thank you for that. and the previous time i interviewed you was, i think in the summer of 2017, when we thought that the relationship in the russian, the united states, him the lowest point after crimea. and all these to the russian mythology surrounding the trumpet ministration. this is the way seen from moscow, at least. but in hindsight, it seems that the back back then, it wasn't that bad. do you think we have the rock bottom already or the worst is you have to come. it's hard to say, i mean we're, we are clearly at one of the lowest points in us, russian relations. and i would clue include the cold war. yeah, mad i think this is as, as dangerous a moment as we've seen because right now we're in a hot war in which bombs are dropping missiles or flying. fortunately, russia is not, you know, war with nato,

but it's conceivable that this war could spread, you know, many of us feared, going back to 2014. that in the russian annexation of crimea and intervention in don boss, could just be the beginning of that. at some point, russia might try to create a land bridge between don boss and crimea, that seems to be what's happening as we speak. let's talk about that. what do you think is the reasoning for such dramatic action? because after the crimean operation, i fully agree with you. despite all the domestic support that had had to rush, i had to pay, we just have central constables in terms of sanctions, you know, diplomatic pressure loss, opportunities, etc. now what we're having in your brain is a of much bigger scale, human suffering, destruction, a huge cost economic costs to russia. and yes, i think you started russia for quite some time. and you, i think know that putin is

a rational leader. why do you think that he made the decision that he made? well, you know, and i'm glad you, you raised this issue of prudence rationality because i'm someone who did see guten as aggressive as difficult as expansion as but as calculating as rationalist, he took risks, but they tended to be relatively small risks at low cost grabbing se jetta has the crimea, don, boss going into syria, nor gone or car box libya. these were relatively a misstatement. i mean, there, there were rushes involvement in all those territories, but they were different in nature. you know, south, i think, is not part of russia at this point of time just as no one of the kind of up by the way, levy is not final fresh. and neither is serious or, you know, let's, let's,

you know, it be differentiated for the sake of your own students. i think you don't want to lump all the stuff. the 2nd has the, aren't that different from crimea and don't boss. they're both land grabs into their neighbors country. yes, i agree with you. syria and libya are different, but the point here is that these were relatively small operations going in to ukraine. is different. i'm with someone who did not think that quote, was actually done to invade ukraine because i thought it was such a miscalculation, such a dangerous and reckless move. and i think that book and really was delusional. he believed what he said. he believed that behind every ukrainian was a want to be russia and, and that the russian troops would go into your brain. and the russian of the ukrainian military would collapse and everybody would say, oh, thank god the russians are here. that's, that's ukraine,

that doesn't exist ever since 2014, including an eastern ukraine. ukrainians want nothing to do with russ. i would have thought that couldn't understood that. that's why his invasion has been such a miscalculation and has gone so poorly. he misunderstood you. crane, i think you're operating on the assumption that russia is, will be trying to essentially swallow your crane incorporated territory into russia proper. and i hear a lot of high profile russian analysts, i'm hearing again that they believe that that is going to be the worst possible scenario for russia and neither food, nor any of his generals, ever voiced such an intention on record. so again, if we try to stay in your previous framework of putin being irrational rather than delusional actor what could possibly be the rationality and impressing you on that because you actually laid it out in, in, in your articles. kelly for once mentioned, nate are here. well, i mean,

i think the aims have shifted. i would agree with you or your russian colleagues. i don't expect russia to try to swallow you crane now, because i think they've realised that it would be swallowing a porcupine that it's not going to work that there are 44000000 saving ukrainians. who would marshall an insurgency against a russian occupation? that's my assessment of why russia has changed its war aims to trying to enlarge its land to grab in eastern ukraine, have a bigger chunk of don boss and connected to crimea. i'm guessing that russia won't continue to push to the west, but who knows? my fear here is that isn't as calculating and rational as he used to be. and my evidence for that is the invasion of ukraine itself. it was a mistake and move as far as nato's concerned. there's no question that the

enlargement of data going back to the 1990 s, has been a major source of grievance between russia and the west. but i do say that there was a conversation taking place late last year into early this year. that gave me the wiggle room that he needed by his said schools out ukrainian membership is not under consideration. the president of france talked about finland, ization, president zalinski himself said, maybe this nato membership thing isn't going to happen if potent had wanted to. he had trade space, he could have picked up on those leads, but he didn't. and that says to me that he wanted to invade. he had already made the decision to invade, and that's why i did. well, i was a captain on that specific point. both you and i know that there was a diplomatic effort to settle this peacefully without the use of military force.

