ah ah, i welcome to wells and for being a generous friend, and the enemy is an axiom, advocated by many ethical and religious traditions, which until recently, also had its place in geo politics. the whole corpus of international law was written and upheld on the promise of a minimum of stability that states would show to one another as a safeguard against an all out war. possibly bring that spirit back to global affairs. well, to discuss that, i'm now joined by a jail cassandra london base political analysts and consulting. agile is great to talk to you. thank you very much for your time. thank you for having pleasure.

given the fact that you're joining us from london, which is a very rare treat for me these days, i want to start from a far as mentioned the, the lecture that i attended just this past weekend, about the arthurian legends very, very popular in russia as well as this whole spirit of dignity and honor, the author at knives espoused and it wasn't just about the valleys. it was also about that dedication and loyalty to one another. and doug, doug, me thinking, you know, we hear these days a lot about the western unity and how it's been solidified in opposing russia. but when we look at the bare facts and the policies that western countries are conducting towards one another on it being fair or generous to there,

or even to that when people are asking me this question. i think that the 1st of all, i would start with saying that, you know, this on and dignity should be placed on the part of the fairy tales. because we are fed with the information that you know, the being truthful feel, fellow human being, go to your fellow country, man is something that should be, you know, out when you grow up as an other person. but what we can see, and what we can see before our, our own eyes is that, you know, each car is for themselves. the european union can't have a coherent foreign policy because each country has its own national interest. so if you have a sum of all different countries with different geographical positions, different historical heritage is, is really difficult to, to, you know, to, to form certain coherent, geopolitical or g o cannot make

a policy. what we are seeing now is the block is divided or split. and also when you asking the question whether europe in countries are coherent or whether they, they, they, they don't agree when it comes to the policy. these are the ukraine. we can see that the populations within each and every country in europe is against this very night rate, if on this very foreign policy push against russia. 2 because it is backfiring, i mean they high energy prices which are just contributing to the high inflation guarantee. people want using the food banks. i mean, the situation on the ground is horrible, but we saw time and 5 again from, from the so called lead us, that this is the price to pay for our values. you mentioned the issue of narrative

and what is being sold to the people. and i think it's also parallel. the typical plot of they are who are legends in the sense that there would be a fair made them. and that was abused in some sense that would come to this round table and ask for support them. this is essentially the narrative that we're hearing from the was this innocent pure ukraine does. what's what some reasons i tagged by this horrible monster from the north without no prior, no justification. does this narrative correspond to the dual political realities of the last couple of decades as you perceive them or, you know, as has been documented in global history? not really, not really. anyone who is familiar with the situation from the very beginning. i mean, it started with, i mean, in 2006, robert kagan was quite explicit. the color revolution and moving nato was to ukraine,

will serve to expand the west and liberal germany. so if one is wants to stay truthful to, to, to the facts rather than they rated, it doesn't correspond, but the plot that you mention corresponds with the people's imagination because we all prefer when the good, you know, be evil, right? so it is triggering a certain path has been our thinking in order to, you know, to manage a consent with them within the populations throughout the world, or predominantly in the, in the west to, to, you know, to support even though that it is backfiring. and it's us in the society in the west and other parts of the region as especially in the global out. so no, it doesn't correspond, but is it this skillfully used to, to make the society compliant and,

and willing to suffer. but as we seen in from, in the past, in italy, in germany, people are resisting, they are not willing to sacrifice their life. they, they will be, they economies day, you know, a livelihood, or even when it comes to a conflict between nato and russia, which is, god forbid, i hope, far away their lives. now i know that the tension between russia and made to, for quite some time and back in 2014 your role, that for the sake of ukraine, the u on the united states have to come to terms with russia having its legitimate national interest. just like any other country, russia has legitimate security interest in terms of protecting and it sounds self evident. but yes, if we look at the last 7 years,

