strategy will be successful, very critical. i'm time to sit down and talk with me. hello to welcome to was a part of the idea of creating a clone of leader around the pacific ocean has been tantalizing the minds of western strategist ever since washington announces intention to give it to asia. but it never quite came to fruition, in part because of india hesitancy isn't going to be more likely now after the conflict in your crane. well, to discuss it are now joined by driving. stephanie,

a former engine army officer and the editor of the force news magazine is great to talk to you, sir. thank you very much for your time. thank you. now ukraine is half a world away, but i was personally surprised by how much attention is paid to this subject in the indian media. and frankly, by the level of the depth of analysis. because this is quite something, something different than what we see in the western media. i mean, not supporting russia, but understanding the context and all the antecedent, strategic and security antecedents. how come the indian seems to be more knowledgeable on this topic than many of the future opinions who are much closer to the actual place of conflict? you see, there are 2 fundamental things here. the 1st is that the russia is both a european bar, as well as ation bar number 2 ah, the russian than the chinese. this shareable view. and which is precisely the

reason that they have this very tight strategic partnership, which was described by the chinese leader as rock solid. and the 3rd thing is that today, there are 2 security architectures which are coming up in the asia pacific region. as we are all aware that this is the area which will decide the big fog geopolitics in this century. so one security architecture is the asia pacific security architecture, which has been conceived by china, fully backed by russia. and this is pivoted on the built and road initiative, which rushes supports. the 2nd architecture is the indo pacific architecture, which is a miracle lift it is led by the americans. not there's a big difference between the 2. and the big difference is that the 1000000000 load initiative it is structured oh,

defy me use once in days it is about shared prosperity and cooperative security. i mean, it's a subject doctor's big enough to discuss energy. we can actually narrow it down. so you have one symbol assist, the other thing, whether there is one beneficiary of old, the world, or whether they can be meaning grace at deriving the benefit from living together on this bread, right? so now coming to the american teen america does not have any answer to debate to lord initiative. a medical always think saddam's of deterrence and the cornerstone of redundancies defense. not today the american military of fees that they are not really up to the levels. and therefore, under the by did administration a new concept periods award. instead of calling it deductions, now they call it integrated it others, which basically means that the allies and the partners barclays,

india. they will also have a rule. having said this, what america has been able to do with the da's office of present gum in the movie government. we are not in a lie. we are not nimbly p alliance with the americans. yet, the government has st. ford foundation military agreements with the americans, which basically means that we can do advance military exercises with them as well as with other party. exactly, exactly. so this whole idea of ford. when you go go for it, you shouldn't need to as far as long as he's concerned, who's a state also of china, the foreign minister. he has called this an issue natal. it has 3 competence. competent one is the court for the other 4 nations, your america, japan, ryan, australia and india. lucy, all the 3 are military alliances. they are military alliance with america. india is

the outsider, but yet the india has gone and signing the foundation agreements with the so it is part of their comeback maneuvers, but it still keeps an options fairly open. do i understand you correctly, that essentially the difference between these 2 are security architecture models is whether ah, you only one country with the help of its allies, gatzo, you know, in security needs mat, according to its own, very strict and desires of whether it is not only about security as in the 2nd model, but also about economic economy and prosperity and actually creating a secure environment that also allows you to leave and let leave. this is precisely where the beta node and he should have does use heat. now coming to, so there are 3 elements in this asia little did the chinese stock off. and they

said this is the biggest rectal them. one is the court. second is the arcus, the somebody which was signed up between australia, u. k and use that is the august somebody. and the 3rd is the 5 eyes intelligence. so this is what wong equals the ation nato. basically, the whole concept carries in addition to integrated deterrence, which is the partnership of the military. you worse military with the allies under partners like india. they basically wanted a rule for natal. can i ask you because once you are, when you figure out how you're going to protect something, you need to figure out what is that you are protecting. yeah, in these. c vision of security in the, as you called in the pacific security with essentially the de americans in the lead, everybody else and shipping in. but the americans making their own decisions

according to their own vision of the world. what is it that, that, that security model is protecting the out of basically this ab want to protect the ceilings of communication from western pacific to india and ocean region. but what they are trying to do is sort of put pressure on the p l in navy, which has the maritime secured going along the ceilings of traditional communications. lucy, they want to basically put pressure on their trade. they want to put pressure on the chill points, the 3 big choke points. one is st. malika straight of hummel's, which is on the other extreme. and then you have bulk of mon deep. so these are the tito points as far as the it's a way of protecting ultimately the american dominance. right? precisely eminence of the land constraining the chinese many times so good old which is a complement of the beta load initiative. that is precisely what they're doing in

