but cellular service remained available. according to his becca stands, internal affairs ministry, public order has been restored, but protests continued overnight on saturday. on saturday, the president and prime minister, whose becca stand flew to the capital of the region, the president promised to preserve the norms of care, cal pakistan, and their right to secede from the country in the constitution. right now, the situation in the republic is returning to normal. kara cal pakistan as a sovereign republic, within whose pakistan it occupies about 40 percent of the entire territory of the country. about 2000000 citizens live here whose backs kara kal, packs russians. they live in peace and harmony, and we hope that everything will be fine soon. thus all the worlds looking at 7 30 am at moscow time this monday morning on is peter scotts on the block again with another look at today's biggest stories and about half an hour's time. ah,

ah, to what he's got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy confrontation, let it be an arms race is on, often very dramatic development only personally and getting to disease. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very critical time. time to sit down and talk ah mm mm. mm.

hello and welcome to worlds apart. for the last 3 decades since the collapse of the soviet union, russia has been floundering through an identity crisis. unsure about what it is, an insecure about what it wants to be a duplicate saturation with the west proved short sleeved and rather reciprocated. while the relationship with the rest of the world was more talked about than attended to them came the military operation in ukraine. that changed absolutely everything. what does it leave russia in the search for its own identity and relations with others? to discuss it, i'm now joined by federal kiana research director of the wild di discussion club. so there is great to see you in the studio again. thank you very much for coming over. thank you for reminding me. now, in psychology, the 4th take it of life is usually associated with a mid life or an identity crisis, which could be quite particular make if the manifesting problems are not attended

to in time or if they are allowed to accumulate. and i wonder if we can also apply that metaphors to russia, which now finds itself in pretty unprecedented circumstances, both externally and internally. yes. but the question is whether this identity crisis is just beginning, or this crisis began 30 plus years ago when russia off the previous identity, which was called soviet union. and try to become, as you said, in the beginning, truly integral part of the international system led by united states and western allies. and it's difficult to imagine today in this atmosphere. but those who remember they know that russia did its best to, to accommodate itself to the western system. and it happens in 9 to 9 to

us, but it was not successful because of internal cows and internal mass in russia. both, both the states and people and society were mostly occupied with survival by the, into silence one little or them important became russian president. she did enormous efforts to, to, to try to offer to the worst something that would suit both so well. not just something as year recently, i wrote russia made some pretty difficult, although an implicit concessions, for example, tacitly agreeing to nato enlargement. although it also allowed itself pretty blunt criticism of the system. and i wonder if this inability on the part the frosh or to simply shut up and comply, was it mainly due to moscow's wounded pride? or was it at least in part the realization that the system itself objectively is

going downhill? i don't think it was that kind of elevation at the time in 990 s and early 2000 everybody was convinced that the western dominance will at least last for very long time. by the way, i think many, remember the late american commentator and philosopher charles krauthammer, who wrote his famous piece about the you and he pulled moment as early as 990. and that was the big benchmark he, he wrote that and that was before. so we doing in co ops, but he was convinced that the new era was in the starting when united states will be, will be able to do what they wanted. but what i wanted to, to,

to remind you ground camera was wise enough to right that we should not believe that the few in the pool or moment will last forever. he wasn't my, she didn't believe that it will be approximately 25 years. so he was absolutely right about coming back to your question. i think that at that time, only a few most insightful people believed that that might change soon. so rational times to, to become part were dictated and led by the willingness to create better conditions for the development of the country. but detailed, i mentioned the nature enlargement already. and i was surprised to read somewhere at the 2008. booker, a summit, which discussed potential membership of georgia and ukraine conduct leaves arise, done. you a secretary of state,

explicitly sat on the record that the war is over, russia favor, or rather russia last, and that war. and she or brother, it has to accept that. and we all know that that led to the famous paper that extended the welcoming invitation to ukraine in georgia. i wonder if when it comes, comes to nate or do you think its efforts incessant efforts to expand? are they dictated by strategic thinking by the calculus? or are they also in part driven by primitive psychology of, you know, making russia recognize that it was a loser both. but primarily i think that nathan launch rent was motivated by the ceiling of this kind of only bulletins that we can do whatever we believe is right. and the concept of european

