ah, hello, welcome to wells apart. the idea of creating a clone of leader around the pacific ocean has been tantalizing the minds of western strategist ever since washington. announce this 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 ukraine. well, to discuss it are now joined by kevin. 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 secure antecedents. how come the indians seem to be more

knowledgeable on this topic than many of the europeans who are much closer to the actual place of conflict? is he, there are 2 fundamental things here. the 1st is that russia is both or european body as well as ation bar number 2, o b, russia than the chinese. this shared a water view and which is precisely the reason that they have this ready to strategic partnership, which was described by the chinese leader as rock solid. and the 3rd thing is doug . so then 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 fod 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 russia supports. the 2nd architecture is the endo pacific architecture, which is a medical 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 out if i may use once and 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 to one similar 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 the bay to lord initiative. a medical always ting,

saddam's of deterrence. and the corner school of the dungeons, his defense not to day, the american military ha fees that they are not really up to the levels. and therefore, under the by did administration a new point supposed 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 ruled. 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, whitney americans, which basically means that we can do advance validity exercises with them, as well as with the other party. exactly,

exactly. so this whole idea of ford when you go go for it, shouldn't need to as far as long as he's concerned, who's a state cancer 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. you see all the tree are military alliances. they are military alliance with america. india is the outsider. what yet the india has gone and signs of foundation agreements with. so it is part of their comeback maneuvers, but it still keeps sense 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 alice gatzo in security needs mat according to its own very strict and desires,

or 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 initiative 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 little. basically the whole concept here is in addition to integrated deterrence, which is the partnership of the military us military. when the allies under partners like india, they basically wanted

a rule for needle. but 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 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 vista and pacific to india and ocean vision. what, 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 joke points, one is straight of malika, st of homo's, which is on the other extreme. and then you have bulk of been deep. so these are the teacher points as far as there is a way of protecting, ultimately the american dominance. right? precisely eminence of the land constraining the chinese many times a good old, which is a complement of the bill to 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 a alliance, why it is going, 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, or vor. 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 russia was to go to war to model with any country, i would assume they will, 1st of all, trying to attract the electromagnetic spectrum. they will try and finish the communications. water is basically a planning with all the capabilities that you have. the onset is all the capabilities you have. what i understand that a sions are doing in ukraine is the out of warning back to lot of capabilities for natal. just in case little comes in and what they're trying to do is limited. this is precisely what president fulton said that we are doing special military operations. so it is not a classic war. well, and according to present, which and the goal of this millage operation is to take control or suppress ukraine's military capabilities and limit the influence of certain 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 native 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, we live there,

ways of x day extension. small waves of explosion. they have hubbard, you see, starting from the clinton administration. they've done that. so when you are increasing your area and so, and then certainly you will order defensive organization. no. so basically what the americans were trying is to nato 2 things. one is to keep strengthening the draws it lock, big buck to ship. that is important for them that the cool water is over. but we should have a fun horn with a concert log dig partnership. and the 2nd was that if need to, 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 gone down is because the us, they were supposed to deter russia. and they got detoured by russia. when president

bush then said that if any fly zones is created, that you see doc means, it will not be tolerated on if any, a crock with arms and ammunition takes off from any place, and comes into the ukrainian territory. i will take it that that country's part of the war. so little has done nothing. so these smaller countries in the isha pacific, which honestly do not want militarization, they do not want. you can ask the us young people as he and states. nobody wants miller tradition, but 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 look the do not want 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 stationed here

no nation. no nation has ever done anything like it in all the history a with

a. ringback because she knew spencer with barclay's me that was in here by the name is us, are forced um, national quito, which is obviously you still with you on the limited lead from when you do a number. who do i get a medical with national jump with envoy, so i have to split the copter from wanted a new domain with. mm

hm. mm hm. welcome back parts with a former agent army officer and the editor of force news magazine. mr. haney before the break, we were talking about the fact that the doctrine of nato and the american security doctrine is largely based on deterrence. and which is essentially an idea that any country will be able to take any insight from the americans. because the fear of the american response would be larger, and as he sat with russia, ukraine, it didn't work. and you also mentioned that other countries are watching. but do you think they're just watching or do you think the, that practical stuff is the way they conducted their foreign policy or security

