Skip to main content

tv   Worlds Apart  RT  June 14, 2022 1:30pm-2:01pm EDT

1:30 pm
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 as them to go to an open conflict. do you think there was any other alternative, non military alternative to settling their differences on, on the secured to 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 a hope, 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?
1:31 pm
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 told behind it, so this is the complicating factor for the military operations in your crane. 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 should 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 east wood expansion of nato should not continue to rush a small step. russia did not mention this one day. it has mentioned this for years, for several decades. as a matter of fact. and the continued expansion of nato is in control. it all
1:32 pm
promised this the united states made to russia after $991.00. 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 i put in as the commander in chief as well as the russian army, have the obligation been due to, to react to that. this is not that when 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 that also bound by similar legation before the people or do you think they consciously counted on russia's being timid and non,
1:33 pm
not responding to that crap? 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 or 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 to cuba missile crisis, monday night, back in 1962. before most of the union 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
1:34 pm
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 had 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, you know, 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
1:35 pm
psyche allowed with the conflict to happen? and i think now with the bit of hindsight, the united states up to february, the 24th 2022. did want to see that the lead off paying 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 your crane becoming a member state funding natal. it will really cry, security from russia,
1:36 pm
and it will change the landscape in terms of your politics in that part of the world for 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. are, is i, as far as that mean story 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
1:37 pm
be expanded to russia or even drive the russian government. all the 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 cook russia into the corner cumulate to russia and achieve their goal. in the day, i see 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 requires rochelle and the one kent and ukraine plus the not a space plus great and many other natal members space to tangle together collectively to make sure that the water is not prolonged and peace be restored.
1:38 pm
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 was 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
1:39 pm
cuba whole decades. and cuba, by the end of the day, is still standing as a proud member of the international community sanctions against russia. for what 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 boomer anglo. 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
1:40 pm
a sent it even the united states of great britain suffering from the repercussions of these unilaterally imposed sanctions. it causes financial crisis, energy crisis cooled crisis, you name it, it really destroys peace 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 assess. 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 excluding 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 baxter in the world of politics today. and russia need to be engaged with rather
1:41 pm
than extruded extruding. right. has all the perils involved? it will not solve the problem. it will make the whole crisis even worse. well, mr. gower essentially here are 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, this is the fact hard to change. but the time being we need to take a short break. we will be back to this fascinating discussion in a few moments. they can, ah, a
1:42 pm
i was just a guy, but i wanted to with this with you, i guess with you, i'm with
1:43 pm
full credit gets approved from beach still. he's a patient with a
1:44 pm
manager give you might look and you live. if you look on the initial be one, of course, not a is the one who did which in but you also the was the done, those of you with both a both . ah, welcome back to was a part that big check gal, vice president of the center for china and globalization missing out before the break. we were discussing various implications of the war in ukraine and many,
1:45 pm
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 struggle for now contains struggle with the west for influence and development opportunities. do you think these sign or 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 ultimately? well, allow me to measure several seats in the world of today. china and russia has strong peace and our lot more than 4300 kilometers long has been peaceful, ever since. 1989 and the people to people relations between china and russia are very, very solid. it. this is a fact, and no one should change this,
1:46 pm
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 and are russians. now, on the other hand, china has completely transformed itself over the past 43 years by embracing the world order as it is. even though we acknowledge, there are many defects 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 waiver, all these values, or systems, etc, unilaterally to be in polls for by the united states on china. therefore, china does not want to destroy the current international order. after all, countries like the former soviet union and to these russia and china, we sacrifice the so much to defeat naziism and japanese imperialism. in
1:47 pm
1945, we were the contributor and the builder of the current international security, although, as it is today, is that right? so we want to make sure that the international order is maintained by all the problems and defects are corrected. they want to rally around the united nations. this is what china stands for. china 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 the 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
1:48 pm
united states. if we take that metaphorically 1 may wonder if there's 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, was 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 a fisher exchange rate, and china is the largest the manufacturing country in the world, the largest trading nation 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 or to reverse it, i would say,
1:49 pm
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 super power 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. china definitely will want to impose its system or its values on to the united states. nothing is further away from the truth. and i think that poses a very interesting question because china hasn't, with a few notable historic exceptions, i think china has never been shy of adopting other countries, bass policies for, for its own good. do you think the united states will ever come to the point where
1:50 pm
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 a few use objectivity and rationality to look at the situation in the world ever since. 1978 ever since 99 or 91. for example, if you need to conclude that china probably is really performing the why become a completely transform itself and is already in the copper in the countries 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,
1:51 pm
it's up to them to decide, and china will not bother to try to force our nowadays on to them. because eventually, as don't shopping, set development is the heart of 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 economic development and innovation. this will be the mega threat, 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 is china, which is significantly larger than united states, but has no desire to be the next head your mom in the world. well, mr. gary, despite your hope, i think for now at least americans are still trying to protect and,
1:52 pm
and position. as 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 re 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 redo rag 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 or 1st of all wrong was not billed overnight and turn the supply chain stranded advantage. i'm not billed overnight. it and you mention the bullet train, for example, china has the largest mileage of fully tray in a matter of a decade. and china has the strongest manufacturing and capabilities in civil engineering projects. you name it in across the board. so i think to, ah,
1:53 pm
move some of the manufacturing capacity is out of china 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 are 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 trying 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. you're talking about hundreds, if not thousands of factors. so i think we still need to champion globalization of the other hand, if any government want to dictate economic terms to other enterprises,
1:54 pm
most likely it will fail. the united states cannot dictate, comes to the american companies at home. how can they dictate, comes to foreign companies operating in china, in kazi and 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 champion wise asian as it is, and one of the hallmarks of localization, or at least he lease, if used to be one of the hallmarks is free trade. the americans no longer talk about free trade. treasury secretary, ellen talked about trade we but secure. and before her president trump talked about trade re but there, so the americans always have some qualifiers. when it comes to retrieve them, i think they would both be that what is there and secure for the americans? there's probably not parents if you are for the world or other members of the
1:55 pm
economic system. but how do you think those issues are barren? this should be decided on the global basis. now as we transition to india, that more multiple are and hopefully you know, more equal world well, for trade or 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 record in human rights and democracy, et cetera. however, i would say you cannot fool the american people all the time on all occasions.
1:56 pm
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 one 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 we have to leave it there
1:57 pm
. thank you very much for this fascinating discussion. thank you very much and thank you for watching hope to see her again with ah, ah, ah ah, who is the aggressor today? i'm authorizing the additional strong sanctions. today russia is the country with the most sanctions imposed against it. and number those constantly growing. a list
1:58 pm
of course. sure. as we speak on the bill in your senior mostly mine or wish you were banding all in ports of russian oil and gas, new g. i g with the letter from, you know, we're pretty good regarding joe biden, imposing these sanctions on russia has destroyed the american economy. so there's your boomerang with, with both, both the models you need to do with
1:59 pm
a, with a, with a, with a personal number here with i and so what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy even foundation let it be in arms. race is often very dramatic development only
2:00 pm
personally and getting to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successfully, very critical time. time to sit down and talk with pregnant women and newborns come under attack in done yet. local authorities accuse ukrainian forces of conducting devastating artillery strikes on let's say, including the bombardment of a maternity hospital. we hear from people of the medical facility, we heard the commotion and ran into the basement, the walls, the windows were shaking. we ran to the basement and spend the night there. women were giving birth to right in the basement. we're relying here on the floor and all of us back with the head of nato was suggest key may help to consider feeding territory to.

26 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on