there were a couple of phone calls that in the kremlin and the white house did all the year. and there was a meeting in geneva. we've been put in and by then a long meeting during which they, according to my sources, discuss different ways that russia and america exert that influence. it influences on neighboring populations and neighboring countries and peoples. they also discuss security sensibilities. and i was told, at least that they reached a 10 year agreement to lee lee been left leave. and that's why the diplomatic effort continued after that. why do you think it didn't work out at the end? i don't know what the kremlin was thinking was on ukraine, but clearly they were considering military intervention for quite some time. we saw the mobilization of forces earlier last year than those forces pulled back. then late last year, we said we start to see a very substantial deployment of forces,

a close to 200000 on 3 sides the south, the east and the north. but really threatening to carry out what has happened, which was a full scale invasion of the country. why put and decided to do that rather than to stay at the negotiating table. i don't know. this is an issue that could have and should have been resolved through diplomacy. for some reason, you probably know better than i guten, decided that his preferred option was to use military force. i think part of the problem here is that he realised that he was, quote, unquote, losing ukraine, that ever since 2014, after the russian ins and intervention. ukraine was really beginning to chart its own course. it was no longer wanted to be part of a russian sphere of influence that appeared to be intolerable to mr. brewton. he

said, as much in his speeches, he said, ukraine is part of russia. ukraine doesn't deserve to exist as an independent state of us like of china. you are not accurate. he never said about ukraine nor deserving to exist as a sovereign state. although he did say that there are many cultural historical, our ethnic links between our peoples. and he doesn't believe that the russian and ukrainian people historically a part of one collective. now having said that, i do think that he was afraid of losing your grain, but on the different ground. because starting in 201314 ukraine was increasingly militarized by various natal members without even assuming major treaty obligations. don't you think that in and of itself presented a major strategic vulnerability for russia. nato using ukraine, prosecuting essentially ukrainian territory for its own means without even taking

the obligations to protect it. when i push comes to shove, the world number one, he did say that ukraine is part of russia and he, he did refer to the linguistic historical religious ties. and yes, there are such ties. but that doesn't mean that russia has the right to invade and try to occupy it's country. those days are long. i agree with you 100 percent, but it also doesn't mean that your brain has the right of again prostituting its land to allow. i have been the hostile military alliance. you poses a major strategic route for us. and you yourself are on record saying that all major powers desire strategic breathing room. how else could russia ensure that strategic breathing room without your brain being either neutral or in some other, under some other agreement that would allow russian not to be fearful about,

you know, 3 minutes that it would take for rockets to be launched from key of to moscow, well, i object to the language that keith is prostituted itself. keith was making its own sovereign choices about how it wanted to conduct its foreign policy. first of all, 2nd of all, this, the military support that nato gave to ukraine over the last several years. going back to 20. 14 was actually quite limited. nato provided eventually, under the trump administration, a limited number of javelins, anti tank weapons, but was otherwise giving mostly small arms, mostly training, mostly advice. it was not given ukraine, the ability to pose a military threat to russia. there were no missiles, there would not be any missiles that ukraine can use to strike against russia, but i will grant you this. i can understand why russia would feel uncomfortable

with nato coming closer, closer to orders. but that's why i think this is an issue that could have and should have been resolved at the negotiating table. but let's be honest. ukraine was not given the kinds of weaponry and it's still not being given the kinds of weaponry that pose a threat to moscow or russian territory. that is simply a false claim. professor captain, i really really want to return to this claim, but after a very short break, can we do that that in a few moments? sure. ah ah, ah.

a a show you the most all who are so full is you do with russia, is the aggressor know his answer much about by munich. you wouldn't do too much. delusions wellborn, what we have any quality for russians can, all we gotta do is just feed them over the head and just tell them the right way to live and there is going to do it. yeah, just a we did it on his, he's live the way up like you, with

all the rest of the list with one of my gloves, with venues to be a for the new sure. with our ceiling at the washer, who works with the wash with ah ah, welcome back to was a part of it. charles,

cochin senior fellow at the council for foreign relations and professor of international affairs at georgetown university. because the question before they break, you mentioned that it was a false premise of mine to suggest that, you know, nato was military, the ukraine than that it ever presented any military side to russian. i want to mention 2 points here. before doing this show, i was a worker respondent and i was on the ground in libya and syria. and it was really easy to observe there that you don't need too heavily on the entire population. the entire country to destabilize it. you know, it takes, you know, only a small minority to wreak, care, rushes, history itself is, is a good example of that. and the 2nd point is that i'm sure you know, following the medic security conference that said top security conference in the, in the west. and it was at that conference that president allows you earlier this year, openly talk about acquiring the idea of acquiring nuclear weapons. and no one in

