it is essentially an artificial problem if it was deliberately created by the americans to justify their intentional geopolitical duke and nomic hostility towards those countries. does washington even need a pretext to do what it said? it's mind i'm doing. you know, when it comes to russia, i think they do because it's. busy not that easy to pressure russia when it comes to you. they can always threatened to take your case to the. ready un security council with russia having a veto power in the security cancer. that's not going to work out, that they use it on trying to make an easier ball. with russia. russia has lots of nuclear bombs already, so that, that is not going to work with russia is so if you like, the states wants to fight russia and they want to do that just that. they need to

find an excuse. and i think that's why they don't want the ukraine to finish, because if there is a settlement, then you are not going to be able to use ukraine to put pressure on russia. and that is why if you go back a few years ago, the united states did not want to miss agreements to go through because that's what that solve on the problems. and then ukraine would not have been able to be used as a stage to attack ratio. it will cost difficult, but the problem with that rationale is that the warning, the upgrade is putting pressure not only on russia, but pretty much the rest of the world. because we see that in the form of skyrocketing within the field prices in many, many countries that have nothing to do with russia or ukraine on filling the pinch

. now you've been pretty open about your use that you believe that these conflicting ukraine is changing their current world order, and that is pushing it towards the more multi polar arrangement with different power they're going to compete with each other. do you think that arrangements, whatever it's going to be, if you think it's going to be more or less violent than what we have at the moment? you know, we are going to transition. we had the bipolar world or this is 2nd world war united states and the soviet union. then after the end of soviet union, americans thought they're going to have it uni all our role with united, the 6 leaving that when this was about people like francis fukuyama talked about in the history debate. i'm august called there's what americans

wanted to do was actually achieve. there are some people who believe that americans never could establish really poor people who believed they did it for maybe 15 or 18 years from to follow the soviet union and 2007 or 2008. and so these are the based on that. but what you know now is that the world is moving towards the most high polar system. and during this transition, you're going to see more difficulties. so you'd like to see countries trying to find ways of. busy improving the chances of actually being a greater power then and the new world order is that should be settled out now. but as i, as, as we move away from the western centers system or as the system

continues to disintegrate, do you think they will ever be a moment when countries like, let's say iran, russia, been israel and other nations that have, have had an experience of being sanctioned for a prolonged period of time, do you think they they will come to a point of appreciating that experience because it made them more self sufficient? could it saves them some pain as the transition period continued because it's got this transition. i think we agree is going to be painful for many members of the international system has been on the sanction since 979. since the lucian line is used to sanctions and that experience of being on the sanctions and also continue to live and continue to prosper. and has done a lot in terms of building things that he needs sanctions. a lot of,

especially high tech devices are not able to be sent to you, don. so iranian scientists, you in manufacturers manage to build a lot of things internally, instead of relying on outside sources. it's going to be more difficult to do that. but once you do that, then you're going to be self sufficient. that is why, for example, the military does not depend on the 10th from outside. they make all the things that they want internally. and that is going to be important, as you said, using this transition time, sanction to us fire policy to cause difficulties for countries that are not following us. and the more self sufficient, you are, the less those factions are going to help you. and the more cooperation you are

seeing among sanctioned countries. so for example, we had a huge rush and dedication in just a few days ago. you know, on russia relations are going to be much more now since common problems and common enemies. and i think the same thing is going to be true with other countries that the us feels they need to pressure pressure. now, you mentioned before that they, if we accept that the direct confrontation between russia, the west or russian, the united states was intentional, was just a matter of finding the right pretext. do you think all those ripple effects that the global economy is witnessing, or, and the american economies also with this thing, do you think that was sort of a factor then? because the americans are now facing unprecedented inflation, which is adding to already preexisting social pensions. and all of that will be crucial mid term elections. the bottom administration's approval ratings are among

the lowest things in history. do you think all of that was also, you know, part of the plan? you know, you may have heard that you need it. i for the harmony have called the u. s. government mafia regime. and ben, you said the how the us government works. you realize that people interest the us citizens interest citizens of europe, interest other people's interest is not really the 1st biography. the 1st priority for american politicians is to get to the elective and they get elected by raising millions of dollars and big oil companies. big manufacturers in the cities that benefit from was quite happy. you look at

what they are doing in the u. s. a stock market in the last 3 months. and so that is going to be a priority, whether american people, the stuff or not, is going to be a concern, but it's going to be the 2nd test consent of people like president biden and other people who are in the white house. and that is why causing the kind of situation and then they realize that not only people in the united states, but people in asia, in africa and other places are going to suffer. but american could care less about suffering of the people. but they care about that make an official, is basically benefiting the small the other gene that they're running and washing. but the purpose is that let me challenge you on this one because we both come from countries with a fairly large reserve war of resilience. you know,

