ah, ah with me i welcome to worlds apart for all the similarities between the current upheaval and previous workforce, one thing is absolutely unprecedented. never before has an operational nuclear power stations been in the midst of an app to bore zone will change hands as a result of it. never before has a distinction between civil and military use of nuclear technology. it's been a functioning nuclear reactor and a ticking time bomb been so blurred when the spectra of a nuclear apocalypse is an incentive. is it too late to ponder a contingency plan?

while to discuss that, i'm now joined by the mitre so slough, deputy director of the center for comprehensive european and international studies at the higher school of economics in moscow. mitree, it's good to see you again. thank you very much for being available. hello, it sounds like you're my now the is up originally nuclear plant has been in the headlines a lot in both russian and western media. although in diametrically opposing framing on the russians and says that it is the ukrainians who are shelling the the station and are essentially engaging in nuclear terrorism, the ukrainians and their western beckers and says that it's they have their way around. but regardless of the culpability, don't you think that in all these bickering about who is doing that, don't you think that the world has lost sight of what is actually happening? that we have a, a functioning nuclear facility being targeted by artillery and how it may affect

all, regardless of who is saying that precisely, i think you're absolutely right. i'm in the old of the base war about blaming the other side of shelling. at the same time, the threat of nuclear disaster, which would be worse than the one of children, all will let alone for. we see why was downplayed i am there war, a baron comments in the western breast as well as in the even if the nuclear reactor is shell directly pro and nothing dangerous could happen because the facility is more effective in the lower one and my 8 is and so on. and so this is extremely dangerous. but i think the shelling is also important in itself because it is very clear on the purpose of your gradients. and the western backers of the ukrainian regime is the

i is to prove that the very presence or for russian or russian troops, i am a, a bodies you're region. i live alone at the station is a threat to international security. so which is false, or whatever is their intention, the means that they're in choosing ed you that you know, even if they were just after any other strategic facility, let's say an airport and the desire to take it back or to cause as much damage as possible when tactically understandable, and, but in this case, the damage cannot be contained, is the instinct of self preservation. totally often key because it can, you get a cloud with reach, he's much faster or than moscow for that matter. it could reach any other european capital. well, i think all the history of the last 6 months and beyond of proofs of the instinct of survival is oh i, yes, of course,

if this instinct has been there, they would have already agreed with a political settlement of the conflict along the lines. the prospect has been suggesting since early march, but the problem is that they are lot in the band and their political decisions are led by the united states. and by the british who probably think that even if the nuclear disaster happens, a dorming station, they will be less to stop or especially of the united states, which is awesome, which is old from beyond. so the political purpose of grooving of the false allegation, the very presence of russia is the threat most of the shelling by you the, by the ukrainians. but the presence of russia is above of the real

dangers of the, of the nuclear adventure. even if we agree that let's say the are your green leadership is suffering from p s d and cannot assess the situation objectively or sanely for that matter. it has a number of very strong and very vocal european allies who are allocated very near ukraine. and i know that for example, you mentioned that your normal disaster, it still manifests itself in many areas of europe and asia, for example, in tricky in the hyphen rates. of cancer among their affected populations, you mentioned fukushima and there were a number of very important strategic decision making, for example, in germany, the decision to suspend nuclear activity because of the fears associated with a shimmer. so why are the european so laid back about that? even if they fully agree with the ukrainian intention to kind of cancel out the rational together. well, i think the reason is because of course the conflict i just created such

a political atmosphere in the west, in general and in europe in particular. which for them from saying the truth, which prevents them from a ward which criticizes your grain or even is different than do you agree, ma'am. their weakness, the scale of condemnation softened by henry kissinger, by amnesty international, by the pool pool room francis, when they heard a thing which slightly different the ukrainian narrative, again, a problem older by the united states and the united kingdom, the level of the scale of condemnation was out, this is why even in extreme danger, this current political atmosphere in the west unfortunately does not