america, is a buckland. ok, i can understand why americans with one that did, even though i think that rationale could also be a question, but what are the partners deriving from that? in addition to just simply giving americans the money to fulfill their own goals. so you see the whole idea is that america is still the super bowl, which it is not my concept of thinking is that today it has a competitor in china. but the whole thing is that american dominance should remain in the asia pacific region. so therefore, these parking lot shipping in because they have our allies why india doing is for a different reason altogether. india's reason is, india believes that it can balance military part of china by being close to the americans. i hope we can come back to this issue after we discussed something that i began with, which is the conflict in ukraine. i heard you say that there is

a difference between a warrant and the military operation. and i think that is a very surprising idea to many of the europeans who somehow managed to believe that there is no military power in the use of military power in the world, even though that's been going on for the last 30 years. so what is the difference between a military operation and a war? so it's a huge difference when we talk of war, what is coming into plays all the domains of want to be activated to did that or something like 5 or 6 domains or 4. then you, then you proud it is what you want to do, you build that whole plan. for example, if rochelle was to go to war to model with any country, i would assume they will. first of all are trying to attract the electromagnetic spectrum. they will try and finish the communications. water is basically a planning with all the capabilities that you hug. the onset is all the

capabilities you have. what i understand that a sions are going in ukraine is the out of warning back to lot of capabilities for natal. just in case nickel comes in. and what they're trying to do is limited. this is precisely what president fulton say that we are doing special military operations. so it is not a classic war. well, and according to present, put in the goal of this millage operation is to take control or suppress ukraine's military capabilities and limit the influence of certain and far right groups that have an influence on both on the governmental processes that are being used as proxy forces by ukranian government, as well as by outside forces. but apart from that, russia is not interested in taking ukrainian sovereign to, for example, or ruling ukraine, re incorporating ukraine into like some for more of a new soviet union. but despite these limited focus,

i heard you say that this military operation managed to undermine or damage native credibility. so there is a wider dimension. what does it mean practically? and do you think nater, even care is about credibility? what is what is needed? credibility in practical terms. let's start with what is nato's credibility and then we'll go, how it is damaged. credibility is eileen nichol should have finished with the war, subject it no overt, no, it says that we are defensive organization. they are not. well, i, there ways of ext day extension small waves of explosion there hubbard, you see starting from the clinton administration, they've done that. so when you are increasing your area often fluids, then certainly you order defensive organization. no. so basically what the americans were trying is to nato 2 things. one is to keep strengthening the draws.

it locked the partnership. that is important for them that the cool water is over. but we should have a fun horn. well, what the concert log, dig partnership. and the 2nd was that if natal could have a rule in the asia pacific, there were also looking at doc, no, what has happened during these ukrainian special military operations is i believe their credibility has gone down tremendously. why it has gotten down is because the us, they were supposed to deter russia and they got detoured by russia. when president clinton said that if any fly zones is created, that you'll see doc means it will not be tolerated. or if any, a carved with arms and ammunition takes off from any place and comes into the ukrainian territory. i will take it that, that concrete part of the war. so the 2 has done nothing for these smaller countries in the isha this week, which i honestly do not want militarization did lord want?

you can ask the us young people as young states. nobody wants militarization where the americans were hell bent. in fact, in june of 2021 needle in the conference was suggesting that they should have a larger role in the asia pacific. so i think now there will be lot of pressure pushback from the asi on states that the lord warned these people here. so the credibility is gone down. oh, okay, mr. hatch hani, we have to take a short break right now. we will be back in just a few moments statement. mm hm. for tooth.

ah . ah welcome back to was a part of a former engine army officer and the editor of force and use magazine. mr.

