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 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. i'm in the old of the base 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 down please. i am there war, a baron collins in the western breast as well as and if, even if the nuclear reactor is shell directly problem, nothing dangerous could happen because the facility is more back 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. i is to prove that the very presence or for russia 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'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. totally often key because it can you believe cloud with reach. he's 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 proofs of the instinct of survival is out. 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 they're political decisions that they are land by the united states. and by the british who probably think that even if the nuclear disaster happens in a dorm extension, they will be less to stop or especially of the united states, which is also, which is over and beyond. so the political progress of grooving, of the false allegations, the very presence of russia is the threat most dis,

selling by you the, by the ukrainians. rob the presence of russia is above of the real dangers of the, of the new glades us admitted. even if we agree that let's say the ukrainian 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 cherokee, 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 fukushima. 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

russia altogether. well, i think the reason is because the 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 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 francis. when they heard something which slightly different the ukrainian narrative, again, a promoted 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 if not many, 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 and 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 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 and there 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 in 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 linked 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 un. yeah. 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 a delegations. the ukrainian shillings have disappeared. they have thought, right and, and bratia, he's interested on, oh, yes or no, but russia is interested in security. russia is interested in, you know, bro, sort of ation of this nuclear power station and continuation of its performance in a safe way. and working with a i e, you know, of the reports that i a is supposed. busy to deliver the u. s. secure 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 you grain, you know, to stop for bearing the stage for a new new blue does that? 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 ha, we're talking to you. that technology should work for people about maybe orders given it by human beings, except we're such orders in conflict with the 1st law on to the patient. we should be very careful about artificial intelligence and the point obviously is to race

trust rather than to a with artificial intelligence. real. somebody with a robot must protect its own existence with oh, what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy confrontation, let it be an arms race is on, often very dramatic development. only personally, i'm going to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successfully, very critical time. time to sit down and talk ah

welcome back to well, the point that metrics was look, deputy director at the center for of 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 george bush senior administration, was very concerned about the state of russia's nuclear industry. and they in fact invested a lot in safeguarding the nuclear materials, nuclear rockets, et cetera, to make sure they do that, not only for themselves as exceptionally, there was a selfish interest, but they did it also for the wider humanity. what do you think the buyer and administration stands on the, on the threat of nuclear, non proliferation, both military sense and the, in a sense of using safe use of civil nuclear technology. i'm asking not about public

statements, not about did the rhetoric, what's you sense of actually how concerned i americans about what is happening in the british? yeah. well, i think that the collapse of the soviet union played a negative role in responsibility. so the u. s. foreign policy because this responsibility drastically refused the u. s. believe this started to believe more. i in their own mis, they invented this idea of the u. s. victory 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 scowcroft. they didn't want to collapse or in

a smart way so that it does not 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 soviet nuclear weapons. and united states basically was the end of the highest re collection of soviet nuclear weapons for on the ukraine bailable some because of some injury, rush 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, you know, the administration was witnessing still the final stages,

but it was still the cold war. ah, whereas, and this is why it behave much more responsibly. and if you wanted to avoid the accident was really your thing is that they were scared enough . they were scared than rational. and how do you think the bite in administration is scary than out by the fall out from the current crisis? because, you know, i mean, we all can see that whatever you know, that public rhetoric is the, 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 most scared in loss. 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 supplies will be increasingly heavier welcomes with the supplies of intelligence information with actually preparing, i am supervising over the ukranian military operations with the approval of the ukrainian military strikes on the russian data such as grania the united states is part of this debate 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 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 cam tonight and states do on the one hand united states can accept the truth, that it is impossible to defeat, proffer in open 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 wallet to increase the farther wall of the different grease of the military assistance or to your grain, or even open participation of ne though, i, in this operation, this is a dad law for the united states, and this really creates the stage for escalation. now, me to as important as the separation plan is. it's not the only nuclear facility in ukraine. i think there are 3 more stations and even if i, 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 male would receive and by the way, do you think that the americans with that level of control and supervision of the ukrainians that you mention? do you think they have any qualms about the use of nuclear facilities for geo

political purposes? i think that unless the united states i united kingdom 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 rationale, rushing sewage country a way where north could it couldn't be push the, you cannot and you're going to put it on the, on the moon. so how, you know, that's the boy, you know, president still ask you of your grade, your state, you will continue to fight unless you read takes all the ukrainian land with the mind in mind. you're wrong, waters. americans are apparently and openly a groovy disperse. right? i am, 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, their post. you know, i tried to follow political discussions both in russia and in the west, and it's clear that both sides, i'm beautiful, this sense of righteousness. but at least the russian analysts are trying to understand the rationale of the enemy they recognize as 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. jesus, we are still dealing with an rational opponent,

people who make decisions in washington. are they rational in the traditional sense of fresh pretty? 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 the ones who do dr. american foreign policy. you're absolutely right. the u. s. foreign policy is dominated by a liberal and neoconservative hawks who drive to perform the whole conflict as a struggle between good and evil democracy and the thought. and they demonize russia . they try 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 it's in the right. absolutely them,

it is of the exit national conflict. them this, the united states in a bad luck. because if they don't win this fight between 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. prison bite. and then after the other day, a set that donald trump and the maggot 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 given the mid term 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 eye 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 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 full fledged civil war. well, i agree with you and i want to know that i think the level of support that trauma enjoys 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 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 you thing on the country the, the americans will sort of try to danty? 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 crisis. 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 united larry

deficit of trust, there is an active mistrust. there is that right, believe that they will be and then the election them both the stolen a 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 to 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, then the calls that calls us will be dangerous or worse. do more political upheaval

exists in american domestic politics. the less responsible is therefore. ringback in the more pro, are they for some sort of escalation and irresponsible behavior by the states collapses? well then we will also have to think about consequences for the world about their nuclear weapons, you know about a milligram basis all over the world. i and, and so on and so forth. so i would rather 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's, the 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

me when i was showing wrong, a sheep out disdain becomes the advocate an engagement. it was the trail. when so many find themselves will depart, we choose to look for common ground. oh,

the more or show you the most for so for him to with russia is the aggression no answer. much about my music. what's more than teaching you should slow border where we have any quality for russians. can. all we gotta do is just read them over the head and just tell them the right way to live here is going to do it a little bit like you with a form impressed with a lot of nice gloves with national has been used to be a for the new for junior, let us with

our human at the washer to work. so i would at the watch with with special mission, with the international atomic energy agency. he's basically to be played and he's being shown the sort of extensive damage that's been dealt to the facility in the stories that shape the weak r t joins, experts from the u. n's, nuclear watchdog who inspect the embattled zeros yeah. power plant with the facility coming under intensive attacks by ukrainian forces, according to local officials. the last leader of the soviet union, mikhail gorbachev died this week at the age of 19.