ah, what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy confrontation, let it be an arms. race is often very dramatic. development only personally, i'm going to disease. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very critical. i'm time to sit down and talk with mm hm. hello and welcome to wealth apart more than a century ago. mark twain, the remark that, that god created,

war so that americans would learn geography. i guess today has supported all recent american lab wars, and a tom says regime change, but he's absolutely appalled by russia's actions in ukraine. why is that? to discuss it? i'm now joined by a former us national security advisor and former us ambassador to the united nations john bolton, ambassador bolton, it's such a rare treat for a russian journalist to speak to thank you very much for this occasion. well, thank you for having me. glad to do it. now you have the reputation of being pretty hawkish, thinker, especially when it comes to russia. when you look at the bounce in and around ukraine, whom do you blame 1st? is it president putin or president biden? well, i think this is unquestionably an active unprovoked aggression by russia, and there's no legitimate explanation for so i think the responsibility does live with president colton and his government,

i think unfortunately that the west failed adequately to deter potent from, from launching the invasion and, and that's a great tragedy but, but in this instance, it's pretty clear where the responsibility laws now president put it in his own words, is motivated by defending russia, that strategic interest. so he will definitely disagree with your definition of an unprovoked aggression. but let me, i establish that phrase, do you believe that russia has any security prerogative when it comes to its own neighborhood? and especially when it comes to the american and native presence in its neighborhood? well, i certainly has an interest in its own strategic security. but the fact is, the countries that border on russia have an interest in their strategic security as well. and it's not just dealing with eastern and central european countries that were previously independent. estonia live in lithuania, have all join nato,

they border on russia. they were part of the soviet union by force, not by choice. and by choice they decided to join nato. finland may soon decide to join nato as may sweden. so, you know, every country gets to determine how its own security plays out. nato has always been a defensive alliance. russia has always known that every contract, if you would agree, it has also its own choice of the means that it uses to defendant's interests. now that means that vladimir putin chose to defend russia's interest may seem disproportionate or excessive. to some, but i'm sure it to you, they're pretty conventional given that you are somebody who supported or advocated for military action in iran, iraq, syria, live in israel, a cuba, north korea and the lease goes on. are you saying that the use of force that seems

to be so permissible to the united states in your own eyes should be absolutely off limits when it comes to other great powers. well, obviously, any use of force has to be justified and certainly acting in self defense is a legitimate use of force. nobody questions that i think the preemptive use of force against a real threat to the united states, towards friends and allies in order to prevent devastation and innocent civilians is also justifiable. so when states like iran or north korea seek nuclear weapons, use of force is fully justifiable when a country commits unprovoked aggression as iraq did against kuwait in, in 1900. 90 kuwait is entitled in the exercise of its own self defense to ask her out to protect it, why we iraq. so there are a lot of there are, there are

a lot of different situations and different facts. different circumstances give rise to different remedies. absolutely. but the, in most of those circumstances, the access central interest of the united states were not involve your own populations were not threatened either in libya or in syria or for that matter during the 2nd iraq invasion that you saw eagerly supported. no, no, no. well no that's, that's simply not correct in, in either pace. and you can, you can talk about these others as well. in the case of syria where terrorists supported by iran, supported by the government of syria, were threatening to create an islamic state. there would have threatened the west as a whole and had very strong western support across the board with our nato allies to destroy the islamic state. nobody can argue, nobody in their right mind can argue that ukraine posed any threat to russia,

none whatsoever. well, we will talk more about that. that's certainly the case that russia is trying to advance, and russia has sounded deep displeasure with made us moving, formerly in formerly towards its borders for quite some time, including when you were in office. you visited me as president trump national security advisor. you shook hands with why do we put in? i remember, i think it was in some or 2018. you even talked about the value of communication between leaders in the most difficult of times. in all fairness, didn't the crumbling use all the diplomatic means at its disposal to limit the welcome. and so i would say malicious us presence close to russian borders. there's simply no truth to what you're saying. nato didn't move toward brushes, borders just just for, for the benefit of people in russia who may not hear this. it was the nations of eastern central europe once the warsaw pact broke up after decades of repression

by the soviet union. that came to nato and requested membership, so that they could create their own free governments and societies and so that it may, could have peace and security against external threats. nato didn't decide it wanted to expand into eastern europe democratically elected governments expressing the will of their peoples, asked for nato membership. i'm bassett, bold and with all due respect, i think you're sure the now think you understand that mosca would find it quite provocative. that the united states was arming, providing ukraine with lethal weapons for pretty long period of time. you may disagree that it poses a threat to moscow, but more score is within its own rise to determine what this as threatening in this signal is displeasure. whether didn't it so, so you believe moscow would be perfectly with vantage rights to attack estonia live

