this is with a with the welcome to worlds apart for all the similarities between the crime upheaval and previous world wars, one thing is absolutely unprecedented. never before has an operational nuclear power station been in the midst of the not to bore zone. will change parents 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 the mitre seuss love 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 book. 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 really less 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. i'm in the old of the base war about blaming the other side of shelling for the same time. the threat of nuclear disaster, which would be worse than the one of chernobyl, let alone, fewer was downplayed. i am there war, a baron comments in the western breast as well as and give the even if the nuclear reactor is shell directly pro and nothing dangerous could happen because the facility is more active in the lower one and my date is and so on. and so this is extremely dangerous but. 1 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 out. i is to prove that the very presence or for russian or russian troops, i am a, a, what is your 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 would have been and tactically understandable and, but in this case, the damage cannot be contained, is the instinct of self preservation told we often keep because economically cloud

with reach. he is much faster 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 mold in the band of their political decisions, that they are led by the united states. and by the british who probably think even if the nuclear disaster happens. i mean, there's a dorm extension, they will be less to saw or especially of the united states, which is also, which is old from beyond. so the political congress 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 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 is 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 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 shima . 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 rush altogether. well, i think the reason is because of course, the conflict is 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 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 are, i'm thing which slight blue differs the ukrainian narrative, again, a from 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 ukranian party, and yet russia still pursuing as some modest attempts at trying to it's not many than find some common international ground. i'm talking about the recent visit my team from the international atomic energy agency to there's a power station, something that i think causes lead 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, 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 be on 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. 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 went to syria and produced very politicized. if not consciously misleading report about what actually happened them, 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, it 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,

but where else to work with for the sake of international security and nicholas and i think the visit matters. are several members of this delegation is still on site and but if i had a grocer, thank you, the director of the, a sad that he calls that would be a permanent mission, which russia, fullest supports. and look, with the arrival and presence of the i a delegations, the ukranian shillings have disappeared. they have thought, right and, and brush, or he's interested on, oh, yes or no, but russia, if you still 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 reports that i a,

a is. busy supposed to deliver in the un security council several days from now if i'm not mistaken. on september 6, i could be extremely important. i in this regard and could draw a gl international attention and create an international pressure beyond the west from the lawn, western world, the was ukraine, you know, blue stock preparing the stage for a nuclear does. 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. they can, ah a oh,

with the aggression? no, if injured much of matter. what's working due to ms collision slope or the issue of we have any quality for russians and all we gotta do is just read them over the head and just tell them the right way to weigh them. there is going to do a little switcheroo around the was like, no, we did it on these live the with a boy with even more is on the list with one of my gloves, with marshal most convenient for you. sure. when changes with

our season at the washer to work with to watch with ah ah, welcome back to world to point it's been mcchrystal slip deputy director at the center for a comprehensive european and international studies. at the higher school of economics in moscow, mitre, i heard you say recently, one of the 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 they do that, not only for themselves just exceptionally, there was a selfish interest, but they did it also for the wider humanity. when do you think the by an administration stands on their, on the threat of nuclear, non proliferation both and military sense and the in a sense of a using safe use of civil nuclear technology. i'm asking not about public statements, not about their, their 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 play. there are a negative role in responsibility for the u. s. foreign policy because this responsibility drastically refused the u. s. believe them the start to believe more . i in their own myths, they invented this idea of the u. s. victory in the cold war of the younger history

of the union 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. they're his secretary of state baker, national security advisor. so. busy grove, they didn't want to collapse. i didn't realize that you know, my way so that it does not con 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 soviet nuclear weapons. and united states basically was the engine behind the re collection of soviet nuclear weapons from ukraine. bailable some cause of some injury, rush under the centralized and safe control. do you think that address or decision

right now? if they could turn back that time, do you think they would have made an opposite decision? well, 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 whereas, and this is why it became much more responsive blue. it generally wanted to avoid the accident was really your thing is that they were scared and they were scared than rational and half a. do you think the bite in administration is scary and 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 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 administration unfortunately is more scared enough. because 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 grossing the red lights and kind of pushing the red lines, moving the red line forward and forward with the supply will be increasingly heavier weapons where the supplies of intelligence information was actually

preparing, i am supervising over the ukranian military operations with the a, both of the ukrainian military strikes on the roster such as grania 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, beers, political, and please the 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 offensive, which is failing, you know, what the united states is supposed to do, right? what can tonight in states do on the one hand,

do nighted states can accept the truth, that it is impossible to defeat, proffer in over military conflicts 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 wall to increase the further wall of increase of the military assistance or through your grain, or even open participation of ne though i do this operation, this is a dad law for, for the united states, and this really creates the stage for escalation. now, me to as important as these a regional plan. it's not the only nuclear facility in ukraine. i think that 3 more stations. and even if 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 black mail will 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 or is the key when the government drops, the idea of pushing russia out. the nuclear danger will remain because it is absolutely great. it is crystal clear that is affordable for them. if i, what do you think they mean by pushing russia out? russia see which country a way where north. good. 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 great, your state. you will continue to fight unless you read takes all the ukrainian land

with the mind to mind to one waters. americans are apparently and all the groovy disperse. right. and it is absolutely clear that it is impossible 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 of their oh, of course, you know, i try to for 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 to there's very little analysis, almost no, none of it. and it's increasingly taking on the wives of some sort of holy war of a crusade. jesus, we are still dealing with rational opponent, people who make decisions in washington. i'm a rational in the traditional sense of rationality. but i think there are quite many smart analysts. i and scholars, i in united states who are getting rational, right. uh, 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 foreign policy. you're absolutely right. the u. s. foreign policy is dominated by a liberal and neoconservative hawks who dried to before the whole conflict

as a struggle between good and evil democracy, amber talkers, and they deem allies russia. they tried to prove that roger is the source of evil. i am, you know, this makes it impossible to, to make a settlement. you know, the course of the right? absolutely. then it is of the existential conflict. them this, the united states in a bad luck, because if they don't win this fight, but when the good of the 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. a prison bite ended up the other 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 i doing in the polls,

given the recent searches 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 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 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 common 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 between progressives and conservatives 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 then 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 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 leg to draw stance. diffusions 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 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 larry deficit of trust. there is an active mistrust. there is that right and 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, if you're here or 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, even united states does not collapse as a state and the country them the course. of course, this will be dangerous for us. 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 classes? well then we will also have to think about 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 draw that 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 a dimension 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, [000:00:00;00] a look forward to talking to you all. that technology should work for people. a robot must obey the orders given by human beings,

except where such order that conflict with the 1st law show your identification. we should be very careful about artificial intelligence. the point obviously, is to great trust, rather than fear a job with artificial intelligence. real summoning with a robot must protect its own existence with ah, russia is the gross note is much about. we have inequality for russians. we have actual racism, bigotry,