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 listing attention to now. and by 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 combat. the question here also here in moscow is whether it could have been awarded whether russia could have a c, y gene as it, as a stance. so goals without the use of military force. if we look at how things develop, it could have been avoided. if one would have implemented the dose points that

were agreed upon by both sides, but 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 that are called means to in the year 2015. and i just would like to can recall here what 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 main screen agreement, namely the principle of self road or local self determination, which are also implies, friendship will offer candle federal state structure. and i added to the

a deer policy of permanent neutrality, which anyway was or what was initially when grain 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, the shape 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 shim nature, in law, that could, can, should have been avoided. everybody would have acted in good faith. unfortunately, i don't remember i did raise this issue of autonomy for the eastern province,

was national speaking majority, around 2018 in a conversation with the presidential candidate of 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 a 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 giraffe. there were sort of a political ploy i q when time to change the situation on the ground, the military situation on the ground should not have been implement and that they

in fact, implementation of those agreements and even acknowledging and the support of those agreements were i came to the trail of ukraine national interest, and this is, this is what was transmitted, not only in ukraine, but i think largely wanted bought into that now just to there was of course, and 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 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 with, with the former minister of defense of ukraine when he was a presidential candidate. he came to vienna and he wanted to explain his position. ringback as part of his candidacy and his reply, when i asked about 30 to me, provision was no, we can ever consider it 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 press as

a result of spacious policies of miscellaneous. he wanted to italian us the term and 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 the audience in italy and the situation. the problem could bristles ultimately, via austria acting as for protection power for the south orleans. and by reaching an agreement as the bilateral level, with the to lead on full autonomy, a very advanced form of autonomy for the south orleans. and we had almost more, i do remember that our military was stationed along the border of italy in the mountains after since the receipt reached agreement. we are, australia, italy, are in good terms. that historical analogy only applies if you

believe that both sides one here, boy what he said, that there was almost in war, but it wouldn't because the 2 side i've seen were genuinely interested in finding a solution and mutually agreeable solution, which i'm not sure is the case in the ukranian constant, do you actually believe that the ukrainian side and our partners in the west actually wanted to settle that issue for the bass and 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 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 say that they are not in favor of full implementation, but they did not follow up 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 c to some sort 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 your green and gold edition 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 in nature, politics. you're not expected to have a smooth, right? especially when you are you and you happen to be a president of country. that is position right. been here, major military adversaries. that requires a certain act amendment 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 meddle into politics. being to diplomatic, typical european i have to say because as a battalion, the 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. now in describing the facts and the grounds,

i know this will tell you what this you'll need. 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 that 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 you're faced or whatever you may call it. and the ideology is in favor of a kind of homogenous nation state of your brain, 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 ethically ukrainian was 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 brothers and sisters in italy. we're concerned who were not allowed to 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, all 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 know what kind of assistance. and in the case

such as the ukraine, a kind of a man off the constitution in the direction of federalism 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 in coverage it as a country country where there are communities that have their own rights. and also that pass in particular situations in particular areas also local. so a couple and we have to take a short break right now. we will be back to the discussion in just a few minutes state. ah,

a i do recall with this with you that is with you. i'm with

royal hope to talk with you cuz political chris, i guess, have moved from beach still easier for this patient, but it's in the board with

ah, needs to come to the russians state will never be as tight as i'm phoning us 19 div asking him not getting a group in the city babbled. he's around his group. i'm speaking with will van in the european a state on russia with even our video agency, roughly all planned on you to a with mm.

ah welcome back to was of course with president of the international progress organization, dr. kirkland. 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 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 than the americans in particular could ever seriously commit you can they commit to not trying to use russian 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, or 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 shortly 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 last that austria did the 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 states and is now known as in the history books, it was all foreign minister either way, also from your own. as i mentioned earlier to mr. 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 commit ourselves to a man centers of neutrality. he asked the indian prime minister in confidential meeting in switzerland,

in not to another $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 minister 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 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 nurture neutrality can be a military neutral? 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 grounds is, can be, of course, military neutrality means not only that, there are no foreign troops stationed on the territory of country, and that, that country does not join any military alliance. it also means that such a permanently, militarily 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 awesome also i'm. unfortunately, i have until recently 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 the situation of armed conflict, i mean devotional sanctions. well, let's talk you actually i wrote that you see as sanctions as a continuation of politics. by other means. he also suggested that sanctions go again, 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 collapse 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 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, embossed 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 to order to, to impose sanctions as part of the core versus measures. the next step of course, measures according to ensure that would 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 exempt. it's under the kind of right of self defense and would be if a country isn't that, if it is a text it may with force, but also use other forms of forcing julian, 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 famine or hunger in western africa. people around the world suffering from the increases of gas prices and fuel prices . good. how do you think the world will react? he'll be 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 counselors to work with any way not agree with us. sanctions policy,

which is been which is being enforced right now by the western campus. 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 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 their governments about the most of the sanctions and you seals or 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? it is a rather to promise if not a statement. if you treat yourself as 2 separate entities and either me or the brand of your decision, whether your creation should not, you should be somehow isolated from that. isn't that, you know, that sounds a lot. it's, lisa bremo says that's what i would say. and it is double standards, by the way, now we have a game season,

high season 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 actually what 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 co, but to 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 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, dr. clair rehab to we were there. thank you very much for this conversation. bertram, thank you for watching hope to see her again next week with

mm ah. so 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 nationally, i'm going to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successfully, very critical time. time to sit down and talk about them with with you with you. i am with

preparing for the worst this winter. europe commits to a 15 percent cut in gas consumption until next spring at all a voluntary basis with numerous exemptions to the energy savings. but also ahead when did they ask me a question? are you approached with you must, you must, when did you? i'm from, i should've. uganda president spelled out his foreign policy views coming after talks with rushes, help diplomats, who's in the african country on the latest stop. all of his tour across the continent with the city of done yet comes under further shelling from ukrainian force.