be unless the wendy are right now? absolutely, no, because i don't think last stormy. are big enough countries to pose the security threat to russia. ukraine. very large. your a p and country would be given that president laskey recently raised a spectre of a nuclear confrontation of re establishing its nuclear expertise. you think that the russians should have missed that comment that the media security conference. so so well, let me get, let me get your, your rationale here. if a country is big enough, like ukraine, then russia is entitled to invade. how about no one should take if security interest seriously, and i think if they've communicated that to the americans, you can't deny dod denies that. russia has legitimate security interests, but that doesn't mean that they don't legitimate security interests. can you define that? for example, in terms of be flight time that it takes for the rockets to reach moscow,

how would you define that security interest? what would be the constable lifetime for you, for rockets to reach russia? well, i don't know russian rock as can reach the united states in 30 minutes. that's not very comfortable either. the point is that the, the question of what constitutes a legitimate threat to russian security is a subject. russia has to prove. and there's absolutely no evidence that ukraine has ever had the capacity to threaten russia. well, i think russia is growing right now on the battlefield, but rather than arguing about that because we could never agree, let's face and you think i should, is proving on the battlefield. is the incompetence of its military and intelligence service. we will definitely also talk about the tactics of the russian military. but before we do that, i want to ask you something about the decisions of the bite and administration. because he said recently that it was a strategic mistake by than by to stay, that nato would never interfere with russia actions in ukraine. what about

america's presence in the ukraine? i mean, the armament security advisors, those advocate prime promises to ukraine, to care with regards to its membership prospects, especially when we consider, you know, very louis, the desire on the part of the west to come to ukraine's defense is do you think it was iranian to make ukraine believe that the west would come to support? well, i think that that nato made a significant mistake in 2008 when it rejected president george w bush's proposal to put a new crime in georgia on a fast track toward nato membership. and i think president saw bad mistake, and 4 months later invaded georgia. now the fact is that neither the united states and nato responded effectively to bad act been provoked aggression. and in 2014

president cody struck again and invaded ukraine. and once again, neither the united states and nato took effective action in response to that unprovoked digression. but the fact that that these mistakes were made does justify russia taking another active unprovoked digression. what it says is that only when russia is deterred adequately, does it not act with military force? and that's why in this case, making sure that brush doesn't benefit from this act of aggression is very important. you mentioned that it was a mistake not to grant ukraine in georgia, formal membership, but as it is viewed from the kremlin, it doesn't really matter whether the membership is formal or informal. the fact of arming your credit, which the west has been doing a very eagerly over the last couple of months and years already constitute security

threats for moscow, or at least in the commons calculus. and i want to ask you something as a strategy, and this is purely a pretext on the kremlin part. what was looked to do was make sure that it had adequate defensive capability. does it have adequate defense capabilities right now? did that promise worked out well? does it have it now? well, it's doing a lot better than the kremlin expected. that's for sure. well, that's not good enough, but, well, let, let me ask you again. would you like ukrainian troops marching into russia, which, you know, if the russian forces continue to perform as poorly as they have both, i would like for us to be grounded in reality, you know, a real politic matter something in this world. and i do think there's more at this point, russia has failed to achieve its objectives. we don't know exactly what russians casualties are, but i think they're going to be a lot of families in russia,

missing their sons this coming year. i'm bassett. a bold and let me ask you something is a try to just rather than an idealogue, whatever you think of putin, i'm sure also rising in operation like this was a huge moral historical dilemma for him. because russia indeed has a very special connection to ukraine. i wonder if the boldness or the brazen this with which the west was militarized and ukraine of late, was in fact promised on the calculation that russia would never ever use force against ukraine. oh, what, what you have in ukraine is a government freely elected by its people, which you do not have in russia. and the freely elected government in ukraine looked for defensive capabilities. having seen what russian arms achieved in 2014 seizing the crimea, seizing territory in the don bass, they wanted the, the ability to withstand that, to deter future rush and aggression. now anybody who believes that the quantity and

quality of military assistance being provided to ukraine, gave them anything more than an enhanced defensive capability, doesn't understand what was going on. it's simply incredible. to argue that somehow a buttressed ukrainian defensive capability was a threat to russia. it absolutely was not, and i don't even think vladimir putin believes that i think what he thinks he's doing is making good on what he said in 2005 about reversing the breakup of the soviet union. that was a hard thing for russia, but history is a hard teacher. and failing to understand that that was basically an irrevocable breakup is what's causing this tragedy today. well, ambassador, both in the we have to take a very short break right now, but we will be back in just a few moments. stay tuned. ah

