almost a conduct of international affairs. we are told quite often that this was supposed to have changed with the adoption of the united nations charter. but unfortunately, that is not true. and sorry for interrupting i just wanted to sort of narrow our attention a little bit to the complaint that listing attention to now. and by that, i mean, of course, the lens, ukraine. he's a very difficult decision for the russians. we will have to deal with the consequences of both moral and economic and political consequences for many years to combine the question i hear over here in oscar is whether it could have been avoided whether russia could have it. she wanted it as, as a stand. so goals without the use of military force. if we look at how things

develop, it could have been avoided. if one would have implement those points that were agreed upon by both sides, by both parties of the conflict. during the negotiations in men's and in particular, i mean the very precise agreement on no specific measures on a picture of measures in the course of the negotiations are called means to in the year 2015. and i just would like to can recall here what the i see this time i issued a statement in connection with negotiations in february 2015, where i outlined the basic principles that were contained anyway in the agreement. namely, deep friendship, love, self or local surf determination,

which are also in place of friendship will offer candle federal state structure. and i added to that the policy of permanent neutrality, which anyway was all what it was initially when grain was founded. and when they agreed on, on a clear the statues of the country in the ninety's, that was always an idea that shaped somehow the foreign policy of ukraine. so that should also have been followed up. and if this would have happened in the armed confrontation, which is going on right now, and which is very unfortunate also by the way, in terms of international humanitarian law that could, can,

should have been avoided if everybody would have acted in good faith. unfortunately, i don't remember i did raise this issue of autonomy for the eastern provinces with national speaking majority around 2018 in a conversation with the presidential candidate ukraine. he was defeated, who was a former minister of defense. i did raise the issue. i asked him, frankly, why do you not implement the pro vision of autonomy in the eastern territories? it has been agreed upon. it is on paper and by the way, all of this has been and ensured has been confirmed. i think you would agree with me that it wasn't the plan, but from the very beginning, i mean the next day after this by sign, the ukrainian side will be helpful. down western partners essentially suggested that you know, those agreements reached under your ass. they were sort of

a political ploy to win time and to change the situation on the ground, the military situation on the ground that they should not have been implement. and that may impact implementation of those agreements and even acknowledging and the support of those agreements were i can't seem to be trail, few claims, national interest. and this is, this is what was transmitted, not only in ukraine, but i think the west largely want to just chill. there was, of course, there is a very heated debate in domestic politics in ukraine about this issue about the rights of the minorities under rights of the russian minority. but anyhow, i would say it was the leadership of the government of ukraine that agreed to that measure of amending the constitution of ukraine. and

the stalks were facilitated by germany and france. and i do not see how one could see that this all was achieved under duress. what i remember me if i may just get back to that discussion which i was a former minister of defense of ukraine when he was a presidential candidate. he came to vienna and he wanted to explain his position as part of his candidacy and his reply. when i asked about the deal to me, provision was no, we cannot do that. we can have it from single because this would mean this integration of ukraine. but this, what if this is the idea from the outside? i do not understand how they could have signed it. and just if i'm a give one example, we have an experience in austria. how through an autonomy arrangement for a national minority, a crisis between 2 states,

6 can be avoided because we had almost the same problem with our german speaking korean minority in italy. that was a press as a result of official policy. so recently need, he wanted to italian eyes, determine speaking audience. so he banned the term language and so on. and as a result of this, after the 2nd world war, there was an armed resistance by a deter audience in italy. and the situation. the problem could be solved ultimately by austria acting as a protection power for the south orleans. and by reaching an agreement as the bilateral level, with italy on full autonomy, a very advanced form of autonomy for the south orleans. and we had almost floor, i do remember that our military was stationed along the border of italy in the mountains after since they received the reach that agreement. we are,

australia usually are in a historical analogy, only applies if you believe that both sides, once you avoid what he said, that there was almost in war. but it wouldn't because the 2 sides i seen were genuinely interested in finding a solution and mutually agreeable solution. which i'm not sure is the case in the ukrainian cause, and do you actually believe that the ukrainian side and our partners in the west actually wanted to settle that issue for the best of everybody in? well, this is difficult to answer. officially, the western side would always have said that they are in favor of full implementation of the means agreement. at least that was my understanding. as regards to, to call sponsors off to meeting germany and france, they would never,

they never said that they are not in favor of a full implementation, but they did not follow up the visa of ukraine on it. that for sure, they should have on it as far as i can see. now, the real problem is one of the mystic politics in ukraine. as far as the statues of the russian systems of ukraine is concerned. because every politician, even, i mean also the president who is now in office as i saw some video documents of conversation she had with the leaders of the commanders of the she did not succeed to convince them that they should keep out of politics. and the problem seems to have been over all those years. if you're green and politician would have been in favor of

