diplomacy 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. 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 open here in oscar is whether it could have been away whether russia could have it she wanted deems 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 church, by both parties of the conflict. during the negotiations in minsk and in particular, i mean the very precise agreement on no specific measures on the picture of measures in the course of the negotiations are called means to in the year 2015. and i just like can recall here what

i see at 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 midst agreement. namely, the principle of self or, or local self determination, which 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 a certain, on 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 human nature in law. ringback 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 province was rational 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 place the issue. i asked him, frankly, why do you not implement the pro vision of autonomy in the eastern territory as it had been agreed upon? it is on paper. and by the way, all of this and sure 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 these agreements were signed, the ukranian side with the help of dan western partners', essentially suggested that you know, those agreements reached under duress. there were sort of a political ploy i q when 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, you claims 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 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 get back to that discussion which i was a former minister of defense of ukraine when he was a presidential candidate. he came to me and i 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. this work is,

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 oppressed as a result of official policy. so recently need, he wanted to italian eyes, determine speaking audience. so he banned 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 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 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, once you avoid what you 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, 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, real crane 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 citizens 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 was 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 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. 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 president of country. that is position right. been here, major military adversaries, that requires a certain 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. a or diplomatic in describing the facts and the grounds. i know this will tell you what it is you need. so this fighting group is now officially integrated into the ukranian army. i think the idea behind was to so to speak to mr kate 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 when you're faced or whatever, you may call it. and the idea all it is in favor of it 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 behind all should have been in the russian language. and i understand only to well the implications of all of them. 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 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 must develop a kind of stuff for most point systems. and in case such as the ukraine, a kind of a member of 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 understood interprets it serves as a much i think i'm about to go to

a country where there are ethnic communities that have their own rights. and also that has in particular situations in particular areas, also local self role. and we have to take a short break right now. we will be back to the discussion in just a few minutes state ah, with

business and you cleaned with no shoes. i know many comes with it is just such, not critically considering for what you was just touching. sure. it was nice talking to the phone, sitting full chat with you, rona, with them on the ground and you're still there with that was true. i mean she through with her job to yours, we are both in love. the studies come suddenly distribution or to flourish blooming to on, on all things to have to do with your which no longer your bullshit shows. unique solution, not pretty proposed to sustainable loan because or lose know your boss or to school cold. i don't know who's got to know for the don't or is it just to begin with who used to play in finances come

with ah, need to come to the russian state. little. never the tires on the most 19 div, asking him then i'll send them up for a group in the 55 with speaking with will ban in the european union. the kremlin. ca, yep. machine, the state on to russia for date and split r t spoke neck even our video agency, roughly all band to on youtube with

. mm hm. ah ah, welcome back to wells up wordpress host cleared president of the day international progress organization dr. kirk lawyer, before the break, we were discussing our 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, 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 that americans in particular ever seriously commit to, can they commit to not trying to use rushes neighborhood for their own geopolitical goal for as a platform for, you know, injecting di insulins in this part of the world can be found 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 strictly 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 checked if not, dust 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 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 commit to us and centers of

neutrality. he asked the indian prime minister in confidential meeting in switzerland in like to know the $53.00 to sound, the to find out what these are the distributors union, how the reaction would be. initially, it was a little skeptical as far as i see and from 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 b and i to 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 nurture neutrality can be neutral, 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 that, there are no foreign troops stationed on the territory of a 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 also 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 to push your sanctions. well, let's, let's talk. you actually, i wrote that you see at 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 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 and thousands of people die. this is a very serious violation of human rights and i consider human rights as it used organs 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 only the united nations security council that has deal 30 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 at their own initiative, there is no actual authorization, whatever the situation may be, except it's under the kind of right of self defense and would be if a country isn't that isn't, 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 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? 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 countries

of 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 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 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 the most 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 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, but your creation 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 double

standards, by the way, now we have a game season, high season of hypocrisy and double standards concerning international norms and government that sees we should impose punitive measures in such a way that only the other side is hurt 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 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 his dad is an armed come from taishan or a war as we see now, the government may act against the government of the other country, the policies of which they box to take the entire people of that other country hostage by phone. so 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, dr. clair rehab to living there. thank you very much for this conversation. thank you for watching hope to see her again. next week with

me for a with with you. i'm with ah

ah no, as this rag. no. just as the musician looters know the bar, but the name itself is one good keeps western politicians pay. the department is a general already could make arts, he gets an exclusive chance to join the russian private military company. the wagner group, partly taking part in operations in ukraine. preparing for the worst this winter europe commit to a 50 percent cut and gas consumption until next spring. that on a voluntary basis with numerous extensions to the energy savings plan. also, i had a question, i hope all is well with you much, much again.