ah ah with mm welcome to wells fargo, depression general and military theories that carl klaus with famously said that war is a continuation of politics. by other means. i guess today it takes a bit further by suggesting that these day and age sanctions to you are advancing the cause of war. and in the case of the ukrainian conflict,

we have both isn't likely to lead to a lasting peace. i'm now joined by hans carplay or president of the international progress organization. doesn't a good to talk to you. thank you very much for your time. you're welcome. now let's 1st deal with a search and add or is a continuation of policies. by all means, i know that you disclose you use in your writing quite a bit as cynical as it may sound in our progressive age. is that still to is that still the case? not only in the ukrainian context, but also broadly around the world. it is still the case. indeed, of course we have to heard the war is politics by other means. if other forms of politics have

fails, that means in particular, if diplomacy has failed. but certainly, whatever may have been said since 1945 since the foundations of the united nations, the use of force by one state against another state, is still a kind of almost regular message of the 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 i that, i mean, of course, the lens and 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 open here in oscar is whether it could have been avoided whether russia could have if she wanted games as it as a stand so goals without the use of military force. if we look back how things develop, it could have been avoided. if one would have implemented those points that were agreed upon by both church by both parties of the conflict. you are and initiations in minsk and in particular, i mean the very precise agreement on 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 i see at this time, i issued a statement in connection with the means negotiations in february 2015 where i outlined the basic principles that were contained anyway in the ministry agreement, namely the friendship love self role or local self determination, which also implies apprenticeship will offer candle federal state structure. and i added to that the policy of permanent neutrality, which anyway was all what was initially when you grade was founded. and when they agreed on, on a little 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, which is very unfortunate also by the way, in terms of international sure military lawyer that could, can, should have been avoided if everybody would have acted in good faith. unfortunately, i do remember i did, reese 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 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 paper and, but from the very beginning, i mean the next day after these agreements were signed, the ukrainian side will be helpful. down western partners essentially suggested that you know, those agreements reached under duress. there were sort of a political ploy to win time and to change the situation on the ground, the military situation on the ground and that they should not have been implement and that they in fact implementation of those agreements and even that knowledge. and then the support of those agreements were i came to the trail, cleans national interest and this is, this is, this is what was transmitted, not only in ukraine, but i think the wes largely want to do. there was,

of course, there is a very heated debate in domestic politics in ukraine about this issue about the rights of the minority under rights of the russian minority. but anyhow, i would say it was the leadership of the government of ukraine agreed to that measure of amending the constitution of ukraine and the storks were facilitated by germany and france. and i do not see how one could say that this all was achieved under duress. what i remember me if i may just go back to that discussion which i, who is 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 son play. when i asked about 30 autonomy 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 and conflict can be avoided because we had almost the same problem with our german speaking korean minority in italy, that was all pressed. as a result of official policies of michelin, if you wanted to italian eyes, the german speaking audience, so he band to german language and so on. and as a result of this, after the 2nd world war, there was an armed resistance by and it's our 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 at 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, on military was stationed along the border of italy in the mountains after since they received the reach that agreement. we are, australia, italy, are in good terms. that historical analogy only applies if you believe that both sides, once you avoid what you said, there was almost in war, but avoid it because the just side i seen were genuinely interested in finding a solution and mutually agreeable solution, which i'm not sure is the case. in the ukranian conference, 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 misc agreement. at least that was my understanding. as regards to, to co sponsors off to meeting sure money at france, they would never, they never say that they are not in favor of full implementation, but they did not follow up the visa 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 seed 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

conversations he had with the leaders of the commanders of the he 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 going and petition 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. and i mean, whenever politician pursue certain agenda, he always encounters here. she always encounters difficulty, not the nature of politics. you're not expected to have a smooth, right? especially when your you, when you happen to be present country that is positioned right when you major military adversaries. that requires a certain act amendment that requires a so,

you know, will a certain willingness to define your own nation. when you pull the land, he could not persuade b, a county and not to metal into politics. being to diplomatic, typical european i have to say because as a battalion is not just new enough, 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 man describing the facts and the grounds. i know 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 sorta speak domesticate that little not to leave them out. so they could take whatever the 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 when or faces the 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 that. because as i said, we had the same problem as far as our i am from 0 myself as

a brother and sisters in italy. we're concerned who went out to lout 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 one us develop a kind of form is quite systems. and in a case such as the ukraine, a kind of amendment of the constitution in the direction of federal to listen 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 understand interprets it serves as