a correct and full implementation. also of these domestic revisions, this would have been exploited by the competitors off. the other part is always a problem. i mean, whenever a politician pursue certain agenda, he always encounters here. he always encounters difficulty, not the nature of politics. you're not expected to have a smooth, right? especially when you are you and you happen to be a present country. that is position right. been here, major military adversaries. that requires a certain acumen that requires the so, you know, will a certain willingness to defend your own nation. when you pull the land, he could not persuade b, a county and not to metal into college. being to diplomatic, typical european i have to say because as a battalion is not just new enough to but ultimately nasty battalion is not just in

politics, it's part and parcel is fully incorporated into the ukrainian state machine. you a or different that in describing the facts on the ground. i knew just where to leonor this unit, so this fighting group is now officially integrated into the ukranian army. i think the idea behind was to so to speak to mr. k. that little not to leave them out so they could take whatever the ukrainian government is doing from outside. unfortunately, it has not succeeded this kind of project as far as i understand because the ideology of that particular group, this is without any doubt, it is extremely right wing or faces or whatever you may call it. and the ideology

is in favor of a kind of homogenous nation state of your grade, where everybody else, whether russians or for that matter. also, by the way, it would have to see himself or herself under this aspect of being culturally or ethnically ukrainian was also debating the russian language. and i understand only too well are the implications of all of them. because as i said, we had the same problem as far as our end from 0 myself as a brothers and sisters in italy, we're concerned who went out aloud. sure, the tool use their own language and who were not even taught the language in the school. this is in italy, it was the ideology of facial study or mostly. and that's not an ideology for our

time where we believe in tolerance and multiculturalism. so there must be a gang of want us to kind of assistance. and in case such as the ukraine, a kind of amendment of the constitution in the direction of federal religion would be the way out. it does not mean that this would be opened the way to this integration of the country, not at all. and as far as i understand russia also and interprets it as a much they have become part of the country country where there are communities that have their own rights. and also that has in particular situations in particular areas, also local self rule. and we have to take

a short break right now. we will be back to the discussion in just a few minutes. state ah, are with for only one, main thing is important. not as an internationally speaking to that is that nations allowed to do anything, all the mazda races, and then you have the minor nation. so all the slaves, americans, brock, obama, and others have had a concept of american exceptionalism. international law exist as

long as it serves american interest. if it doesn't, it doesn't exist by turning those russians into this danger is boy man that wants to take over the world. that was a culture strategy and wolf out of it on your own. i not leashed off to exhibit in tablet block. nato said it's ours. we moved east and the reason us, hey jim, it is so dangerous, is it? the law is the sovereignty of all the countries. the exceptionalism that american uses and its international war planning is one of the greatest threats to the populations of different nations. if nato, what is bad shareholders in united states and elsewhere in large obs companies would lose millions of millions? or is business and business is good and that is the reality of what we're facing, which is fashion

in the united states has always had a variety of tools in use and tax on other countries. economic sanctions are, are often just the beginning. another thing you like to do is place some military pressure on the countries that you're talking about and there has to be an effort to demonize that country and the leader of that country out. we have a responsibility for the home and we need to make room for the rest. has with out there will be 2.

ah ah, welcome back to work with president of the international progress organization, dr. before the break, we were discussing various ways of bringing that conflict. one of the things that you mentioned was neutrality, and i'm hearing a lot of russian analyst day, will say that russia has a stake in fact, and that, that a strong vested interest in maintaining and protecting your crane sovereignty on one condition. that is a military neutrality, is that something that the west that americans in particular ever seriously commit you, can they commit to not trying to use russian neighborhood for their own geopolitical

. busy for as a platform for, you know, injecting di employers in this part of the world. can we touch on a rational basis, namely on the basis of mutuality? and this is exactly the experience of austria with its own neutrality. after the 2nd world war in the period of cold war and this time, austria was occupied by for elijah hours, the victors of the 2nd world war. and i mean it was to regain our full sovereignty and independence. and shortly to get rid of all these offered by the problem at that time, was that the great powers and particularly the soviet union at the time and the united states were quite suspicious. these of each other. so the only way

out of this last that austria did the clear itself a permanently neutral country. and what is important is permanent, that checked, if not, does neutral in a particular consolation or in an opportunistic manner. but as a principle of state, as a shaping the identity of the states and is now known as in the history books. it was all foreign minister. by the way, also from your role. as i mentioned earlier to mr. grover, who had the idea that we might sound out and with the soviet union, how they would react as if we suggest that we could commit ourselves to a man centers of neutrality. he asked the indian prime minister in confidential meeting in switzerland, in not to know the $53.00 to sound the to find out what these are the distribute

union, how the reaction would be. initially, it was a little skeptical as far as i see in miss them while ago. but 2 years later, it happened. we agreed to austin delegation, agreed on. remember, on early in the negotiations was moscow. and initially the western powers were rather skeptical. in particular, the british and b and i did stage these are we trying to do. but ultimately, they understood that this was a rational measure of the real quality because each of the bowers could be sure that austria would not be used in ground for a, for any military attacks by their adversaries. you have positive and inspiring historical exam, although it dates back quite some time. now in time,

do you think if you crean in deep signs up here a, th, can be neutral, neutral, and an independent, fully self sufficient state. and the same time releasing its own self interested sounds, guiding policy in other areas. but just keeping the military aspect on the neutral ground is, can be of course, military neutrality means not only don't know foreign troops stationed on the territory of a country. and that country does not join any military alliance. it also means that such a permanently military, a neutral country, is also not taking sides when international armed conflict occurs.