the audience or no one in western capitals said anything today to, to that effect, even though presumably there are still non pro nuclear, non proliferation regime in place around the world. don't you think that that in of itself, the kind of signals that are well, possibly anxious moscow could have interpreted that not the way that you would want it to interpret? well, again, it's kind of a preposterous idea that ukraine is going to attack russia. ukraine mines its own business. ukraine has been reform. it gets military, making it more capable, but showing no signs of having aggressive intent against anybody. so the idea, the idea that russia invaded ukraine to neutralize a threat, that's simply not credible. it's simply not credible. the bigger issue of nato

enlargement and nato membership, i understand, but there was no imminent threat that warranted rush and military intervention. this is a problem that should have been resolved, but the negotiating table couldn't owns this war. well, professor captain, i agree with you. 100 percent and owns this war in those just put in but also russia. we will berry this. we will carry rather this send for years, decades and perhaps even generations to come. this is a huge tragedy for all of us. we all have relatives in ukraine and they cause actually every single day we are, you know, very much connected to that conflict. no illusions about that. but at the end of the day, put in is the president of russia. and he has obligations before russia in defending its strategic security. don't you think again and we keep circling around that question that the west, who have been a little bit more accommodating, if not for the sake of russia, then for the sake of ukraine,

in providing russia with the security that it asked for. and what it asked for is simply the guarantees of neutrality and ukraine, not joining any other military alliances. what the, what the goal was, the purpose of repeating that ukraine can join neither one day was the benefit of that. tell me, well, i think we're in agreement that this war is a tragedy and that there are no winter. i do think that the the rub here was the tension between the principal, the west wanted to stand by its principal, but nato's doors were open. that countries in a world of sovereignty and liberal democracy should be able to make their own choices that russia should have a veto over the choices of free and independent countries. but the reality was the

ukrainian membership in nato. precisely for the reasons that we've been talking about was not under consideration, it was not imminent. it was not on the agenda. that should have been that should have been enough to provide mr. pohden and his colleagues the needed room to find a way under the circumstances. i don't understand why mister bruton opted for a military invasion, which is going to be a huge cost for his country for a very long time to come. i really want to ask you about the matter of principle because, and this is a very hot issue here, and you wrote recently that washington's commitment to keeping native doors open to ukraine speaking about not being under the consideration was a quote, a laudable and principle stand against an autocratic russia, and as far as i can see that i have an extended family in ukraine, some of them i bomb shelters. and these people believe that ukraine was very

cynically used by america and abandoned by america in the time of need. it now has to deal one on its own with a much stronger army. can you explain me? what is so laudable? what is the principal about that? what's laudable in principle about it is number one that the united states has in its dna. the idea that people should be free and it is seen later when large meant as a tool for standing by that principle, i think that's one of the reasons that mr. biden, the secretary general of nato. other neighbor leaders, were unwilling to renounce that principle. but it's not accurate to say that ukraine is on its own. ukraine has enormous support. ukraine is getting a huge amount of political, economic, and military support from nato countries. even though a decision has been made correct in my mind,

not to escalate not to put boots on the ground, not to enforce the no fly zone. because that would mean war between nato and russia that could need world war 3. now, you mentioned that need to supposedly being very deliberate not to, you know, make provocative gestures towards russia and just the other day american secretaries of defense and state met with some of their allies at the american military base in germany to discuss the possible supplies of weapons, which are going to be used against the russian army. now, i know that he would vice president obama on european affairs. so i'm sure you understand implications and sort of historic associations, annotations of anyone needing at a military base in germany to discuss the supply of arms to be used against the regular russian army. do you understand how dangerous it could be?

