is still the case, indeed, of course we have to her. the war is for politics by other means. if other forms of politics have failed, that means in particular if diplomacy has for you. 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 method 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. i'm sorry for interrupting. i just wanted to sort of narrow our attention

a little bit to the complaint that the whole thing 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 also here in oscar is whether it could have been avoided whether russia could have she what it means as, 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 implement those points that were agreed upon by both charge by both parties of the conflict, urine in minutes and in particular, i mean

a very precise agreement on specific measures on a picture of measures in the course of the negotiations that 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 midst agreement, namely, the friendship love, self role or local self determination, which are also in place, friendship will offer candle federal state structure. and i added to the the policy of permanent neutrality, which anyway, was all what was initially when your grade was founded. and when they agreed on,

on a little clear a statue 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 law 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 of you. he was defeated, he 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 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 implemented 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 of ukraine,

national interest. and this is, this is, this is what was transmitted, not only in ukraine, but i think the west largely wanted to just do the wash of course. and 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 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 say that this all was achieved under duress. what i remember me if i may just go back to to that discussion which i had with a former minister,

the sense 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 in 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 oppressed as a result of official policies of michelin, if he wanted to italian eyes, the german speaking audience. so he bent the german language and so on. and as

a result of this, after the 2nd world war, there was an armed resistance by an entire audience in italy and the situation, the frog and cook missiles 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 to almost, lord, i do remember that our military was stationed along the border of italy in the mountains after since the receipt reach that agreement. we are, australia, italy, are in good terms. that historical analogy only applies if you believe that both sides one here boy, and what he said, that there was almost in war, but it wouldn't be the 2 sites you are 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 enroll? this is difficult to answer. officially, the western side would always have said they are in favor of full implementation of them in school agreement. at least that was my understanding. as regards to co sponsors of the meeting, germany and france, they would never, they never said that they are not in favor of full implementation, but they did not follow up visa ukraine on that or 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 state use 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 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 a ukraine and politician would have been in favor of a correct and full implementation, also of these domestic provisions, this would have been exploited by the competitors off. the other part is always a problem. i mean, whenever politicians pursue certain agenda, he always encounters here. he always encounters difficulty. major holidays are not

expected to have a smooth, right. especially when you are you, when you happen to be present country, that is position right between here major military adversaries. that requires a certain acumen that requires this so you know where we're sitting. willingness to define your own nation. when you put it, i could not persuade b, a county and not to meadow into politics. being too diplomatic. i 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. it's fully incorporated into the ukrainian state machine to be a little bit you are different now in describing the facts and the grounds. i know this will tell you what 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 the kids 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 or to is extremely right or faces or whatever you may call it. and the idea is in favor of it kind of homogenous nation state of your grade, where everybody else, whether question. sure for that matter also by the way, you would have to see himself or herself under this aspect of being culturally or ethnically ukrainian. and also the band in 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 douglas and sisters in italy. we're concerned, we're not allowed to use their own language, and we're not even taught the language in the school. this is, it was the ideology of facial audio, mostly. and that's not an ideology for our time where we believe in tolerance multiculturalism. so there must be a kind of one us develop a kind of form of coexistence. and in a case, such as the ukraine, a kind of a member 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, but i also understand interprets it 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, and we have to take a short break right now. we will be back to the discussion in just a few minutes, stating, ah, a

vis the aggressive today. i'm authorizing the additional strong sanctions today. russia is the country with the most sanctions imposed against it. a number that's constantly growing a list of course, when you click on the senior, mostly minor were banding all imports of russian oil and gas, new g. i. g with joe biden, imposing these sanctions on russia has destroyed the american economy. so there's your boomerang a

with a with 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 resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful,

very critical. i'm time to sit down and talk ah welcome back to will that work with president of the international progress organization, dr. kirkland, before the break, we were discussing various ways of bringing that conflict 10. and 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's 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 and americans in particular,

ever seriously commit to, can they commit to not trying to use russian neighborhood for their own geopolitical goal for as a platform for, you know, injecting di insulins in this part of the world can we 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 4 elijah powers, 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 offered by 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 was that austria did clear itself a permanently neutral country. and what is important is permanent, that the check stubs not just neutral in a particular consolation or in an opportunistic manner. but as a principle of state, as a shaping the identity of the state and is now known as in the history books. it was all foreign minister by the way, also from your own. as i mentioned earlier to mister grover, who had the idea that we might sound out at that time with the soviet union, how they would react as if we suggest that we could come in and such as of

neutrality. he asked the indian prime minister nero in confidential meeting in switzerland in that's another $53.00 to sound the to find out with lisa redistribute union, how their reaction would be initially it was a little skeptical as far as, as i miss them while ago. but 2 years later, it happened, we agreed to 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 united states. these are the you're 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 on for a,

for any military attacks by their adversaries. you have positive and inspiring historical example going dates back quite some time. now in time, do you think, if you crean in deep signs up here nurture neutrality can be militarily neutral? i'm an independent, fully self sufficient state. and the same time, pressing 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 that, i know foreign troops stationed on the territory of country, and that country does not join any military alliance. it also means that such a permanently, militarily,

new 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, unfortunately, i have until recently interprets neutrality in my understanding, it makes no sense to declare yourself, militarily, permanently neutral. at the same time, the country shines in measures course with measures against another country. in a situation of armed conflict, i mean to partial sanctions. well, let's talk. you actually, i wrote that you see sanctions as a continuation of politics by any means. you 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 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. that for instance, the health services college and then as a result of this thousands of thousands of people die. this is a very serious violation of human rights and i consider human rights as use or jones of general international law. and that implies by the way also to united nations. 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 deal $32.00 in both sanctions as part of the core versus measures. the next step, of course, is missions according to ensure that wouldn't be the use of force. but if countries that use such a shipment measures like sanctions as their own initiative, there is no actual authorization, whatever the situation may be, except it's and the kind of right of self defense would be if a country is attacked. if it is a text, it may react with force,

but also may 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 impact the rest of the world as well. and there are many aspects for warning about the spectra map or hunger in west africa, people around the world suffering from the increase of gas prices and fuel prices gain. how do you think the world will react to being jack to feel 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 any way not agree with those sanctions. policy, which has been, which is being enforced right now by the western characters. legally those companies 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 impose 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 the most 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 itself is a rather to promise if not a statement. if you treat yourself as 2 separate entities and others, me the brand of your decision, but your creation should not. you should be somehow isolated from that. isn't that a? it's certainly sabrina's that's what i would say, and it is the standards,

by the way, now we have a game is season high season of hypocrisy and kind of the standards concerning international norms and government that 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. 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, is one, has agreement disagreements, already stairways and aren't confrontation or

a war as we see now. the governments may act against the government of the other country, the policies of which they co box to take the entire people of that other country hosted by forms of 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. bertram, thank you for watching hope to see her again. next week with

me for i want to with this with you. i just read you, i am with

ah, preparing for the worst this winter, europe commits to a 15 percent cut in gas consumption until next spring. i'll a voluntary basis with numerous exemptions to the energy savings love also ahead. one day they asked me a question. are you approached with you much, much when you do it? i'm from i sort of uganda president spelled out his foreign policy views coming after talks with russia help diplomats, who's in the african country on the latest stop all his tour across the continent.