ah ah ah

ah ah welcome back to world the porridge with former us national security advisor, doug bolton, ambassador bolton, you mentioned that i input in mind and americans for some reason i left so much to read in mind so i will rely on the capacity to do that because read the russians don't always, don't always succeed in that. do you think the ukrainian state will continue to exist after russia fulfills its objectives in ukraine? it's military objectives. well, we don't know what the military objectives are, but i think the ukraine states can certainly exist in exile even in the worst of circumstances as governments did in world war 2, after the nazi occupation. and i think that's something that the student and his

advisor should have considered before they began this operation. but i don't see how at this point the russian military can really expect to take control of the entire country. i think that's beyond their grass. that's also beyond the aspiration because the criminal has never pronounced about to be its objective. so all it sad, it was, it said what it no, it hasn't said what its objectives are, but it's the tax capital. so would you say, did you say the objective number one was demilitarization and taking out ukraine's military infrastructure? the 2nd objective was what he called dena cation. that is the elimination of far right militia groups in the ukraine. but let's talk about the total pretext. as we know those remain, you know, they're back in mr. walls on the, you know, of how many times the be noted, safe attack,

a foreign lands on full pre access in numerous times. but the time especially the 2nd invasion of iraq. yeah. the chemical weapons and we all remember that. but anyway, you said that the russian after the russian military efforts is now bogged down to the surprise of many western analyst. and i wonder if this surprise of western analysts rose out of the very different ways in which the russians and the americans find their wars. the russians relying far more on the manpower and the americans relying far more on to have our tillery. well, let's go back to iraq's chemical weapons. you know, who also believe that iraq had chemical weapons, the united nations, because iraq itself had declared those chemical weapons after the 1st go for sure. so you know, you are hiding behind the, for the united nation. that wasn't had no my strong point in your career, you were never i thought it might be impressive. you. the issue

now is not, not the different styles of warfare that countries engage in. although the russian style is going to cost it in casualties. sad, sadly for russia going forward and the families that will suffer as a result from it. it's whether completely unprovoked aggression is acceptable. and the answer is that it's not. so this is something that the rush is going to pay a heavy price for the tragedy. so i think is that the u. s. failed to deter, to begin with, but that's not less than the price for russia. i actually believe review that, agree with you, that the russians are taking upon themselves a risk of higher military casualties. precisely because they have an objective of limiting civilian death toll and there is a very understandable tactics. very good, really doing that pretty good job. and if you compare the,

the casualties in the 1st few weeks. so let's say be iraq here of towns if and the ukrainian offensive is incomparable. you can't even compare that group. that's true, there substantially greater civilian casualties in ukraine lying here because according to the you, in the 4 weeks of the ukrainian campaign around 800 people were killed. if we compare that to this 1st 6 weeks of the shock and operation, it was around $7400.00 civilians killed those that official figures. and we are not even talking about how those official figures were achieved. but coming after the issue coming back to the issue of different styles of offensive the russians having to rely much more on demand power and that americans having to rely much more on b. # how they are tillery and essentially bombing the cities, and only them moving in can't you at least give russians the credit

for trying to protect civilians? because i know we are adversaries. but the, you know, at least the russian culture there is a tradition of respecting, be, you know, noble acts of the, of the adversaries. can you be a little bit more straightforward here? well, i'd respect noble acts if i so, and the fact is, the approach that rushes using here, very familiar to president potent, what he did in chechnya, in the 2nd tragedy in war during the yeltsin term, what he has been doing in syria and really it is a style of warfare that i think is shocking to the rest of the world. it may, it may be unusual, it may, it may be because it's in europe rather than chechnya or syria. it shouldn't be that different, but in fact, i think people understand this is a very brutal form of warfare and it's not, it's not going to achieve rushes objectives to say the least any form of for,

for them. but it's much more careful of the civilian casualties. than the american style. and since you mentioned, say we actually call that study lease style. because in theory, if you remember, if you look at the map of syria and hearing that offensive, there were lots of opposition. how enclave located right next to the government controlled areas. precisely because a process refusal to use heavy artillery on heavily populated areas. that's a very different from the way the americans form that war. and the russians brought a totally new style of warfare to the middle is to reach the middle east actually appreciates. believe it or not. yeah. well, we could take a voter that's around the middle east. i mean, i think russia and some of that would be our to, to, to attack the civilian targets. the russians gave them intelligence about we were talking before about the theory and how the, how syria posed