security arrangements after the cold war. and this concept was basically agreed with the soviet union with gorbachev. leadership, 989, and then 900. 19 the parish charter for new europe was to put it very simple and simplistic. was that nature or euro atlantic institutions. this is security. security need to equal security, but on the, you know, these people, if they are in did law by strategic thinking, they could not have ignored the consequences of that own actions. and nader has been involved in some pretty well, i wouldn't say disaster is that. and the value to turn, but pretty ineffective campaigns, even from the nato point of view. so do you think they truly believe that the nader is security on, on an objective basis? so i think at that time, yes,

they did need to feel complete in the areas which actually did not belong to. the responsibility will never belong to them. like danny stan or iraq, some member states in europe from the beginning from the war about charles acceptance of unified germany membership. benita. that worked pretty well. and again, so with you and then russia is a successor, basically accepted that. and this is why when we now talk about how need to betray us, partially, yes, partially, we should be sincere, so that that was the vision which was maybe not completely with the, except the suction. that that's an honest mistake on, on russia party. there's that that was not mistaken or an illusion. illusion

mistake and probably expectation that we can play bigger all inside the system. okay. now you said that nature failed in areas where it had nothing to do, let's say again, it's done in iraq. what about the ukraine? you know, and the efforts to draw your crate in because obviously your credit is much closer to our home to native home. could ukraine be considered as one of those failed? she? t g, failures on the part of the nato. as we've seen, oh yes, but initially, by the way, in 1st, the front runner of ukrainian integration into the west was no need to. it was rather european union. and the whole ukrainian crisis, which we see now in the full scale, started with the idea of association agreement, 2013. of course,

now we see that there is basically no difference in the european union by the death time. european union emphasized that is something completely different, and russia actually accepted this, saying that it hurts our interest. but to understand that it's not about security. why need to was so keen to expand? or, of course, in the instinct drupal, they go instinct, we cheer, which is there for if we look up to the battlefield today in ukraine, or we will see names of cities and towns which were mentioned in the same convex 100 years ago. 300 years ago. so this is an area of field for in stunt and permanent jubilee, the co competition in eastern europe. so that when you talk about instant geopolitical competition, it has a sort of instinctual and somewhat unconscious filter because you come from

a school of realpolitik. and this is a very cognitive, very sort of mentally based school. you calculate the interest of one party a, your own interest. you see how they can be compatible. you try not to ah, bite more than you can choose, which is the major liability in foreign policy. but when we look at the ukranian case, it's deeply irrational. i mean, i understand russia's irrationality, you know, their historical connection and ties. but i don't understand the western insistence on getting a crane into the camp when it's i think from the real political list point of view, it's absolutely clear that they cannot absorb that they cannot integrated fully. so why did they need it? i think dear appetite, or to bite dimension, was produced by these 2 fauria we generated from the feeling of end of history. we sure came as a result of the collapse of the soviet union,

which in fact was totally unexpected by americans. the couldn't even dream about this to happen. and i think her saw it leadership and all our domestic troubles created such a dream full situation for the worst. and when it happened and then helped her legal help. and so, but also they concluded, based on new concept developed at the time the concluded that this victory was not because of failure, just failure of the sort of leadership which, which was the case. but it was like a natural develop historical development, which should be prolonged and continued. so, and they lately claimed history for themselves. is that what you're saying is they sorta took the natural development of history, has their own achievement? absolutely. i think so. that was what the living god means actually. yeah. and that

was, that was some kind of for well to the real politics otherwise . and at the same time, you can, you can see that this attempt to take ukraine on the control from the point of view, real politics it's, it's quite, quite talk, quite normal because this is strategically important area. most western leaders and analysts are characterized rushes, actions there as totally and provoke, but i think among foreign policy increased, there is a realization that ukraine starting from 2014, perhaps even before that. but especially since 2014 was and major should teja, problem for russia, not an irrational law nest allergic issue, but the major strategic problem that the military personnel that the commander in chief had to address. can you spell out what was the actual problem there?