a must have become part of the country country, where there are ethnic communities that have their own rights. and also that has, in particular situations in particular areas, also local self rule a couple and we have to take a short break right now. we will be back to the discussion in just a few minutes, stating, ah ha, what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy even foundation, let it be an arms race is often very dramatic,

development only personally and getting to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very difficult time to sit down and talk a little alex. she's just gonna be on the left. him a little bit. nobody but i just want to talk a little that he thought, yeah, real name is logical law school of college. cool in a fit on which yeah, it is public. if you're to be a number big enough, feel over the phone make you got this nice to put him on museum bush and below that season. now she did the wave on revealing autism or resources, you know it the way it was it just had like i don't, i don't buy

a deal. this would not have happened here from dado as vita didn't push this agenda, this war with that because i'm here this week, boston on that i should need to. what about a nadia bit thought a good be a new will not but with with mm ah welcome back to wells of course with president of the international progress organization dr. her before the break, we were discussing various ways of bringing that calls like 10. and one of the

things that you mentioned was neutrality. and i'm hearing a lot of russian analyst. they will say that russia has a stake, in fact, that a strong vested interest in maintaining and protecting your crane sovereignty on one condition that if signs to a military neutrality is that something that the west than the americans in particular could ever seriously commit to can they commit to not trying to use russia neighborhood for their own geopolitical. busy goal for as a platform for, you know, injecting di insulins in this part of the world can be conduct 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 the 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 certainly to get rid of all these occupied troops. 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 declare itself a permanently neutral country. and what is important is permanent, that the check stubs 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 all the selection to earlier commission to the oh, who had the idea that we might sound out of their time with the soviet union? how they would react as if we suggest that we could commit ourselves to a permanent searches of neutrality. he asked the indian prime minister in confidential meeting in switzerland in like to know the 53 to sound the to find out with please have you distribute union how the reaction would be initially it was a little skeptical as far as i, and this is a minister, one of those, but 2 years later, it happened. we agreed, the austin delegation agreed on a memorandum on utility in the negotiations was moscow. and initially,

the western powers were rather skeptical in particular, the british and d, and i did stage these are we trying to do. but ultimately, they understood that this was a rational measure of 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 sal 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 permanently, militarily 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 did interpret neutrality. in my understanding, it makes no sense to declare yourself, militarily, permanently neutral, if at the same time, the country shines in measures you course measures against another country.

in a situation of conflict, i mean to pose your sanctions. well, let's talk you actually i wrote that you see sanctions as a continuation of politics. by other means. he also suggested that sanctions go again, functions a population at large indiscriminately go against human rights. how do you reset your conclusion? in 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. and iraq, as far as human rights are concerned, if the result of comprehensive economic sanctions is that the population

suffers enormously. then, for instance, the health services college and then as a result of this thousands and thousands of people died. this is a very serious violation of human rights and i consider human rights as it used gordon's of the 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 boast 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 in the united nations security council that has the authority to impose sanctions as part of the core versus measures. the next step, of course, is measures according to ensure that would 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 under the kind of right of self defense and would be if a country isn't that if is a text, it may react with force but also may use other forms of forcing children 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 extra wanting about the spectra map or hunger in western africa. people around the world suffering from the increases of gas prices and he'll prices

good. how do you think the world will react? he'll be jack to feel so essentially carrying the brand of dan merican 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 counselors to work with any way not agree with those sanctions. policy, which has been, which is being enforced right now by the western. legally those countries have no right 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 what will happen directions that will happen when the people begin to feel the problems themselves. ready in such a case, this mass hysteria, which we have seen now in some of the western countries, quite quickly. the questions and people may disagree. let me get to disagree with the most of the sections and you. seals are concerning the oil and gas. the 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, not a statement if you treat yourself as 2 separate entities and others, me being the bronze of your decision when your population should not, you should be somehow isolated from that. isn't that, you know, that sounds a lot. 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 the standards concerning international norms and government. we should impose punitive measures in such a way that only the other side is heard and all the people do not so so to speak. do not have to make any sacrifices. 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 the 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 country, the policies of which they are. but to take the entire people of that other country, hostage by forms of sanctions, by the way, also in the field of culture. what does it to music, what literature or sports have 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 co where we have to we were there. thank you very much for this conversation . thank you for watching hope to see her again. next week with me for a to with with you i'm with.