinese nation of their right of economic development probably is the largest a crime against humanity. and this should not be tolerated. on the other hand, china does not want to be a superpower replace in the united states. charlotte can get along with all the other countries in the world on equal basis. this is very, very important. the united states logic is distorted because it believes that was charles, that passes, that of the united states channel definitely will want to impose its system or its

values on to the united states. nothing is further away from the truth. but then i think that poses a very interesting question because china has, with, with a view notable historic exceptions, i think china has never been shy of adopting other countries. bass policy is for, for its own good. do you think the united states will ever come to the point where it would be willing to borrow from china or any other country success to use some of some of the best practices of war in countries for its own good? i would say if you use objectivity and rationality to look at the situation in the world ever since 1978 ever since 9991. for example, if you need to conclude that child probably is really performing the why become a completely transform itself and is already in the proper,

in the countries out of the world. so there must be something that china has been doing right? and many other countries have failed to do it in the right way. therefore, i think the united states, or many other countries can really learn a lot from china's focus on economic development. maintain the stability keeping peace for example. but whether they want to do that or not, it's up to them to decide and china will not bother to try to force our analysis on to them. because eventually as done shopping set development is the hard truth. and eventually, you can look at the outcome of economic development as a key benchmark as to whether you are doing it right or not. china has benefited hugely from globalization. and china remains a major champion of globalization and economy development innovation. this will be the mega trent,

and i hope people in washington in the united states will come to terms with the fact that they will live in the world with another country that in china, which is significantly larger united states, but has no desire to be the next head, your mom in the world. well, mr. garrett is by the hope i think for now it is, the americans are still trying to protect that and position. and you said treasury secretary and janet yellen recently introduced a very interesting term. she talked about france shoring instead of offshoring, and by that she meant we direct supply change to quote unquote trusted countries. and i suppose neither china or russia are among them. do you think? washington has an economic muscle to pull that off to read, to rank the global economic system yet again to it's liking and to benefit. thank you very much. i think the u. s. policy in this regard is completely misguided. first of all, wrong was not billed overnight. and turn the supply chain stranded advantage are

not billed overnight and you mention the bullet train, for example, china has the largest mileage of the tray in the matter of a decade. and china has the strongest manufacturing and capabilities in civil engineering projects to name it in across the board. so i think to, ah, move some of the manufacturing capacity is out of time out to other countries. that's perfectly ok. but to really change the supply chain in the world today, probably it will take decades because you're not only talking about manufacturing capacities, you're talking about power generation, infrastructure roles, transportation, highways, railways, airports, you name it, it really takes a lot of money to build up all these facilities, it takes a lot of effort to train all the skilled workers,

for example. and if you talk about supply chain in many, many sectors, you're not talking about one or 2. factors are talking about hundreds if not thousands of factors. so i think we still need to check globalization of the other hand, if any government wants to dictate economic terms to other enterprises, most likely it will fails. the united states cannot dictate comes to the american companies at home. how can they dictate cubs to foreign companies operating in china, incarnacion countries in other parts of the world? eventually, it will be fail, it will be a big failure. i will say that you mentioned the need to champ and will blaze ation as it is. and one of the hallmarks of globalization, or at least he least, if used to be one of the hallmarks is free trade. the americans no longer talk about free trade. treasury secretary yell and talked about trade free but secure.

and before her president trump talked about trade free. but there, so the americans always have some qualifiers. and when it comes to free trade and i think we would both be that what is fair and secure for the americans is probably not fair and secure for the world or other members of the economic system. but how do you think those issues of fairness should be decided on the global basis? now as we transition to india, them or multiple or, and hopefully a, you know, more equal world. well, for trade, that to be sustainable, it need to be clear. and hopefully should be free. however, i think the american government is really misusing these labels for doesn't mean fair is fair to be americans rather than to the counterpart is in china or in other countries. free doesn't mean free of limitations. it is a free,

in the political sense of the words, as if the united states has a monopoly on freedom of democracy. the united states actually does not have a perfect breakfast in human rights, democracy, et cetera. however, i would say you cannot fool the american people all the time on all occasions. sooner or later the american people will realize that china is a champion of free trade market economy of innovation, of real bold development and huge investment into infrastructure into manufacturing . which has created benefits, not only for the chinese people, but for the whole mankind everywhere in the world. and sooner or later, i think the united states government need to come to the conclusion that by creating china and russia as enemies is not going to help the united states, it probably will create more headaches for the united states. eventually,

philosophically, as well as realistically for the united states to treat russia on the y hand. and china, on the other hand, with respect and deal with, with decency and dignity, is the only way out in the world of today. on this point they have to leave it there. thank you very much for the fascinating discussion. thank you very much and thank you for watching hope to see you again with ah, ah ah ah

ah, ah a though sure. completely new industry to restock and just look up some levels. only a muscle is around noon noon. she kitty doesn't being in the green shield on at night to me as possible. mama cook gas goose creek suddenly tamika put his ashley of dc. wanted to work with one to 3, if this sort of cool jason did, did you bring out my put the key for the chino brian did not work for

a furnished or something like that. and then we got that was it, that might be worth a 1000000 regina here for a little grain. lisa, have that a maternity all still is hate during ukrainian shelling of done yet. the un calls the talk, a violation of international law. elsewhere that he has. 5 people are killed and over 30 wounded in ukrainian shelling which local officials describe as the worst since the conflict. the gunk, uncle rock, there was an explosion. i tried a lot. i'm just carried more. we had a blast and window shattered. i looked around and there was blood everywhere. the nato chief suggest ukraine may have the seed territory to reach a peace deal with russia outing. the block is a where the conflict could escalate further.