of nuclear power stations been in the midst of a natural more so what 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? well, to discuss that, i'm now joined by an matrix to slough deputy director at the center for comprehensive european and international studies and the higher school of economics in moscow meetings. good to see your again, thank you very much for being available. close on. thank you. my pleasure. now the is up originally nuclear plant has been a, 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 this 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 functioning nuclear facility being targeted by artillery and how it may affect all regardless of who is doing that. precisely. i think you're absolutely right. the middle of the bass war about blaming the other side of shelling of the same kinds of threat of nuclear disaster, which would be worse than the one of your mobile. let alone for c r a was don't play i m there war a baron collins in the west compress as well as an if the, even if of the nuclear reactor is shell directly problem. nothing dangerous. cooper. i'm a big corps. the facility is more effective in your lower my age 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 that the purpose of the ukrainians and the western backers of the ukrainian regime is the russian. i is to prove that the very presence or for russian or russian troops. i am a appreciate re jim. 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 are choosing to do that. you know, 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 would have been and tactically understandable. and, but in this case, the damage cannot be contained,

is the instinct of self preservation. totally often key because it can usually cloud with reach, keep much faster or than muscle for that matter. it could reach any other european capital. well, i think all the history of the last 6 months and beyond proofs of the instinct of survival is out. i t if, because 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 molten dependent and their political decisions are led by the united states. and by the british who probably think that even if the nuclear disaster happens, i a dorming station, they will be less to stop or especially of the united states. we just also,

we just ocean 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 robot. the presence of russia is above of the real dangers of the, of the nuclear admission. even if we agree that let's say the are you great 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's still manifest itself in many areas of europe and asia, for example, in tricky in the hyphen rates of cancer among their effective populations. you mentioned fukushima and then there were a number of very important strategic decisions taken, for example, in germany, the decision to suspend nuclear activity because of the fears associated with the

consumer. so why are the europeans so laid back about that? even if they fully agree with the ukrainian intention to kind of cancel out the rush altogether. well, i think the reason is of course the conflict has created side your political atmosphere in the west, in general, and in europe in particular. which for them from saying the truth, which prevents them from any 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 friends. this, when they heard something which slightly different the ukrainian narrative, again a booster and promoted by the united states and i,

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 ukranian party, and yet russia still pursuing a some modest attempts at trying to, if 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 this 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 argued that it was a reckless move on to part of the russians because it essentially invited a ukrainian it 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, 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 amateur is widespread. well beyond the west and russia is working with the whole world on this matter with the international community, which is wider than the collective west. why is that that international

community is 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 and 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 secretariat of their a numeral example. so that boss, we don't have a different us. yeah. we don't have

a different i a yeah. these are the institutions that were come to work with for the sake of international security and nicholas. and i think the, the visit matters are several members of this delegation is still on site. and the fire, grossly of the, 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 a delegation. the ukranian shillings have disappeared. they have thought right and, and brushing is interested on now. yes or no, but russia is interested in security. russia is interested in, you know, bro, sort of facial. busy this nuclear power station and continuation of its performance in a safe way and working with the i e, you know,

of the reports that is supposed to deliver the us to go to the column. so several days from now, if i'm not mistaken. on september 6, i good to be extremely important. busy in this regard and could draw a international attention and create an international pressure beyond the west. from the mon western world, the was ukraine, you know, to stop preparing the stage for a new new blue design. i guess we will have to wait and see, i hope you're right, but for the time being made sure we have to take a very short break. we'll be back in just a few seconds they can ah a

. 2 a, i think 70 percent of even 80 percent of your people for why serbia in this you'll see i won't go through trinity go, it means i won't this best with this one. me not a toyota. me sale possibly to login and then roseann those and with . mm hm. mm i welcome back to world important victories. so slip deputy director at the center

for comprehensive european and international studies at the higher school of economics in moscow. mitre, i heard you say recently, and one of their russian political shows that in the final months of the soviet union, the united states under the george bush senior administration, was very concerned about the state of russia's nuclear industry. and they in fact invested a lot in safeguarding and nuclear materials, nuclear rockets, et cetera, to make sure, and they do that 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 biden administration stands on dia, on the threat of nuclear, non proliferation both the military sense and the in a sense of, of using safe use of civil nuclear technology. i'm asking not about public statements, not about their the rhetoric, but what you 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 play the girl negative role in responsibilities. the u. s. foreign policy course, this responsibility drastically refutes the usb leaves them. they're starting to believe more eye in their own, mis. they invented this idea of the u. s. v. 3 in the cold war of the younger history of the unit polar 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 the his secretary of state baker, national security advisor. busy school growth, they didn't want to collapse. i didn't realize that, you know, it's my way so that it does not con damage to everybody else. precisely because they didn't want an uncontrolled 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 end of the highest re collection of soviet nuclear weapons for on the ukraine, bailable some cost on into 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, but it was still the cold war. ah, whereas, and this is why it became much more responsive blue. it generally