i mean, i'm asking you as a person who was born in saint petersburg, i mean my own family suffer it under the siege us has put in the family. i mean you can laugh at that, but we all carry that in in our rod. no, i understand that i'm, i'm, i'm, i'm smiling because it's, it's russia that has attacked ukraine. russia has started this war and made o in the united states are providing the ukrainians, the ability to defend themselves. and they have been quite explicit about avoiding the kinds of weapons that could lead to potential escalation. so on the contrary, the u. s. is not abandoned me ukraine. it's helping the ukrainians fight back. i'm ukrainians have done a remarkable job. but let's be honest, the risk of escalation is still considerable. russia might decide to interdict weapons coming in from nato territory. we've heard russia threatening the potential

use of nuclear weapons which is unthinkable. and that's why i think we need to see d escalation and a ceasefire. and a diplomatic effort as soon as possible to avoid those much more dangerous outcomes . you mentioned recently that the united states in the light of all that danger needs to return to reality pol a cheap. and when i was a student in america, our professors used to insist on operationalizing abstract concepts. can i ask you for the same favor? can you actually explain exactly how the united states would return to reality? because as far as most concerned, american actions are totally illogical. when it comes both to russia and much of the rest of the world, you mentioned the idealistic orientation that the united states supposedly has. and bending the art of history towards justice, we see in

a completely different lives with millions of people, son to that death in the middle east in afghanistan, and now in ukraine by the americans trying to make this world a better place. well, you know, i think i'm, once the united states has succeeded in making the world a more decent place for our international audience. one recent example, when american efforts, especially defense associated efforts, you know, related to nato and spreading of democracy. when that last you lasting piece of stable piece as you like to talk about well, you know, i would go back to world war 2. when the united states intervened to help defeat nazi germany and imperial japan. and we've seen a major expansion in the footprint of democracy and freedom of the rule of law. ever since has the united states made mistakes?

you bet. did the wars in afghanistan and iraq turned out? well, no, they did not. but i would say this, they were motivated by good intentions. they were motivated by the desire not just to take down extremist groups in afghanistan, but to help afghanistan stand up as a democratic pluralist, liberal country, and that effort failed. i cannot attribute, benign intent to russia's use of military force. it's invasion of ukraine is a, is a, is about of aggressive territorial conquest. russia, unfortunately, does not have the same noble aims as the united states. professor captain, what matters in reality is not your intentions. you can ascribe to yourself, whatever, no, because if you want, what matters is the result. and i'm asking you again, can you mention a single conflict the united states got itself involved in over the last, let's say 20 years. that let's you

a lasting piece. because if you mentioned 2nd world war, we were allies back down, we have no problems with the united states, a little problems with the united states. now we are enemies precisely because the united states to give it upon itself to change the world by military means and make it far more dangerous that it wasn't the beginning. now actually world war 2 is an important one. and again, it shows that russia and the united states can work together, and maybe one day we can get back to that, although i don't think it's going to occur while mr. brewton is the president. but i do think that even in the post cold war era, we have seen number one, the it states and nato go into ball into the balkans and stop ethnic conflict there . there hasn't been any bloodshed in that region since the end of the dissolution of yugoslavia. and the united states has in many respects, helped to bring down and fight extremism,

who led the counter eyesore campaign. the united states. that's a war that worked at the benefit of russia. again, has the united states made mistakes? yes. but has it succeeded in largely taking down the islamic state and al qaeda? yes. has it made the world safer from climate extremism? yes. so it's a, it's a mixed picture, but over the course of its history, i think the united states has been on the right side. it's been on the side of democracy and freedom and justice. unfortunately, i cannot say the same thing about russia. we are out of time, let me again express my gratitude for engaging with us in this conversation has been great talking to you. thank you very much for that. it's been my pleasure. let's keep the conversation go. thanks and thank you. 2 of yours for watching hope to hear again next week on the world's apart. ah,

with ah, what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy even foundation, let it be in arms. race is on, often very dramatic development only personally and getting to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very critical of time. time to sit down and talk in only one main thing is important for knox ism internationally speaking, that is,

that nation's thoughts are allowed to do anything, all the mazda races, and then you have the mind, the nations, while the slave americans, proc obama and others have had a concept of american exceptionalism. international law exist as long as it's serge american interest. if it doesn't, it doesn't exist by turning those russians into this. danger is boy man that wants to take over the world. that was a culture strategy. so some wolf, as of yet to noon, i english v i n b, i not leashed off. tim zebulon and tablet block. nato said it's ours. we moved east . the reason the us had germany is so dangerous, is it the law? the sovereignty of all the countries, the exceptionalism that america uses in its international war planning is one of the greatest threats to the populations of different nations. if nato, what is founded shareholders in the united states and elsewhere in lodge obs

companies would lose millions of millions or is business and business is good and that is the reality of what we're facing, which is fashion. and ah, russia is the gross? no, if injured much about, we have any quality for russians. we have actual racism, bigotry, against russians. it's now dangerous to be russian in europe full for fortune. beach. rooster phobia can't dig no serious with it a nation suddenly disliked for was the hotel it.