a threat to the united states. because it was a seed of islamic terrorism. now there is that credible concern, not only in russia, but also around the world, about the rise of fly ride battalions in ukraine, ukraine, that according to america, its own experts has been used as a training ground for foreign militia from around the world. and you know, the forces that prisons allowance to despise his 3 years in office, not being able to control. is that legitimate threat as far as you're concerned? well, american legislation forbids any assistance that we give to ukraine, going into any terrorist hands right, left or, or anywhere else. and those don't become acceptable simply because they happened to be on the ukranian side of the border. but none of that excuses. the aggression that russia has committed and continues to, to commit these again, are a pretext that are coming after the decision was made that code and wanted to

establish russian, germany over ukraine through really use it for. well, you mentioned that it's pretext, is that only a period after the launch of this offensive, and i want to give you some figures from the time magazine article last year, which cited that $17004.00 in fighters have come to ukraine over the last 6 years. from over 50 countries, some of them were associated with terrorist attacks in the west, including the one in the christ church, new zealand, where 51 people were killed if that were happening close to your border. would you be ok with that? well, if i thought it were true, it would be a concern, but you have this. and if you, if you have this information and can verify, then i think you need to present it and people can make up their own minds. but even if everything you've just said is true, as absolutely nothing to do with rushes invasion of ukraine. well, how is it not? how that's of have anything to do with russia's invasion in your brain. because if

you actually look at what's happening on the ground, the most notorious class is the fiercest class that occurred there on the between the russian and ukrainian military forces there between the russians troops. and before i arrived military battalions, you know, were just for my information, where do you suppose it clashes take? what are you familiar with this town? i think they're around 130000 civilians that are being still health hostage. they're not being left out despite the existence of humanity, humanitarian chord there is both to russia and to mainly be crane. have you ever heard about that town? many, and there's all that to see there's this is the only news cast of which i'm aware that says the people fighting their for ukraine or right wayne terrorist. and i think that's something you really need to consider. everything we see and independent was western press. observers believe that this is the ukrainian army

making, a very heroic stand against overwhelming force has nothing to do with was right going terrors. now let's talk about how these may and you advocated for the harshest possible sanctions against russia, ronald reagan type of response, which would combine a firm stance and support for russia supposition what can possibly be achieved through that? well, i think this is really up to the russian people. now, i don't, i don't know that anything will necessary necessarily take place during the course of war. but i think a lot of russians are voting with their feet, leaving the country and, and expressing their concerns. we've seen some real acts of bravery inside russia. and at one point we could find out what russians really thank if say, actually have a free and fair election. can i ask you one more question about the reaction of china? because many analysts, both in the east and in the west, agreed that china's position would be crucial in determining how much pain russia

suffers in the face of western sanctions. and it's evident from the latest cold, but then president bolton of president bush and i'm sorry, president vida, and you're with i'm sure you were president, hold on. but the recent call between president biden and president, she that it's in the us main means of dis, waging now france sticks rather than karen's or any form of positive reinforcement. do you think beijing will find it appealing or threatening enough to comply with washington? well, i think a china is a threat and of itself to the united states and the west is a whole. and a question of how to deal with china is going to be a huge, subjective debate. i don't know whether these telephone calls from president biden will dissuade china or not. but i think china is going to need to think about this . because if they have designs on free places like taiwan and others in the endo

pacific, they need to recognize that there's a stronger and stronger view on the united states. we will not accept this. well, there may be a stronger and stronger view by the the tools in your toolbox seems to be rather limited. in fact, i've heard the number of analysts suggest that the most opportune time for beijing to assume full control of taiwan would rise right after the end of the russian operation in ukraine. because the american ability to hit beijing sanctions would be at its minimum. do you think that will come to pass? well, i think china would be making a huge mistake if they drew that conclusion. that's for sure. and in terms of the policy, the united states, if you think it's tough under joe biden, wait until we get an administration whose views are closer to mine. well, god help us. i had to had time, i said, are both and, but that will leave. we have to leave it here. i had this point when you come to

office, i will request that interview again, but for the time being, thank you very much for your perspective. glad to get it. and thank you for watching hope to see you again next week. and ah, a with,

with a in the ran are now the most sanctioned countries in the world. but the latest efforts by the western european countries to isolate russia, only led to closer ties between russia and the islamic republic. russia and iran planet to deepen bilateral ties with a new deal to be considered a mid hooton's upcoming visit to the islamic republic. germany said, chancellor optional suggests ending the use of vito policy for individual countries . as he says, the block needs to be unified on its foreign affairs. it wants to remain a global power, a go to wallet.