be very persistent. and i think very deliberate rough efforts you sabotaged any making in your credit, and it's pretty clear that there was simply davin accept the premise. what do you think is the current goal of western policy on the russian or on the ukrainian track, what they would ideally like to achieve, or they're not specifying, they're just saying that you have to win. so we don't know what exactly this this, this, this when would look like. we know that for several times and even had richard. tiffany, jeff said, perhaps ukraine should be or president zelinski should be more realistic about a settlement between a moscow and here. but if we see what is being done, you know, a constantly, a new weapons are being sent with the longer range. i'm not sure whether it will,

you know, setup. it turns out, because if someone wants to achieve a diplomatic solution to the conflict which is already a volvic into a direct conflict between nato and, and russia. because we have to bear in mind that the moment that the republics in easton, ukraine are participating. referenda, which what president, putting exclusively sat and it was also repeated by say, again, love a foreign minister, russia, a russian federation is that ones that those republic will join russia, that the country will use any means to, to protect them. i think that's a very important point and there are several of the factors that go into that decision making as far as the crime is concerned. but one of them is definitely a tactical military strategy because i, regardless of whether the west accepts those referendums, the,

the character of the world will change for russia in terms of tactics in terms of the me that it can use. and in terms of the needs that it will employ to achieve its goals. now, do you think that will change the conduct as far as the conduct this conflict as far as the west is concerned? well, i would, i would like to change that it will change, but i'm not sure. because as i previously said, they, i mean, we have to look at what they are doing and what they are saying. and it, even though the this month that there was a certain proposal called a key of the fence document that was presented by the former prime minister and foreign minister from the nato countries where they were proposing basically to here a fact. so nato a member. 1 so i think

a dis referenda should have take place at 8 years ago. in my opinion. i think the president, while they may have put in a drop the ball when it comes to this referenda, when the people were suffering, i mean russian population of eastern europe. ukraine was something by den where they were harassed in queue. but apparently the human rights don't, don't apply to russian citizens or russian population in this and you're going but there's a separate separate topic. but you might be said that this is a technical maneuver because 1st and foremost, although everyone is trying to portray president but even put in as a madman, i'm not sure whether he's a madman because he's a person who finish law. he's a, he's a lawyer and he has a ph. d in economics. so he's quite well, but with all, everything is happening. history has seen many tensions between russia and the west

before but during the cold war, there were some mechanisms of sort of managing those tensions. arms controls that, you know, as far as to de escalate some back channel diplomacy. but we are not seeing anything at the moment, both sides as sort of going full speed towards the choosing the objectives. there are no negotiations, any efforts to come to the negotiating table between the russians and the ukrainians. that being pito by, by the west. are there any safe guards law as far as you are concerned, concerns against an all out war against the 3rd world war? oh, well, they know, we know the united states withdrawal from any agreement you know, the proliferation of weapons and nuclear treaties are concerned. so it's open a gate to nuclear change and i would say that western media and western politicians are misinterpreting what the russian government is saying. it's not

blackmailing, but it's just saying, as, perhaps mother would say to his child, don't you know, touch or hook up because you will get done. so it's not a threat is just the stating a fact. so, you know, there's a saying in geopolitics, that nuclear power never, it's never defeated. because the last, the rest of being pushed to the wall is using this nuclear weapons. otherwise we wouldn't have nuclear weapons. and i can assure that united states, if, if they've come to would have been pushed to the well would do the same. because this is that the, the, the, the rationale of having a nuclear weapons. and we have to take a very short break right now. but we will be back in just a moment. ah ah.

so what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have tree from taishan. let it be an arms race. he's on very dramatic development only i'm getting. i don't see how that strategy will be successfully, very critical time. time to sit down and talk with ah, ah,

a was the parts with andrea because sometimes a london based political analyst and a risk consulting entering before the break. and we're talking about the world covering on the and bringing over a nother global conflict and the lack of any safeguards to prevent that. and you know what got me really concerned the other day. i heard one well respected and very even tempered russian. emily, who used to be very well received in the west. so just that, the only thing that can bring weston decision makers back to reality would be a credible threat to that old countries, not to ukraine, not even to euro, because the american can care less about you are but a credible threat. you than marry can, mainland this is not the person who is known for any war promoting statements. i wonder if, if you agree with that,