you know, the dose month of military operation demonstrated that at least in one point, fujen was absolutely right. ukraine was heavily preparing for a war annual with russia. oh, we don't know. but for a war, probably with russia, because with who else and the level of engagement with ukraine on the side, the u. s. u. k. european countries. and they are, but they are assistance to ukraine to be prepared for a big military conflict. and now everybody says it openly, it was the night before, but now even the officials in britain in us, they say yes, we were there, we did, there was think look, they fight very good because over and i think in this regard of whether they were prepared for a war, for, for attacking russia or for resisting russia. it does matter because here,

put in a last to quote, i think was the cause of it. so who said the intentions, and it was a bismark. yeah. intentions don't matter. what matters is to pretend. yeah. exactly, and the potential of ukraine has been increased significantly, whether russia, rightly and correctly calculate the devil to sing. that's another big discussion. but to say that this operation was a totally unprovoked, irrational move, that's a bit too far. ok, well, better we have to take a very short break right now, but we will be back in just a few moments they can't ah for a

or i welcome back to worlds of parts bit. so that will be on the research director of the discussion today before the break, we were talking about the military operation that the russia conduction, the ukraine, and i think authorizing something like that would have been a major a tab before any historically minded russian leader. but the specially so i think for lighting, put him given everything he sad about how the russians and the ukrainians, a part of one people would he have to part with this rather romantic geopolitical notion, you know, that your green light, the military operation and don't you think that rushing the way was how ca stage

off of that idea that you know we and the ukrainians brothers and wasn't the west using that in the sounds. calculating, counting on rushes, inability to take a military step against ukraine for so i would not overestimate the intellectual capacity of the west. so well you said that they were rational in center rational. yes, but you say that the county calculated how to provoke russia. i don't know me, probably not. so the kill tick movement of thinking in the west, as we see in the end of the cold war might be pretty disastrous for western bullets is what is true. yes, the narrative. and which put in and that many russian decision makers base the approach to ukraine is to put their mind they know the

only one. so you can argue quite grounded about this concept of one nation and one people. because for example, in the soviet union, that was completely different idea in the russia before 9 to century. it was another version of this. and we'll put in the revived is actually the approach which prevailed in russian history in the russian state building. since i mean the 19th century, but was it an emotional idea or was it because, i mean, the way i see that key as a commander in chief had to take rushes interest 1st and foremost, and many analysts, including, i think people associated with that have claimed that well, he sort of push the solving of the ukrainian issue off for quite some time that

perhaps if that have been addressed earlier, we wouldn't have to deal with the, you know, with the casualties and this level of destruction and the level of west and push it back as we are dealing with right now, do you think he has it hated perhaps for a little bit too long. some people believe that this action had to be taken 2014. whenever the thing started it's easy to be wise for somebody. yeah. i don't know, what is the answer to show that it wasn't the emotional put in is not a very much emotional person. yes, he believes in this narrative and he believes in this idea about one nation. but actually, many of us, including myself, were very much surprised to the beginning of this operation and not,

not to call it shocked, but actually approaching was very frank. if we remember his article published in july 2002 into one. exactly about this, the genesis of russian and ukrainian relationship and the conclusion that the article was absolutely clear. and that's the question to us, why we didn't read it as, as what was written. he said that, yes, we believed this is one nation. but we respect realities which emerged for many reasons, that there are 2 states, fine, and we are rated to recognize, to accept this state with one condition that the state is friendly to our, to our state than fine. they can corporate, like, i don't know, you as canada and so on. but if the 2nd state will be based on the anti russian ideology and become the anti russian bulwark,

then the state will not be there. you mentioned the 2014 and how this whole debacles started with the association association agreement. and just a few days ago, the e leaders formerly granted ukraine animal dover, candidate status, calling it a historic moment, a good day for europe. although there were some negative comments as well, for example, from you, commission president, are still on the line. who said that this decision was taken in the face of the russian imperialism. i wonder it's been the same question as with nate, or do they authentically want ukraine in or is it another case of an expansion or promised expansion for the sake of expansion and spiting russia? no, no. i think this is like a trip. so they don't want to green in the understand very well that ukraine is absolutely unfit to become member of the european union. even if we take the full