policy may change as a result of what they're 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. was he that is because the french president, the junglin jossla even for has been by then they all have been gone for public england cheese you big. what shipping is doing precisely what he believes. and he believes that the security of a nation is absolutely important. so he's sticking with the russians. no. so what will happen here in the shop is think is because the credibility has gone up and see for the chinese ward is always the last option. chinese,

believin cognitive defeat of the enemy, 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 at the same time, build up deterrence, which keeps the americans at b, which is precisely what they've done in thigh, what, what they've 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. it's 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 a motor, there's nothing southern about it. why is he that is, please recall in the 2008 need tube, which artist summit that is the dying when the americans decided to put their anti ballistic massage, messiah system in poland. i'm. this is the time when officially ukraine applied for natal membership. and this is the time for the 1st time president with who had kept quiet right from 1000 to became president. i think 2008 keaton doug. mention, i mean, he was not offensive at all. he's not looking for great russia at all. 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. they are embittered in the command and control of the needle structure. i mean, this was going on and everybody knew alady as you said, it 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. other usually been for, he appoint, 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 on the rushes that these people from the don bus area very soon 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 and the operation was an absolute non, sorry for the ukrainian leadership, and now they're open to discussing it. 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 ukraine or g thing they will still have to run it by washington. i think using 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 does happen, who i think it is all his thinking. and he has repeatedly said or television to really is a concrete, the nato countries that look, i was expecting your help. you guys just took me up the garden, bought that a bundle. we like a hot potato gutters. precisely what the middle did. 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, add this w as in money emissions. what does precisely where it is going, which is why you see know, lot of 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 . but i want to ask as a, as a person of a strategic mind, i'm not trying to flatter you. but you know, as somebody who is familiar with strategy as, as a discipline, how can russia help ukraine walk away from that 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 concern, 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, the gun me because he's already been humiliated by the nato and the americans. do you think that's acceptable to the americans after they have come face to face with the russian determined as we do, you see americans have no choice for america? ukraine is not a court interest. they will not fight for ukraine, but the russians will fight for ukraine. it's the deck, gordon. trust americans know that. americans are just trying to humiliate russia and that's about it. and now they're bouncing on india. also, they're telling the india that you'll stop, but you know, there's

a repeatable trade who stop buying oil, what's going on? and what do you think i will be the indian act on that? do you think there will be intimidated by the owner goes uses because this is our national interest. there are so many things we get from russia. let me 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 the russians give us. then number 3, the out of british, the china. you see this are, i see russia, india, china, this format i, in my estimation, it will strengthen further. they get this from their, from russia and with russia. we hover comfort. and in any case, that is a great possibility today of a repeatable trade. and we more than there's also 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 know, 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 it would be a disaster. if after having learned and observed you crave in, the us still tries to go when side gord and price to be very close to the americans under the against americans at all. i mean, either it is like they need to leave and let leave, which is not the problem is would be a medical 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 flowers in the world that should be allowed to blue

currently. exactly. this is something the americans look are discerned, 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. and it's clear that china and india have to share the content just like russia and ukraine have to share the geography. do you think there will be perhaps a 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 you see 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. so it should be really clear doing dins that their foreign policy

should be based on geography. the geography is critical for a foreign policy and therefore it is important that we have cooperation with china . this is precisely why wong, he wasn't in doubt, he simply, he came there to say 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. what is also dated the leader know, perhaps some more, you know, was them is sort of shared. and they come to the decision that yes, india basically hostile live where it is and read it is, is where i show is and way china is and way. ok, his thought is absolute then in some way it also. 2 i think d prioritize security is 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 will mutual respect in some way. india should also reconsider and to see in off not joining built on the road initiative should reconsider how we can cooperate with china. this is the way i see it because this border usual 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 you. 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,

ah, a is the aggression today i'm authorizing the additional strong sanctions. today russia is the country with the most sanctions imposed against it. a number that's constantly growing. i figure which of the problems to cause sure, as we speak on the bill in your senior, mostly mine or wish you were banding all imports of russian oil and gas new g. i. g

with joe biden, imposing these sanctions on russia has destroyed the american economy. so there's your boomerang self. ah, the question you spent with forced, i'm not so cool. you know, it was a mostly due to to room and you have a couple it relates to me when you do, i know but could. ready a talk with.