allow independent voices and you know, too full of voices in the continental europe. to say something that would come predicts the political purposes of the u. s. u. k. and the ukrainian public, and yet russia still pursuing as some modest attempts at trying to it's not many and then find some common international ground. i'm talking about the recent media by team from the international atomic energy agency to there's a power station, something that can cause a fleet among the russian analysts. some of them suggested that it was a worthwhile thing to do, you know, opening, leaving a door open to some sort of an international oversight. others argue that it was a reckless move on to part of the russians because it essentially invited a ukrainian and to storm the station once again and sort of sad,

the ukrainian demons. i wonder where, where do you stand on this? do you think it makes sense to try to engage international organizations in this case? well, i think yes, i, because i, a which is or grading under the auspices of the united nations is not a western organization as a global. i am nuclear and the true is widespread. well beyond the west and russia is working with the whole world. oh, on this matter, with the international community which is wider than the collective west i live here is that international communities also susceptible to western influence . and if you remember a couple of years ago, russia already attempted to involve a specialized international organization in inspections and awards. and i'm talking about the organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons. and it was, you know, when to syria and produced very politicized. if not consciously

misleading report about what actually happened in their own staff later leaked information about how it was manipulated. again, i'm repeating the same question, don't you think that the same thing could happen again that i think are some of the problem of them. so the secretary of international organizations on the west and the disproportionate western influence in the secret there does exist, especially in the u. m. secretariat of their innumerable examples. so that boss, we don't have a different view and yet we don't have a different i a yeah, these are the institutions that where else to work with for the sake of international security and nicholas. and i think the, the basic matters are several members of this delegation is still on

site. and that if i had a grocer, thank you. the director of the a sad that he calls that would be a permanent mission which russia full of supports and look with the arrival and presence of the aid delegations. the ukrainian shillings have disappeared. they have thought right on and brushing is interested on now. yes or no, but russia, if you, so, is interested in security. russia is interested in, you know, presentation of this nuclear power station and continuation of its performance in a safe way. and working with the i. e, you know, of the report that i a, is supposed. busy to deliver the u. s. to go to the column so several days from now, if i'm not mistaken. on september 6, i could be extremely important in this regard and could draw

a international attention and create an international pressure beyond the west. from the lone western world, the was ukraine, you know, to stop for bearing the stage for a new nuclear disaster. well, i guess we will have to wait and see. i hope you're right. but for the time being mature, you have to take a very short break. we'll be back in just a few seconds. say can, ah, he's got to do is identify the threats that we have taken from taishan. let it be an arms race is on authentic, very dramatic development. only i'm going to see i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very critical time to sit down and talk. ah ah

ah, welcome back to world appointment metrics to slip deputy director at the center for comprehensive european and international studies. the higher school of economics in moscow, mitre, i heard you say recently, and one of the russian political shows that in the final months of the soviet union, the united states under the georgia senior administration, was very concerned about the state of russia, nuclear industry. and they in fact invested in a lot in safeguarding and the nuclear materials nuclear rockets, et cetera, to make sure, and they did it not only for themselves to successfully. there was a selfish interest, but they did it also for the wider humanity. where do you think the buyer and administration stands on the, on the threat of nuclear, non proliferation both the military sense and the in

a sense of using safe use of civil nuclear technology. i'm asking not about public statements, not about their the rhetoric, but what's your sense of actually, how concerned are americans about what is happening in the british? yeah. well, i think that the collapse of the soviet union played or a negative role in responsibility. the u. s. foreign policy because this responsibility drastically refused the u. s. believe number started to believe more . i in their own myths, they in the mail good. this idea of the u. s. victory in the cold war of the younger history of the unit polar. busy moment and so on, so forth. and the senior administration behaved with a greater element over responsibility. this is why, of course, they wanted to weaken the soviet union, but they're bugs, they're his secretary of state, baker, national security, advisor,

school grove. they didn't want to collapse a in a smart way so that it does not damage to everybody else precisely because they didn't want him on control proliferation of nuclear weapons. and when the soviet union still collapsed because of beulah domestic reasons, they immediately made an effort to secure the. busy of nuclear weapons and united states basically was the engine behind the re collection of soviet nuclear weapons form ukraine bailable some cause of some injury. russia under the centralized and safe control. do you think the decision right now? if they could turn back the time, do you think they would have made an opposite decision? well i, it's hard to say of course, but what i'm trying to say that i know the administration was