decides all the traditional problem. so you can buy this as a country at war, it's abscond through to all rules and principles of the european integration to accept such a country. what is interesting and coming back to the beginning, color conversation, europe in union and european leaders who launched this project and then continued that. and i'm, i believe that this project was one of the most successful in european political history. ever. human, the, i mean, the european integration from the beginning, you the, the, the, the, the, the, the cause of the actual data. but the initially tried to dig distance to every sink which has to do with job politics. it's not about politics, except it's about development. it's about democracy, it's about economic corporation, but please,

nor geo politics anymore. europe fed up with your politics into, into essentially so that and now the other way around the other way around because boss or mr from the line and sharma share the chairman of european council d. c openly. this is our do political duty to take ukraine and probably looking from this angle. yes, they the, they have to give some, some hope to ukrainian in this edition. but that basically eliminates the all idea about the european integration because in integration was not about that. and that's the question, not about diffusion of ukraine in the european union, but about the future of new york in your opinion prosy. and i think there is another concurrent example, all 5 the war is not just being warrants, but being followed by actions. and i mean the, the effort on the part of the e u to limit its dependence on russia's energy sources because energy up until

recently served as anchor ropes for the whole relationship and in some sense, preventative from deteriorating, given how both size. now try to cut it off. are there any safety catches left against further escalation or even against the bigger war of wider conflict given how irrational or geopolitical things tend to be? you know, i'm afraid the only mean which still works is nuclear deterrence. unfortunately, that's very sad and that's very primitive. actually we are back to 17060 s, maybe fifty's above 2. yes indeed you are. so you're right that the network over economic into dependencies, which has been developed very carefully since late 906. this and yes indeed,

it was an enormously useful mean to protect you repeat countries including the soviet union and then russia from escalations. now it's, it's gone. so we see that interdependencies now play the opposite role that, for that the weapon. and unfortunately, in this situation, the only irrational instrument to deter isn't nuclear arms and we see that into work. it's very bad. let me ask you a broader question about how the international system is changing because we talked about the collapse of the so if union, but the roads recently that the changes that we are witnessing right now. i in fact much broader because the collapse of the soviet bloc was absorbed by the system without significant changes. but nowadays, according to you, we're seeing an avalanche which is streaming down the hill and nobody, no country,

perhaps not even the united states, can influence, let alone stop had, can re, at least speculate about the direction, the trajectory of this consequence. where is it heading? no, i don't think we can project and we can predict at this point because we are in the middle of a snow storm and it's quite senseless to try to to picture how the world's system will look like say 5 years for 10 years from now. but yes, i'm not so sure that the change today is much deeper than the change we witnessed. and i remember from my late eighty's early ninety's, because at the time at least we had an idea where to go. not everybody was happy with this, but most people believe that the it was the only the only possible way. now,

there are no way civil and many things happening are actually undermining not just the international political order, but some basic principles like capitalist competition. the market economy, all those extra creation, so essence based on what based on loss. no, not necessarily attempts to create a huge cargo of gas and oil. consumers to put prices under control. it has nothing to do with the liberal economy as renew it. and most likely it will continue and we will see something completely different. so this one, we have to leave it there, but it's as always a great pleasure talking to you. thank you. and thank you for watching hope to see you again next week on wells apart and

with . mm ah. 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 very dramatic development. only personally. and getting to resist, i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very critical of time. time to sit down and talk with

credit troops prepared to defend lucy, john, 4 months and months everywhere. all over the city. there are drug alton french's blood clue. they take a lot of work in our career, visit the last ukrainian stronghold in johnson republic. on the very day, russian and allied forces took full control of the region to investigate the arms trade on ukraine's dark web. re contacts the dealers to find out about the availability of weapons online and social explosives. that's what the german chancellor called rising energy prices in europe.