we've been exposed to hardship before, but the american population by and large, i used to living pretty comfortable lives and i have a lot of friends in the 7 states who are, who have been used to comfort. so who bought into all this ideological rhetoric about freedoms and how the american government or the american society, the american way of life, is exceptional. but now when they have to pay what they have to pay the gas pump, i think they have receptions changing very rapidly. and you can easily see the other cause the pulls that the sort of the social attitudes in the united states are changing, maybe not dramatically. yeah. but a lot of people actually questioning whether what they've been told by their stories is, is indeed supported by the reality. do you think it's still business as usual in the united states this time around, or do you think perhaps they may have been change in the collective, not in the literature, but in the way the collective decide to proceed. what leadership is doing next is

risk that us government took they wanted to do this very much if you look at, for example, around reports and the think tank in the united states. they published a report in 2019 years ago talking about this is the title of that report. they say, well, they're reaching and unbalanced in russia. so especially democrats in the united states after 2016 election, the early wanted to cause serious harm. russia, the country russians as, as a nation. and that's was a very important go. and the american officials, you know, they rely on the propaganda machine that the corporate media in the united states provide. so. ready and then by shutting down independent outlets

that are not controlled by the media us media like like r t. so sitting content that is not in line, that is a foreign policy both. and then i'm sure you and your family prior to that a few years prior to that, because yes, the writer network was also essentially ostracized them taking off international airways because it was broadcasting something that wasn't in line with the american mainstream. but i tell you, it took a couple of years for the u. s. good to go to that process. and they get to russia and outlets in a few days, but they get to couple of years. it took them just a few days to, to attack the rush and media. so going back to your question, do this list that the american officials took that they taught that maybe the

corporate media in the united states would justify all the harm. that's going to be chaise by the american people. and to be honest with you, i don't know when there's this level of propaganda is going to actually work or not . you have a segment of the american population. that is, yeah, i think what the binding decision is doing is powerful to the united states as a country. and there's a segment that is basically following the propaganda said to them, i guess we will have to wait and see, but for the time being, let's take a very short break and we'll be back in just a few moments. stay tuned for me . or i

use, ah, in the for the move in the business. and you can create a rugby daily. not as soon as you made it comes. graham. we just got to really quickly can also provide you with such an for even with the different employer chopped. wishing that you get thrown with them probably, and you're still there with sure if you're here, take your history up to your board and not the study skills on that. just a bunch of stuff coming off on ok, which which and it was just some people posted just a moment because i knew

a divorce or useful don't know for the don't know if i should get to do given me that you're going to do is just opinion is come on me i will come back towards the course with blog is already professor of political communications at the university of tech, from professor before the break. we were talking about the risk that the, the bite and administration to can, trying to over extend and balance russia. and i think it was a saw been ation greek story teller words about being capital for what one wishes for last it come true. i think it could be argued that the bite in

administration did that more to itself than to rush over the funding and balancing . but anyway, do you think they may initiate more geopolitical flareups while in office, for example, in china or taiwan? or do you think they've got enough on their place for the time being you know, americans are capable of doing all of the things that you mention. and i actually was quite surprised when i listened to tony blank and speech of what china just a few days ago. and there were people in the united states that are doing that. and china could play a role by helping russia and fight this edition. that's coming from the united states, and there were some people who are arguing that good policy policy is actually causing difficulties between russia and china. and when i listen to mister lincoln,

i realize that they are actually making a decision of putting pressure on china at the same time, i think russia, which is, i don't think it's a very yes my decision. but american officials are also not making my decisions in the past. and the result is that, i think the chinese realize that if american succeed in this campaign against russia, china is going to be next. and that's very important. now, on the other hand, there was the situation with russia referring to more emphasis. invoices there seems to be for the resumption of the iranian nuclear talk there in slow motion again. and while i understand what's in it with americans, doctoral iran is a large oil producer and we already mentioned b, you know, the discontent american voters when they come to the gas station. what i cannot

understand is, what's the news for iran? why would your country need another agreement with americans that could be easily revolved by the previous administration by this, by this next administration. rather, that is why you have a need as really kosh about him. and is this american saying that you fool me once? shame on you for me twice. shane, shame on me. so they don't, i don't want to be sort of see the same problem again. like the american b rains are actually starting the years for lower and relying on some of the american folk wisdom. and you know, if you have some of those, say, my knowledge of russian is not that great. so i don't know if there's something similar to russian, but a, i expect, you know, this is, this is

a very large something to do. and, you know, given that fact you on your leaders realize that competing with russia in the oil market is not going to be a good policy. i think the majority of it, i think that having some sort of cooperation with russia because this is what the americans do. they want to push on to position that the russian government is not going to the police. so they sabotaged united russia relations. but i think in your life, the fact that competing with russia and energy market is not going to be something good because no matter what americans tell you the gender, the don't do what they say and they do other things. and this is the experience we have had with the united states in the last 4 years running the talk surrounding the iranian nuclear problem have been going on for so long and various

iteration that it's hard to understand what the center on for the time being other still about your suppose it intention to have a military application of your nuclear technology, or are they essentially about the mon, the pain that the, the west can legitimately subject iran to what, what is it the center of those? so, you know, one problem, major problem that we have is that based on the 2015 agreement, g, u, a, the united states and other members of the 5 plus one that they do not. 3 in till you are a national that cannot make relations and that was that's what, that's what the young was supposed to get done, would get severe limitations and the peaceful newspaper route and the other side would stop sabotage and you know,

as economy intentionally would accept and in reality, what happened was that they, they never really followed that article of the agreement and then top left. so let me just clarify for our audience the agreement was signed, but the in practical terms, many of the international bank still refused to do business with iranian enterprises. so you never quite read the rewards that were promised. they were on paper, but they never came to being materialized. that is a tool. and now what they want to do, what happened during the tough administration was that they put part of military under sanctions, the big, the called, the military. it terrorist vision which has never been done before. and then they put that part of us military under sanctions. and the aim was to sabotage whatever the next administration in the united states decided to do.

