never before has an operational nuclear power station been in the midst of a natural war 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? well, to discuss that i'm now joined by an mitre, so love 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 as 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 don't played. i am there war, a baron collins in the western breast as well as in the, even if of the nuclear reactor is shell directly problem. nothing dangerous could happen. bigger is the facilities more of back in

a lower one in ages 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 progress of your gradients and the western backers of the ukrainian regime is to go for some. so i is to prove that the very presence or for russian or russian troops, i am a, what is your region? 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 tactically understandable. but in this case,

the damage cannot be contained, is the instinct of self preservation. totally often key because they can usually cloud with reach. he's much faster or than most, all 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. 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 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, i 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 disease. and make sure 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 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 then 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 shima . 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 rational together? 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 perhaps 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 soften by henry kissinger? by amnesty international, by the pool pool room francis, when they are, i'm thing which slightly different the ukrainian narrative,

again a from older by the united states and i, 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 as some modest attempts at trying to it's not many and then find some common international ground. i'm talking about the recent reason, my team from the international atomic energy agency to there's a 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 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 when 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 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

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 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 us. 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 visit 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 is interested in security. russia is interested in, you know, bro, sort of a show all 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 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 once you grain you know, to stop for bearing the stage for a new nuclear. does that? 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, have got to do is identify the threats that we have taken from taishan. let it be

an arms race is very dramatic. a disease i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very particular time to sit down and talk a good fit. the bill. good. i think is 70 percent of even 80 percent of the of the below for why serbia in the few say i won't go through trinity, it means i won't this best with this one. me not a toyota. me see up or slow. it's still loading and then roseann roseann with

. mm hm. mm i welcome back to world appointment metrics to slip 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 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 the log in safeguarding and nuclear materials, nuclear rockets, et cetera, to make sure they do that, not only for themselves to cic sydney. 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 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 you sense of actually how can san die, americans about what is happening in the british. yes. well, i think that the collapse of the soviet union played or a negative role in responsibility for the u. s. foreign policy, because this responsibility drastically refused the u. s. believe them this started to believe more. i in their own mis, they invented this idea of the u. s. victory in the cold war. all 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 the his secretary of state baker,

national security advisor, school growth. they didn't want to collapse a in a smart 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 all new grain bales. and because it's done into 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 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 it. jane you want to avoid, then you get extra the only you're saying is that they were scared enough. they were scared than rational and half a. do you think the bite in administration is scary then asked by the fallout from the current crisis? because, you know, 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 and 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 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 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. united states is political and steve 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 and states do on the one hand united states can accept the truth, that 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 to increase the fall of one 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 look for the united states. and this really creates the stage for escalation. now, me to as important as the separation plan. it's not the only nuclear facility in ukraine, i think that's the 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 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 geo political purposes? i think that unless the united states are united kingdom and of or is the key when the government drops. i hear all spoofing 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? rush is a few and country away 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 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 line to wrong waters. americans are apparently and openly grooving disperse, right? i know 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. 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 are trying to understand the rationale of the enemy. 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 g thing. we're 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 a man is smart analysts, i and scholars, i in united states who are getting rational right now. 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 perform the whole conflict as a struggle between good and evil democracy and the doctor, 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, because of the right. absolutely. then it is that the exit national conflict on this, the united states in a bad luck. because if they don't win this fight between the good, 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 literal sense prison bite. and then after the other day, a set 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 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 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, i am with you. i 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 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 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 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 bras institutions is a very powerful indicator of the, of the christ's. actually, this is how soviet union collapsed, right? because the people did not believe did not process the soviet institutions as the system as a whole. and now there is

a clear deficit of prost towards the system itself in the, in the united a deficit of trust. there is an active mistrust. there is that right, i believe that they will be and then the election them both the still and absolutely right. and of course of all 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 joy by the democratic party. right? but still, the bite of ministration 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. if the united states does not collect as

a state and the country, then the consequences will be dangerous requires 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 united states collapses? well then we will also have to think about consequences for the world about their nuclear weapons, you know, evolving milligram basis all over the world. i 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 has that damage and harm need to. we have to leave it there. thank you very much for your time today at 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, ah oh boy,

show you the most all or so for the west. russia is the aggression know his answer much about or i need a key. what's more due to miss dealerships wellborn, where we have any quality for russia, and all we gotta do is just feed him over the head and just tell him the right way to live near is going to do. yeah, just a boy . i'm with the white glove with

our human at the washer to work with the washer with ah, a lot of people i think is 70 percent of even 80 percent of serbian people for russians. but you know, you cannot make it like a person or like something that you, you know, the number people who come to sort of the book. and then you may conclusion. they are pro russians or.