[000:00:00;00] ah, welcome to worlds apart as the chinese war strategy sounds to positive more than 2 and a half 1000 years ago. if you know the enemy and know yourself, you don't need to fear the result of a 100 battles. but if you don't warn you, crane has already led to have a plethora of unforeseen strains and the global economy and analyst form worse to be up to come. come, we'll do. the protagonist in this drama, understand their roles, that age and their limits. to discuss that now join from beijing by victor, gal, vice president of the center for china, and globalization is a gal. it's a great to talk to. 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 the ukraine. you warned that these crises made degenerate into a melodrama with potentially devastating global consequences. and. a i think we are all weaknesses, that melodrama or tragedy. now, do you think though, that it may still lead to some sort of a holywood style, happy ending, or should be prepared 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 contents. one is the neutrality for you, craig, and your 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 votes itself to please hold development and economic growth in that way, your credit 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, or i'm look at them from pipe and he has a responsibility 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. but let's stay 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 it, but have prevented it on me. 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 united states and they told 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 a dead 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 eastward expression 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 a promise. 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 i put in as the commander in chief as well as the russian army, have the obligation been duty to react to that. this is not there 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 they're also bound by similar obligations before their people. or do you think they consciously counted on russia's being timid, a non not responding to that threat? well, ever since february, the 24th leaders in the western countries, i'll condemn the military operations in ukraine. citing the ukraine was a sovereign country, and they could decide which rock 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 $96.00 to cuba missile crisis. monday night, back in 1962. the former soviet 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 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 been 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 happening. 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 within the american psyche allowed where the conflict happened? i think now with the 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 ukraine becoming natal 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, our 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 you agree it because russia, the one can't and ukraine plus united states plus great britain and many other natal members space to tangle together collectively to make sure that the war is not prolonged. and peace be restored. now in my introduction, i mentioned a host of unforeseen consequences that this crisis has already 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 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 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 our, 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 at 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 repercussions of these unilaterally imposed sanctions. it causes financial crisis any to crisis. cool. the crisis you may make 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 the sense. therefore, i think it is crucially important to bring the sanctions to

a stop to lift all these 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? it will not solve the problem. it will make the whole crisis even worse. well, mr. gary, essentially you're saying that these nations have to come to terms with the reality and your whether or not they like russia, russia exist, and this is, this is a fact hard to change. but for the time being we need to take a short break. we will be back to this fascinating discussion in

a few moments. ah, [000:00:00;00] in ah, needs to come to the russian state. total narrative. i've stayed as i phone and the most landscape div. mm hm. the american house also maybe group in the city, probably. okay. so 9 is $25.00 must be new. one else with we will ban in the european union. the kremlin. yup. machines. the state on russia

today and split ortiz spoke neck, given our video agency, roughly all band to on you to send me to school. the question, did you think even close to chat with me?

ah ah 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 mary's 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 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 local, more than 4300 kilometers long, has been peaceful, ever since. 1989 and the people to people relations between time that 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 go world order as it is. even though we acknowledge, there are many defects of problem, one super one. that is the united states,

which wants to dictate tubs to other countries, and china does not want to be dictated, and to be in waves, are 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, until these russia and china, we sacrificed the so much to defeat naziism and japanese imperialism. in 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 correct. it won't to rally around the united nations. this is what china stands for. china stands for peace and development. and tyler 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'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 officially 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 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. china 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 hasn't, 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 a few 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 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, 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 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 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 at least americans are still trying to protect and, and position. and you said treasury secretary and janet helen 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 to take that case 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 electrodes 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 fail. the united states cannot dictate cubs to the american companies at home. how can they dictate, comes to foreign companies operating in china, in causing 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, will blaze ation as it is. and one of the hallmarks of globalization, or at least he leased it,

used to be one of the hallmarks is free trade. the americans no longer talk about free trade. treasury secretary alan talked about trade sweet but secure and before her president trump talked about trade re but fear. 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, the more multi polar and hopefully a you know, more equal world. well, for trade, the, 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 why 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 this fascinating discussion. thank you very much and thank you for watching hope to see her again with

ah, ah ah ah ah ah, pregnant women and new borns come under attack. been done yet. local authorities accuse ukrainian forces of conducting devastated artillery strikes on the city, including the bombardment of a maternity hospital to hear from people off 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,