this is what people like robert maggie was needing. the american team was saying at that time that the, the top administration is doing things to make the 2 g c. p a very difficult. now. 1 that these people are in power, it seems they want to continue the sanctions that created this addiction to sanctions that you see people in the white house have and they want to continue with that addiction. they want to achieve that sanctions. and the problem that is that this gives them a tool to basically sanction anybody in iran as they wish, because they can just say that this person is linked to the military. and then that's, that's how the sanction that person. so by keeping us middle city under sanctions,

they want to actually have a role of not doing what they're supposed to do under the agreement. and that's what you'd be. there's a very cautious if you got to what's going on. now speaking about their reading liter, if you already mentioned the speech that i told him he gave a couple of weeks ago in which he talked about the need for the muslim world. and specifically, iran not to be sidelined as the world's most or try to take a new shape and not sideline does many muslim countries were after the 2nd world war when the current system was, was forming. how do you think the muslim world or the my which lets me there's also divided across national 6 terry and political life. how do you think that could bring its weight to bear on international politics? i think what you have decided and you're hoping that other muslim countries do the

same is to actually have alliances and networks with countries. natalie, this thing us hey jim and, and here's my question and china and so the cultures are different. religions are different, cultural backgrounds are different and, but this is common threat to humanity in washington. and us policies are causing lots of difficulties for all the native people are on the wall. and so this is the hope that we have that countries that realize that countries that have the option of not full following u. s. need you know, that there's some continued under us pressure we have in this part of the world the . 2 have countries that have us spaces inside, inside the country. it's difficult for them to make independent fire policy

decisions. but for countries that are relatively less dependent on the united states, the hope is that having network and coalition of countries that are going to resist that pressure that's coming from the united states and developing discussion of incidence. that's why a lot of people admire what the russia is doing now, because neither ship finally decided to say no to this aggressive policy that was coming from from the best that needs to be have that needs to be that needs to continue. and then our job in, in countries outside is actually to join forces to make sure that us his, when he is going to. and so let that happen, professor, is that correct me? if i'm wrong, i don't think any country can afford to take such a rebel is stands for cultural or your political reasons. but what i'm also seeing

over the last couple of months is that many of the old rival resource i'm, if you said being rephrase that many historical grievances between countries, let's say india and china or russia and turkey, iran and some of the goals phase. but i think these rapid changes in the international system that they've been discussing the program today. of course, in many of the countries to sort of think outside the box. do you think that can also happen closer to your home? do you think that could be any rakfish more between the sunni and the sheer world to that would be indeed a great best towards making the muslim world. and it's waived on. busy international politics. so you know, you don't have been trying to do that since the 979 stomach revolution. you don't have been supporting palestinian that you know, and suddenly muslims, and you don't actually think a lot of the high price of supporting purchasing is especially with military

technology. so they can defend themselves against this radio for the probably finance are weighed in international politics. it's a, it's a very painful issue, but that influence is not the big. if we take, let's say the golf monarch is like the saudi arabia or the, i'm, or it's been very interesting to watch that the something changes and that politics of late how they relate to china, how they relate to the united states. do you think there's any interest in that in tech rama and do you think around can take it a bit further? i think, you know, have been so even before the current situation has been trying to improve relations with countries like saudi lee, because he does not consider them to be enemies. you don't enemies, enemies, the united states and countries like israel. so, improving traditions with the saudis, and you're going to be important and also, and you know, in our neighborhood you have to have extra relations with you. but as it

was in, it's just a few days ago you reservations with countries like mod, excel, and you don't have good relations with iraq in august and the funding and other neighbors that you don't have. and relations with these countries depends on how much they want to hollow us, lee, my father. and you have been historically clients of the united states. and as you said, as they realize that the us is climbing power, hopefully they develop more independent foreign policy. and if that happens, the relationship is going to improve significant. well, let's keep our fingers up for that as well as what the rest of the world's professor. it's been a great pleasure talking to thank you very much for reaching. thank you. i'm thank you for watching hope your theory again was the part ah

me me ah, with the school i hope that i see that what would you do you like a stick with

a mortgage that also produce a choice issue? somebody over there, both those with video with luck on you, up pulls up ideas with it. and i do so as you know, that way, you know, doing what what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy confrontation, let it be an arms. race is often very dramatic development. only personally,

i'm going to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very difficult time to sit down and talk the for the business. and you agree in the rugby, daily medications? graham, we just got such a group of children and provide you with such sort of different sit unemployed shells washing that you get thrown with them probably. and you're still over there actually sit here. thank you.