witnessing still the final stages by that was still the cold war. ah, whereas, and this is why it became much more responsibly. it generally wanted to avoid the accident was really your thing is that they were scared enough and they were scared and rational enough. do you think the bite in administration is scary then asked by the fall out from the current crisis? because, i mean, we all can see that whatever you know, that public rhetoric is the, the full out from the ukraine on energy prices, on domestic public attitudes on inflation, et cetera, is humongous. they could not be any more isolated from the effects of their foreign policy. does it keep home already? well, i think the i didn't ministration unfortunately is small scared in loss. of course,

the scale and depth of american participation in the ukrainian military conflicts dos 3, the conditions for the so called horizontal escalation, which is the direct military clash between russian, nato and russia in the united states. for all the last 6 months, the united states has been constantly crossing the red lines and kind of pushing the red lines, moving the red line forward and forward with the supply will be increasingly heavier weapons. with the supplies of intelligence information was actually preparing. i am supervising over the ukranian military operations with the approval of the cranium military strikes on the russian data, such as a grania the united states is participating in this conflict in

a very big scale. this scale is growing, and this is dangerous. the united states, beers, political, and christy responsibility for the consequences and for the, for the results of the war. and since ukraine is able to show any success, such as the current adaptive counter offensive, which is failing, you know, what the united states is supposed to do, right? what can tonight and states do on the one hand united states can accept the truth. the it is impossible to defeat, proffer in the open military conflict and allow diplomacy to worry about this is acceptable for them yet because of their state. the purpose of defeating and weakening russia or the other option is actually broke of the 3rd world war,

which is the wallet of increase it farther wall of the different grease of the military assistance or through your grain, or even open participation of ne though, i give this operation, this is a dad look for, for the united states. and this really creates the stage for escalation now meter as important as these upper regional plans. it's not the only nuclear facility in ukraine. i think there's 3 more stations. and even if we're with the intervention of the i a, the situation in separation miraculously comes down. do you think a threat of nuclear terrorism or just nuclear blackmail would receive? and by the way, do you think that the americans with that level of control and supervision of the ukrainians that you mentioned, do you think they have any qualms about the use of nuclear facilities for your

political purposes? i think that unless the united states are united kingdom and or is the key when the government drops, of the idea of pushing russia out, the nuclear danger will remain because it is absolutely great. it is crystal clear that it is affordable for them. if i, what do you think they mean by pushing russia out? russia see which country way, where on earth could it couldn't be push the you can, and you're going to put it on the, on the moon. so how, you know, that's the boy, you know, president zillow, you of your green, your state, you will continue to fight unless you read takes all the ukrainian land with the mine in line to run orders. americans are apparently, and openly improving disperse, right? i know it is absolutely clear that it is possible to drive russia out through traditional military needs. this is why they turn to nuclear terrorism and the

threat of nuclear terrorism as a mean, you know, to try to push russia out in this way. this is why i think the danger will remain unless they change the political purpose. oh, there. oh, there pools, you know, i try to fall in political discussions, both in russia and in the west, and it's clear that both sides i'm, you've been this sense of righteousness, but at least the russian analysts and trying to understand the rationale of van. i mean, they recognize the enemy, but they are trying to understand what is it, you know, how decisions are being arrived at and what is moving down, what is the objectives? whereas in the west, everything starts and ends with putins and rushes the morning nature. there's very little analysis, almost none of it, and it's increasingly taking on the wives of some sort of a holy war of a crusade g thing. we are still dealing with a rational opponent,

people who make decisions in washington. are they rational in the traditional sense of rationality? well, i think there are quite many smart analysts. i and scholars, i in united states who are getting rational, right. they are predominantly realists, people like john mearsheimer, steven wald, henry kissinger, i and many others. but unfortunately they are not the ones who are dr. american for us. you're absolutely right. the u. s. foreign policy is dominated by a liberal and neoconservative hawks who drive to before the whole conflict as a struggle between good and evil democracy and the focus and they deem allies russia . they tried to prove that russia is the source of evil. i am, you know, this makes it impossible to, to make a settlement, you know,