that's how switzerland, by the way, always has interpreted its neutrality at least until recently. and how also also i'm, unfortunately, i have until recently interprets neutrality in my understanding, it makes no sense to declare yourself, militarily, permanently neutral, if at the same time, the country shines in measures course measures against another country. in the situation of armed conflict, i mean to push your sanctions. well, let's talk you actually i wrote that you see at sanctions as a continuation of politics by any means. he also suggested that sanctions go against sanctions, a population at large indiscriminately go against human rights. how do you reset your conclusion? this,

i would say rather easy to provide the argumentation by the way i did raise the issue for the 1st time, internationally in 1991 in connection with the sanctions that were imposed by the united nations security council on the rock. as far as human rights are concerned, if the result of comprehensive economic sanctions is that the population suffers enormously. that for instance, the health services college and then as a result of this, thousands of thousands of people died. this is a very serious violation of human rights and i consider human rights as abuse or jones of general international law. and that applies by the way, also to united nation sections. and of course, as far as unilateral sanctions are concerned in both by one country or a group of countries as coercive measures in

a confrontation with another country. those are anyway outside the framework of international law. because according to international law, it is only the united nations security council that has to order to, to impose sanctions as part of the core versus measures. the next step of course, measures according to ensure that wouldn't be the use of force. but if countries that use such a shipment measures like sanctions at their own initiative, there is no actual authorization, whatever the situation may be exempt, it's and the kind of right of self defense would be if a country isn't that isn't, is a text, it may react with force, but also we use other forms of forcing children, economic or a legal issue, but also

a moral issue. and the problem with the current batch of international sanctions is that they just like not only the russians, but they may affect the rest of the world as well. and there are many aspects for warning about the spectra map or hunger in western africa. people around the world suffering from the increases of gas prices and fuel prices gain. how do you think the world will react to being jack, to seal so essentially carrying the brand of the american decision? do you think the other countries would be ok with that or do you think they will voice some objections regardless of what their stands on? rushes, actions are. i think for 1st, the large majority of countries of the world with a new way, not agree with us sanctions policy which is been which is

being enforced right now by the western countries. legally, those companies have no ride any way to oblige other countries, such as, for instance, india or china or turkey to go along with those. because these are sanctions adopted by the united nations. as far as the people in those countries that in both the sanctions are concerned. i think what has not been thought through by the western politicians is that what will happen directions that will happen when the people begin to feel the problems themselves. in such a case, this mass hysteria which we have seen now in some of the western countries, me quite quickly. the question and people may disagree, let me get to disagree with their governments about some of the sanctions and you

seals or concerning the oil and gas. a european countries have made an exception and they always say a minute for me, it's quite ironic. they officially say in the brightness and foreign minister sanctions not must be structured in such a way, then do they do not affect us negative. in fact, is that rather a promise, if not a statement, if you treat yourself as 2 separate entities and either me or the brand of your decision, whether your population should not, you should be somehow isolated from that. isn't that a? it's certainly supremacy. that's what i would say, and it is the standards, by the way. now we have a game season, high season of hypocrisy,

and kind of the standards concerning international norms and government. we should impose punitive measures in such a way that only the other side is shirt. and our people do not so, so to speak, do not have to make any sacrifices. the only the other side has to make a sacrifice. and we have to push the other side into a certain direction through a kind of collective punishment. because that is what actually what the sanctions in this, on this large scale are. and in that regard, sanctions against human rights 1 may act if one has agreement disagreements or established an armed confrontation or a war as we see now. the governments may act against the government of the other

translate the policies of which they take the entire people of that other country, hostage by phone sanctions. by the way, also in the field of culture, what does it to, you know, what literature or sports has to do with all of that. that, of course is collective punishment. and that is a violation of human rights. and that certainly is a violation of most basic legal principles doctor we have to, we were there. thank you very much for this conversation. you're welcome. thank you for watching hope to see her again. next week with me

for what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy confrontation, let it be an arms race is on a very dramatic development. only personally, i'm going to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very critical time to sit down and talk about them with with you, i guess with you. i'm with,

it's a no to blackmail when it comes to foreign affairs. that's the message from russia and the republic of the congo after talks between the countries diplomats to figure love robes, africans, or in full swing. the bucket study business community is keen to develop trade relations with russia. as the president of the pakistan business forum knows the attractiveness of the russian market, all the countries export and restricting the flow russian energy giant and gas problem says it's taking another turbine offline for maintenance.