haney before the break, we were talking about the fact that the doctrine of nato and the american security of doctrine is largely based on deterrence. which is essentially an idea that any country will be able to take any insult from the americans. because the fear of the american response would be larger and as you sat with russia and ukraine, it didn't work. and you also mentioned that other countries are watching, but do you think they are just watching or do you think the that practical stuff, the way they conduct their foreign policy or security policy may change as a result of what they are observing in this wider clash between russia and native because there are some, some fights on the ground, but there is also much bigger unseen clash between these giants happening. so you see my assessment is that the credibility of chinese has gone up

in the region. why i see that is because the french president does jumbling jossla, even president by then they all have been con, troubleshooting. would she do you think what she keeping is doing precisely what he believes? and he believes that the security of a nation is absolutely important. so he sticking with the russians notes. so what will happen here in asia pacific is because the credibility has gone up and see for the chinese ward is always the last option. chinese believin cognitive defeat of the, in me a cognitive confrontation of the enemy. so basically what they are pushing forward is prosperity. and at the same time, if something happens, they basically believe in what we call the grizzled operations. we keep working in those operations are the same time build up deterrence,

which keeps the americans i'd be, which is precisely what they've done in die what, what they have done in south china sea. so everybody is playing their own to turns game i know for a fact that the art of war, that famous work of religion military genius was studied by the k g b officers in soviet time. so i'm pretty sure that the russian leadership is influenced by this idea, but at the same time, i'm, as we mentioned before, there have been several waves of nato expansion. and while russia expressed its displeasure, it never really put it its feet down. why do you think the russians have waited for so long and wasn't in precisely because. * of this patients when they called strategic patients that they had to take the military measures right now, which is, i think we would agree the worst possible option. so you see a, 1st of all, this is nothing sudden of older. there's nothing southern about it. why is he that

is, please recall in the 2008 little which artist summit that is the dying when the americans decided to put their anti ballistic messiah messiah system in poland . i'm. this is the time when officially ukraine applied for nato membership. and this is the time for the 1st time president with it who had kept quiet right from 1000 to became president. i think 2008 key conduct mission. i mean he was not offensive at all. he's not looking for great of a shared goal. he said that this is unacceptable. georgia and you could end is completely unacceptable. anything coming here? now, if you keep trying to bring the orange of lucian, there, you see, since 2021 ukraine has been doing exercises. the other embittered in the command and control of the needle structure. i mean, this was going on and everybody knew alady has he said,

has been going on since 2008 since fortune here is. don't you think that there would be some benefit to russia expressing its displeasure more forcefully so that we don't have to go there with our troops now and deliver a lot of pain and a lot of damage on the ukrainian people. we also have to, you know, leave with that usually been for he a point, but you see the security of a nation. and please, let's the stand one thing with them because don't understand, the russia is not any other country. the russia has a rich tradition, a very rich history. it has a culture. it is a land moss, with 11 time zones. it has thousands of nuclear weapons. you don't fool around with russia. now the point is, god, as he said, fall leaves of greater expansion already happened. they were trying to lose some orange dilution here, which is what you also mentioned. and in fact, one of the what is, must have been of the rushes that these people from the non bus area ready. so

they'll actually come inside russia and start creating problems that now 2 months ago, ukraine's military neutrality, which is one of moscow. steve goals in the operation was an absolute non stop for the ukrainian leadership. and now they're open to discussing and they even put it on paper in terms of the proposals that could be looked into. is that a decision that could be made by ukraine and within the ukraine? or do you think they will still have to run it by washington? i think you see this decision 1st to for what has been made by prisoners zalinski publicly saying that he does not want to be a member of nato, is a, does he and that he has made look, he also has to live in ukraine. he may have become a bit of a little, but you see the amount of refugees, people who have gone to the amount of destruction that has happened, who i think it is all his thinking. and he has repeatedly said or television to

really is a countries the little countries that look, i was expecting your help. you guys just took me up the garden, bought at a bundle. we like a hot potato gutters. precisely what the middle that he still appealing to them for help rather than, you know, making a strategic decision of negotiating directly with the new choice today. you see it's a gosh 22 situation. what are, what are the do? because less less be very clear in my assessment president put in is very clear that there are certain red lines which will not be crossed, even if this means a wrecking ukraine. he doesn't want to think, asked her, choose as a present between russia and ukraine and exactly a w as in money emissions. but that is precisely where it is going, which is why you see no, laura bombing is going on. that is the reason for that. so the blame for that should not be put on put in it should be put on by the negation. not about gleaning with i want to ask as a, as a person of a strategic mind. i'm not trying to flatter you, but the, you know,

somebody who is familiar with strategy as, as a discipline. how can russia help ukraine walk away from that? the red line that has been crossed by various powers? how can russia give ukraine, ah, what it needs? and protect its own interests. really simple, easy. it's already said that a red line is neutral. he licked zalinski except that yes, neutrality, i mean docs i'm going on legged be said crimea, there's no way that the russians will give it is absolutely critical for them. as far as the 2 independent republican don barza concerned, i think they can be consultation. what can be done because of the language problem that are a lot of issues that they can be discussed and certainly don't know, little membership. i mean, this is what it is. the thing it's within is a landscape power or the power of fly ukraine as a state to decide on that issue. can they make that decision?