wanted to avoid, then you go accidentally, your thing is that they were scared enough. they were scared and rational. and how do you think the bite in administration is scary then asked by the full, out from the and crisis? because i mean, we all can see that whatever you know, that public rhetoric is the fallout 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 administration unfortunately, is more scared enough. of course, the scale and depth of american participation in the ukrainian military conflicts does create the conditions for the so called horizontal escalation,

which is the direct military clash between russia, 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 suppliers will be increasingly heavier weapons where 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 roster such as try near the united states is participating in this conflict in a very be a scale. this scale is growing out. this is dangerous. the united states is political and christy responsibility for the

consequences and for the, for the results of the war. and so, since ukraine is able to show any success such as the current 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, that it is impossible to defeat, proffer in over 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 in for one of the different grease of the military assistance or to your grain, or even open participation of ne though,

i feel this operation, this is a dad look for the united states, and this really creates the stage for escalation. now, nature as important as these up a regional plan is it's not the only and you play facility in ukraine. i think there are 3 more stations. and even if i win 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 i united kingdom and of or is the key when the government drops out,

the idea of pushing russia out the nuclear danger will remain because it is absolutely great. it is crystal clear that it is impossible for them. if i, what do you think they mean by pushing russia out? russia see which country away where nurse couldn't be push the you can't, and you're going to put it on the, on the moon. so how, you know, 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 mind in line to one orders. americans are apparently and openly grooving disperse, right? and it is absolutely clear that it is impossible to drive russia out through the additional 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 over their 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 to be 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 pollutants 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. jesus, we are still dealing with a rational opponent, people who make decisions in washington. i'm a rational in the traditional sense of rationality. well, i think there are quite many smart analysts and scholars in the 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 won school a dr. american foreign policy. you are 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 of course, 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 the right. absolutely. then it is of the exit national conflict on this, the united states in a bad luck. because if they don't win this fight between the good and evil

additional way they will have to escalate. that's what kissinger is constantly talking about. that's very well speaking about deadlock in quite a literal sense. prison, biting that out. the on a d. 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 i doing in the polls, given the recent search as at trump's a state and 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 there, and the 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 and ultimately moving him 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 intensity of political struggle, that kind of enmity between democrats and republicans. so that's kind of been progressive and conservative in the united states since my since the 18 fifty's and sixty's. so 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. and it is not exclude us at a certain stage, this political civil war could turn into 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 to what i 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 you seeing on the country the, the americans will sort of try to are they antsy? 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 last 2 problems to fusions is a very powerful indicator of the, of the christ's. actually, this is how soviet union collapsed, right? because the people do not believe did law prost the soviet institutions as the system as a whole. and now there is a deficit of prost towards the system itself. in b a 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 will be stolen again. absolutely right. and of course,

about 60 percent of republicans wants donald trump to be their candidate. 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 vital administration has come back in the us antagonizing, if you are a b proportion of american people, so on the rest is possible. you know, in the us here are, you know, it will depend on the scale of, on the rest of the scale of civil war in the united states. if the scale is substantial but still manageable. if united states does not collapse as a state and the country, then the consequences will be dangerous to do more political upheaval exists in american domestic politics. the less responsible is therefore in the, in the more pro are they for some sort of escalation and irresponsible behavior.

but even though it stays collapses, well then we will also have to think about the consequences for the world about their nuclear weapons, you know, involved a milligram basis all over the world and so on and so forth. so i will, brother, as you know, as the administration, i would rather think about the negative security consequences of their political. yeah, well we will definitely not rejoice that somebody else has 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. thank you for watching hope to see you again on the world's apart. ah. with

mm ah in with

today, i'm authorizing the additional strong sanction foreign companies, quitting russia, a licensed atm console, blantan banks disconnected from the international payment system, dysfunctional hoppey journal, donna and euro exchange rates follow up on a couple more stuff. so i wouldn't what up what the committee met, the focus on that is the current. can you say i don't see a metallica from exposure in russian business overcome this song. so yeah, i bought enough to handle she tremendously just me don't plus voice bullshit. nash, a productive notches, steel nash, a mere bull. what i see, i put themselves when you come, when you, with a price of i need to ask you to cost to get the

group when you, when you're speaking with talk a little bit with, oh, hello. people i think is 70 percent of even 80 percent of serbian people are for russians. but you know, you can have to make it like a person or like something that, you know, number people who come to the book and then you may conclusion. they are pro russians or not.