because of right? absolutely them. it is of the existential conflict. them this through the united states in a bad law. because if they don't win this fight, but when the good them evil additional way they will have to escalate, that's what kissinger is constantly talking about. that's very well speaking about deadlock and quite the literal sense present by them that they on a day a said that donald trump and the mag republicans represent a form of extreme extreme isn't that threatens the very foundation of the american republic, given how badly the democrats had doing in the polls, given the recent search as at trump's a state given the midterm elections coming up, do you think trump has reasons to be concerned about his freedom or even his safety? well, i think that the persecution of donald trump is absolutely true,

and the parent of democrats wants to put him in jail and they will try. busy all the means, you know, to remove him from active participation, all of x m, ultimately moving into jail. the raid in model lago was justin recent manifestation of that. and yes, the f b, i has become biden's and democrats kind of personal, gustavo, you know, the repression mechanism. i think the, you know, despite the current politics of the general situation in the united states is very dangerous because i haven't seen, i haven't witnessed that kind of and dance the political struggle, that kind of enmity between democrats and republicans. and that's kind of been progressive and conservative in the united states since my since the 18

fifty's and sixty's since the time which resulted into the civil war in the united states. and in the 19th century, i think that the united states is in the stage of political civil war right now. as it is not exclude us at a certain stage, this political civil war could turn into a full fledged civil war. well, i agree with you and i want to know that i think the level of support that trump i enjoy right now. not only in numerical sense, i think the intensity and sort of the and the ferocity all my stuff. they are the sentiment within the republican base. it is not to be compared with what they used to exist back in 2016. then at that time these people were still sort of believing in, in the american democracy in the american institutions. now,

it is life or death for them, not only in a political sense, but also in quite the literal sense. so it is indeed quite dangerous. if there is a major unrest in the united states, do you think washington's attention from our western border will be diverted or do thing on the country, the americans will sort of try to the anti? well 1st you are absolutely right about the crisis. so trust towards american institutions towards the rule of law. of course the b i bullies and so on and so forth. and the lack of prost institutions is a very powerful indicator of the, of the christ's. actually, this is how soviet union collapsed. right. of course, the people do not believe did not process the soviet institutions as the system as a whole. and now there is a deficit of prost towards the system itself. in the, in the united states,

a deficit of trust there is an active mistrust. there is that right, believe that they will be and then the election them both would be stolen again. absolutely. right. of course about 60 percent of republicans wants donald trump to be their candidate. and the next presidential election to support in the republican party is greater than is the support of jo by them in the democratic party. right. but still, the by the administration has come back in the us and paralyzing if you're a big proportion of american people. so on the rest is possible, you know, and what are here or, you know, it will depend on the scale of, on the rest of the scale of civil war i, in the united states, if the scale is substantial but still manageable, even united states does not collapse as a state and the country,

then the calls that calls us will be dangerous or worse. do more political upheaval exists in american domestic politics. the less responsible is there for. ringback the in the more pro, are they for some sort of escalation and irresponsible behavior by the united states collapses. well then we will also have to think about consequences for the world about their nuclear weapons, you know, in boulder, milligram basis all over the world. i and, and so on and so forth. so i would rather as you know, as the senior administration, i would rather think about the negative security consequences of their political. yeah, well we will definitely not rejoice that somebody else has that damage and harm need to. we have to leave it there. thank you very much for your time today. as usual. it's great pleasure talking to you. my pleasure. thank you very much. and thank you for watching hope to see you again on the world's apart. ah

with mm ah ah ah, i wasn't as well. wow. do you easy while friend? oh, yeah. or you can use that one slide yes. south. yeah. thrashing south with

bethany duck awesome boys. now watch them up for me. that'll pull up. i'd beat them. the is emma? yeah. the little girl from she'll let me just kim's room. she thought. can you say the y fi ela, a bill? them go? yes. my vote or change in the again the or fortune very up. my be a lot about this morning. it's are search financial a

a in the top stories of the week here, one or 2 international fighting intensifies near the russian hill orgy power plant in south eastern. you cried this i think you went to nuclear safety watch called b i. e, a visiting that site crashes military says it repelled at several ukrainian attempts to storm the atomic facility in the recent days. these as of regiment captives are now making their way back to the prison. the one that was shelter by their conference or the speak.