yes, they've gone me because he's already been humiliated by the natal and the americans . do you think that's acceptable to the americans after they have come face to face with the russian determined as lucy, americans have no choice for america? ukraine is not accord, interest. they will not fight for ukraine, but the russians will fight for ukraine. it's a deck or interest americans know that americans are just trying to humiliate russia and that's about it and all their bouncing on india. also, they're telling the india that you'll stop by, you know, there's a little bit of trade. no stop buying oil. what's going on, and what do you think there will be the indian act on that? do you think there will be intimidated by the owner? those uses because this is our national interest. there are so many things figured from russia like the list for, for you. what we get from russia is, 1st of all, the, the military equipment, the technology was nobody else will give us that i should give us. then number 3,

the out of bridge to china. you see this out. i see that i share india china. this former mine my estimation, it was strengthened for the bigger dis, from day, from russia, and with russia. we hover comfort, and in any case, that is a great possibility today of a repeatable trade. and we want that there's also a great possibility, a huge nation. the russian market because of all the western companies living and there are lots of promises there. so i see, i see honestly, 2 things to happen. first of all, india certainly is under a lot of pressure. why it is under pressure in my estimation is because when you are a huge learn mos lake subcontinent, like india, you're on a small country. you cannot stand on 2 stools. you have to decide whether you have to have self sufficient foreign policy as well. so therefore, therefore, i think your to be a disaster. if after having learned and observed you crave in the,

i still tries to go when side chord and price to be very close to the american under the against americans at all. mean either it is like they need to leave and let live with the problem is what the americans don't understand. the dead idea of liberal values. democracy, human rights. it's not acceptable to so many countries. there are civilization countries like china, like russia. yeah. many of flowers in the world that should be allowed to blue currently, exactly. this is something the americans don't undecided. i only have time for one more question. and i want to come back to what we already discussed before. this change in the and in the global perception of security, national interests and what countries may take in order to do that. ah, it's clear that china and india have to share the content just like russia and ukraine have to share that geography. do you think they will be perhaps their

reconsideration, both in beijing and in new delhi about how they can do that. given that i think the, the quality of the american promises and what america would do supposedly, for its allies, has been put on quite vividly on display in the recent events in the ukraine will use he, in my estimation, after the ukrainian graces on what is going on there and what we have seen of the americans there, that the americans will not come to fight. you'll war show it should be really clear doing dns that their foreign policy should be based on geography. the geography is critical for foreign policy and debt for it is important that we have cooperation with china. this is precisely why wong he was in india recently. he came there to see that all right, we have a problem on the border issue, but let us also look at the overall relationship, which of course the movie. gam does not accepted so far,

but i just hope mister soggy level, but it's also dated the leader. now, perhaps some more, you know, wisdom is sort of shared. and they come to the decision that he is india basically hostile. live where it is and read it is, is where i show is and way china is and when focus thought is absolute in, in some way. it also. 2 i think a d prioritize of security the only concerned because at the up until this point, we only thought about security as a paramount issue. but the more inclusive framework allows there to be, for economy, for, you know, culture staging, mutual respect in some way, indiana should also be considered and to see in off, nor joining built on the road initiative. sugary. consider all, we can walbridge with china. this is the way i see it because this border issue is

not gonna go away and adi it can escalate. and that is not something that anybody wants. okay, well, we have to leave it there. it's been great pleasure for me to talk to thank you very much. thank you so much. thank you and thank you for watching cold to see you again next week on wells apart. ah a year with. ringback ringback because she spent with buffalo new that was a force from national quito,

which was actually due to a controller like from when you do or not. but could you a to go with that the carpet from wanted to get us. the boys are new to me with me for he's 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 with top headlines right here. what are the international, the united nations calling for an urgent investigation into the death of russian john list diary, a duke anna as moscow released as evidence that she was killed by someone working for the ukranian special forces. you plans to host a special military training company for the ukrainian forces at the block because getting increasingly involved in the conflict india takes to curve the dominance of us big tech companies, suspecting them of conducting illegal want to politic business practices.