that by rivals, federico rico again says the despite the west and the russian stance, his message has received a positive reaction. and his home country is c. and i didn't tina i was born and i was in siena. and literally, for 14 years of an argentine natalie, my protest caused a response. yesterday i took part in a radio show, an argentine radio. and today this news was published in my city's newspaper because it was received very positively when i conveyed the very message. but i wanted to express that sports without borders, culture, medicine, more of value that should help us to grow and improve as individuals. no matter where a person is from what carol skin they have. and this is what was reported in newspapers and on the radio and both italy in argentina because they understood the message that i wanted to convey up on the last the rock as 7 30 am moscow time this monday morning. do you head over to our web site for more on any of those stories? and if not, i'll be back again at the top of the all with another rundown of all the latest.

ah with mm. welcome to worlds apart. for all the similarities between the current 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 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 the mitre, so love deputy director of the center for comprehensive european and international studies and 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 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 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 these 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 saying 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 your mobile. let alone for. we see why was downplayed i am there war, a baron collins in the western breast as well as and if the, even if the nuclear reactor is shelled directly problem, 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 i is to prove that the very presence

over russia or russian troops, i am a bodies, you're 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're 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, 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 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 m i t f. 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, which is awesome, which is 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 stress. 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'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 they 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 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 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 frances, when they are, i'm thing which slightly different the ukrainian narrative, again, a promoted by the united states and the united kingdom, the level of the in 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, then 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 to part of the russians because it essentially invited 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, 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 in 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 areas does exist, especially in the secretariat of their a numeral 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 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 would be a permanent mission, which russia full of supports. and look with the arrival and presence of the i, a delegations, the ukranian shillings have disappeared. they have thought, right? and, and brushing is interested on, oh, 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 in 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 investment,

create an international pressure beyond the west from the long west of world. the was ukraine, you know, to stop preparing the stage for a new 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 ah, [000:00:00;00] a

ah ah, welcome back to well, the point that metrics will slip deputy director at the center for 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 in a lot in safeguarding the nuclear materials nuclear rockets, et cetera, to make sure, and they do that not only for themselves, sydney, there was a selfish interest, but they did it also for the wider humanity. what do you think the biden 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 their the 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 the girl negative role in a responsibility of the u. s. foreign policy, because this responsibility drastically refused the u. s. believe them started to believe more. i in their own mis, the, in the mail. good. this idea of the us victory in the cold war or the history of the unit polar moment and so on, so forth. in the senior administration behaved with a greater element overs wants to be able to. this is why, of course they wanted to week of the soviet union, but they're bugs. they're here. his secretary of state baker, national, yours advisor scowcroft. they didn't want to collapse. i didn't realize the in

a smart way so that it does not cry 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 fuel, of 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 you, graham bill, some cars are 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, you know, the administration was witnessing still the final stages by that was still the cold

war. ah, whereas in this is why it behave much more responsibly in general or wanted to avoid a new good x or the only you're saying is that they were scary enough. they were scared than rational and half. do you think the, the bite in administration is scary? then asked by the fallout 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 more scared in los the course

. the scale and depth of american participation in the ukrainian military conflicts dos create the conditions for the so called horizontal escalation, which is the direct military clash between russian, 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 lines forward and forward with the supplies will be increasingly heavier weapons where the supplies of intelligence information with actually preparing. i am supervising over the ukranian military operations with the approval of the cranium military strikes on the russian data, such as a grania the united states is participating in this conflict in a very be

a scale. the scale is growing and this is dangerous. the united states beers, political and christy responsibility for the consequences and for the for the results of the war. and since ukraine is able to show. busy any success, such as the current offensive, which is failing, you know, what the united states is supposed to do, right? what can do united states do on the one hand united states can accept the truth, that it is impossible to defeat prosper 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 or the other option is actually

grow of the 3rd world war, which is the wallet of increase in for one of the different grease of the meal. a great assistance or to your grain, or even open participation of ne though i give 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 these up a regional plan. it's not the only nuclear facility in ukraine, i think that the more stations and even if have 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 mentioned? 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 out, 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 russia out? rush, see which country a way where north? good. 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 great stay the he will continue to fight unless you read takes all the ukrainian land with the mind in line to run orders. americans are apparently and openly grooving disperse, right? i am, it is absolutely clear that it is impossible to drive russia out through the hello

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, 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. 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 g thing. we are still dealing with an 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 i in the united states for 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 are dr. american for us. 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 focus, 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 2nd. you know,

the course of the right. absolutely. then it is of the exit national conflict on this, the united states in a bad law. because if they don't win this fight between the good of the evil, a conditional way they will have to escalate. that's what kissinger is constantly talking about. that's very well speaking about deadlock and quite literal sense. prison bite ended out they are. they said 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 had doing in the polls. given the recent search as 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 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 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 and that's kind of yeah. but when progressives and conservatives in the united states since my since the 18

fifty's and sixty's, 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 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 enjoys right now. not only in numerical sense, i think the intensity and sort of the and the ferocity almost of 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 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 lack of boston institutions 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 clear deficit of prost towards the system itself in the, in the united. this isn't of trust. there is an active mistrust. there is that

right? believe that they will be and then the elections 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 bite of ministration has come back and regressions antagonizing if you're a big proportion of american people, so on the rest is possible, you know, and what are your ass 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 by the united states 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 i, 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. thank you for

watching hope to see you again on the world's apart. ah. with mm ah what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy confrontation, let it be an arms race is often very dramatic, development only personally and getting to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful,

very critical of time to sit down and talk ah, [000:00:00;00] a a with ukrainian forces once again, shell, a key bridge. and so then ukraine using an american supplied high mas rocket system, called crew reports exclusively from the area, with the middle of the bridge. the disruption these met with civilian vehicles are no longer required to put together