ah and welcome towards the part 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 an active more 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 so slough, deputy director of the center for comprehensive european and international studies at the higher school of economics in moscow meetings. good to see your 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 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, 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 mold of the base war about blaming the others sidled shelling of the same barnes, the threat of nuclear sister,

which would be worse than the one all over let alone c. r was down played. i am there war and their own comments in the western breast as well as and 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 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 let 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, 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 usually 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 proofs of the instinct of survival is out in yes, of course, if this instinct has been there, they would have already agreed with a political settlement of the conflict along the line. the prospect has been

suggesting since early march, but the problem is that they are molding the bundled and their political decisions are led by the united states and by the british who probably thing. but even if the nuclear disaster happens, i, there's a dorming station, 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 above the presence of russia is above of the real dangers of the, of the nuclear emitter. even if we agree that let's say the are ukranian 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 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 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 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 of course, the conflict. i just created such a political atmosphere in the west, in general and in europe in particular. which perhaps, that i'm from saying the truth, which prevents them from any ward which criticizes ukraine or even

is different than do you agree, ma'am? their weakness, the scale of condemnation soften by henry kissinger, by amnesty international, by the pool room francis, when they are a thing which slight blue differs the ukrainian narrative, again, a molded by the united states and the united kingdom, the level of the in the scale of condemnation was out. this is why even 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 contradicts the political purposes of the u. s. u. k. and

the ukrainian part, and yet russia still pursuing a some modest attempts at trying to it's not many of them find some common international ground. i'm talking about the recent meeting by team from the international atomic energy agency to these inquiries. yeah. power station, something that i think causes 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 the part of the russians because it essentially invited a ukraine attempt 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'm because i a,

which is or grading under the auspices of the united nations is small. the western organizational, as a global i am nuclear amateur is widespread. well, be on 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 went to syria and produced very politicized. if not consciously misleading report about what actually happened and 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, it does exist, especially in the u. m. a secretariat of their annual 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 the several members of this delegation is still on site. and that if i had a grocer, the director of the a sad that he calls that that would be a permanent mission, which are also full of supports. and look with the arrival and presence of the

a delegation. the ukranian shillings have disappeared. they have thought, right, and in russia, he's interested on, oh, yes or no, but russia is interested in security. russia is interested in, you know, bro, sort of a sham this nuclear power station and continuation of its performance in a safe way and working with the i e, you know, 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. busy in this regard and could draw a international attention and create an international pressure beyond the west from the lone western world. the once you grain 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, make sure we have to take a very short break. we'll be back in just a few seconds. they can, ah, a russian station. oh, never a some, a leak within a 55 when. okay, so 9 is gonna be the one else about this. even with we will van in the european union, the kremlin media machine,

the state on russia today, and split ortiz food next. even our video agency, roughly all bands on youtube with . mm hm. mm. welcome back to world important victory. so 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 had 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 nuclear materials, nuclear rockets, et cetera, to make sure 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 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 the rhetoric, but what's you sense of actually concerned i americans about what is happening in the thirty's. yes. well, i think that the collapse of the soviet union played or a negative role in the responsibility of the u. s. foreign policy because this responsibility drastically refused the u. s. believe them the started to believe

more. i in their own mis, they invented this idea of the us victory in the cold war of the history of the unit polar moment and so on and 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 didn't. they're bugs the, his secretary of state baker, national security advisor, school growth. they didn't want to collapse. i didn't realize that 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. busy 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. for all new graham bells

and carson 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 responsibly in jane. you only wanted to avoid the accident one only your thing is that they were scared enough. they were scared and rational and half a. do you think the bite in administration is scaring them out by the fall out from the current 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 small scared and loss. of course, the scale and depth of american participation in the ukrainian military conflicts dara creech, the conditions for the so called horizontal escalation, which is the direct military clash between russia. ne though and prosper 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 where the supplies of intelligence information with actually preparing and supervising over the ukranian military operations with the approval of the ukrainian military strikes on the russian data such as try near 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, an early stage 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 in states do on the one hand united 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 wallet of increase. the father was a different grease of the military assistance or to your grain, or even open participation of ne though i give 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 these up a regional plan,

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 mention? 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. i dear all spoofing, 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? rush is a few which country away where north good. there couldn't be push the you cannot

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 fire unless you read takes all the ukrainian land with the mind to mind to run orders. americans are apparently, and all the groovy disperse. right. i am, 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 tried to follow 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 a 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. gc. 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 man is smart analysts, i and scholars, i, in the united states who are getting rational, right. they are predominantly realists, people like john mearsheimer, steven wald, henry kissinger, and many others. but unfortunately, they are not the ones who dr. american foreign policy. 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 box, and they deem allies 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, the course of right? absolutely. then it is of the exit national conflict. them this through 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 literal sense prison, biting that out the other day. a said that donald trump and the mag and 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 tramps 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 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 into jail. the raid in moral 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 get the progressives and conservatives in the united states since my, since the 18 fifty's and sixty's. so since the time of which a result of 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 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 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 thing on the country? the americans will sort of try to dancing? 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 dross, institutions is a very powerful indicator of the, of the christ's. actually, this is household if you try and 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 process 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 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 are, 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 consequences will be dangerous or worse. 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 by the states collapses. well then we will also have to think about that consequences for the world about their nuclear weapons, you know, involved a milligram basis all over the world i and, 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 that 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. i thank you for watching hope to see you again on the world's apart. ah with mm ah ah ah

ah, with a i think is 70 percent of even 80 percent of so be below for why in the few say i want to approach and it means i want this best with this one. me not a toyota me sale possibly to login and then we'll see on those that a with

ah, the special mission with the international atomic energy agency. he's basically the way that he's being shown, the sort of extensive damage that's been dealt to the facility and the stories that shape the weak r t joins, experts from the un nuclear watchdog who've been inspecting the bottle itself, arose yet power plants with the facility coming under intensive attacks by ukrainian forces, according to the local authority leader of the soviet union, mikhail gorbachev died this week at the age of 19.