war is politics by other means. if other forms of politics have failed, that means in particular if diplomacy has for it. but certainly, whatever may have been said since 1945 since the foundations of 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 listing attention to now. and by

that i mean, of course, the lens and ukraine. he's a very difficult decision for the russians, and we will have to deal with the consequences of both moral and economic and political consequences for many years to combat. the question i hear also here in oscar is whether it could have been avoided whether russia could have a c, y gene as it 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, but both parties of the conflict during the negotiations in men's and in particular, i mean the very precise agreement, no specific measures on

a picture of measures. in the course of the negotiations that are called men's tools 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 events, negotiations in february, 2015, where i outlined the basic principles that were contained anyway in the midst agreement. namely, the principle of self or local self determination, which are also implies, 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 ukraine was founded. and when they agreed on, on the non little clear statutes 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 human nature in 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 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 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, 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 were reached under your s. there 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 they in fact implementation of those agreements and even acknowledging and the support of those agreements were i can be trail of ukraine's national interest, and this is, this is what was transmitted, not only in ukraine,

but i think the west largely wanted bought into that. now just to, there was, of course, a very he could 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 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,

part of his candidacy and his supply. 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 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 fishes policies of michelin. if you 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 problem couldn't bristles 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 war, i do remember that our military was stationed along the border of italy in the mountains after since they received the reached agreement. we are, australia, italy, are in good terms. that 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 on the 2 side i seen were genuinely interested in finding a solution and mutually agreeable solution which i'm not sure is the case in the

ukrainian content. 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 co sponsors off to meet in 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 it. that for sure, they should have done 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 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. 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 you are you and you happen to be present the country that is

positioned right when you major military adversaries. that requires a certain acumen then that requires a 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 too diplomatic. i 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 diplomatic 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 sort of speak domesticated 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 that the is the right wing or faces or whatever you may call it. and the ideology is in favor of a kind of homogenous nation state or feel grain 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 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 brother 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 one of the kind of assistance. and in case such was 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 russia also under the bridge it as a country country where there are communities that have their own rights. and also that has 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, are a

i was going with this with you, i'm with you. i'm with

school, with from beach. still easy to the station, but in the board with a welcome back to well, the white house cleared president of the international progress organization. dr. crippler, before the break, we're discussing various ways are bringing that. but one of the things that

you mentioned was trilogy, and i'm hearing a lot of russian analyst days, who say that russia has a stake, in fact, that a strong vested interest in maintaining and protecting your crane sovereignty on one condition. that is, if it's signs to authentic military neutrality is that something that the west and the americans in particular ever seriously commit to, can they commit to not trying to use rushes 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 turned 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 the 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 strictly 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 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. rober. oh, 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 percentage of neutrality. he asked the indian prime minister in confidential meeting in switzerland in that's another 53 to sound the to find out with lisa redistribute union. how the reaction would be initially it was a little skeptical as far as 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 and 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, 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, 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 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,

in course if measures against another country in the situation of armed conflict, i mean to push your friends. 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 the rather easy tool provides 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. 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 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 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 to order to, to impose sanctions as part of the core versus measures. the next step of course, measures according to new insurance, it 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 it is a text, it may with force but also use other forms of force in 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 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 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 to work with any way not agree with us. sanctions policy, which has been, which is being enforced right now by the western countries. 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 is 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. 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 either me or 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 says, that's what i would say. and it is double standards, by the way, now we have a game season, high season of hypocrisy and double 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 he stared, he's 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 phone shall sanctioned, by the way, also in the field of culture. what does it to music, 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,

dr. clair rehab to living there. thank you very much for this conversation. you're welcome. thank you for watching hope to see her again next week on with . mm hm. mm well, don't middle alexis to see what i'm gonna let him know, but i just want to thank her lingual that he thought young real name is logical

law school of college. cool with that on which yeah, it is public. instead of you normally think enough feel head for making this lead to put him with the bush and below that season. now she did the way of all these people, really not. this is, you know, young at the, there, those are so with that i don't, i don't buy a deal. this would not have happened if nato has vida didn't push this agenda. this war was that it was on the other ship, boston on the start. i actually to what about a, a, b a. what is, okay, i can still in this there with, with me

when you're losing a battle with little or any possibility of victory, that's when you should start to think about ending the conflict. but this is not the case in ukraine today. the longer the conflict last, the worse it is for kim, it would seem that is washington's plan. a with .