and how concerning is that is concerning. because we know that america unfortunately has already sacrificed europe and its development. i mean, america has succeeded in the, the, in the sterilizing europe. i mean, what we're seeing at the moment is the corpus of europe. we will have during the winter blackouts, advising us to, you know, to take a cold shower was, i mean, how ridiculous is that? so when it comes to your, your, your question about the credible threat. yes, i think until the united states will not find it. so gonna position that it can be realistically hom, bye bye bye. a russia it will push the country's to unplug the nice russia and move forward with the threat. because as i said, this is not a video game. it is real. people are dying on the ground as many american foreign

policy makers and analysts are saying america is willing to, to fight the russian until the last few trains. so they are using ukraine, ukrainian, people today, geopolitical to achieve their jo, geopolitical objectives and they are using them as the common border that got them the reasons the question of how that threat could be communicated to the united states with russia being responsible member of the international community because having nuclear weapons settled the country with, with enormous responsibility, not only before, the americans of the western regiment before the rest of the world as well. but also just found as intro, because they had the room for maneuver here is not the is not too broad. i mean that there's no, there's to be honest. there's no reason to believe that because how, how many times you can communicate the, you quote, the certain country across a red line. how many red lines have to be crossed in all the for the other party to,

you know, come to the conclusion that we have enough. i mean we, we, we poke the back and the base really angry and it can retaliate. so, you know, we move a little bit back from the tv and a fairy tales to the greek tragedy. and there was a concept of that got from the machine. so when there was a story where there was unsold a problem, all of a sudden, you know, there was, i was, was, was appearing, and this problem was ultimately sold. so in order to ask the question, i think that i don't know what would be that was in this particular case. but other than that, i don't see any other other me to, to communicate something which has been communicated, time and time again to the western partners of russia. i share your interest in

greek literature, and i'm sure when agree with me that the ancient greeks saw a hubert as of the main them and putting themselves into place of god was considered to be something that inevitably would bring ruin upon people or forces that do that now i'm struggling as a russian who started in the united states. i have many friends there. i love the american and british culture, but i'm failing to understand what could possibly drive these kind of policy because it's one thing to dislike russia. but you cannot pretend that it doesn't exist and you cannot pretend that it's nuclear weapons don't exist. why do you think that was the saw uncompromising in trying to not only punish russia but to hold onto it? germany, which by all measures is not held up by the reality itself. well, i'm glad that you've mentioned that concept before brings,

but we know that there will be no measures a rational consequence brings. and once someone is in this mentality, it doesn't proceed was as it is. so if you are delusional, which is i can state by the fact that the, the blog, all the policy makers in the united states in capitol hill diluted, you know, immersed in, in who would be, they don't care. i mean, for them is achieved the gemini. so once you are in this load, i mean, how can you be, i mean, you know, govern the entire world. how, how does that? i mean, if you will be exceptional country, you don't perceive other countries as an equal. they either comply with your so called rules based,

although which should has nothing to do with the public international law. and trust me, i've, i've, i've studied no, and i'm a lawyer by, by, by profession. so there's no, no such a thing as the rules based order. but once you are exceptional country folks, among many, you walk creating rules of they go and either countries comply or they are being punished. and russia said, no, we have our own national, legitimate interest. they've been trying, as we remember before the special ration or the complex break criminal will sending letters to have the mutual security agreement with the united states and not the countries, but they dismissed that they dismissed. bye bye bye. know he does. they are dealing with the nuclear power. so this, this entire company could easily a preventive, but it wasn't. and if it was done with intent,

now let's you mentioned the rest of the world, and i think it's not just russia, but many other countries that i'm not ready to accept the western last order anymore, simply because it's unfair it's, it only balances the west and it ruins the planet and it doesn't even benefit the western society, western people. it only benefits a very narrow group. group of people who for some reason, once you add more trillions, to that trillions. do you think the, how do you think the rest of the world is reacting to what's happening? because if it seems to be hygiene is best for the time being. but deep down do you think. 6 countries would like to see more democratic governance when it comes to global affairs. of course, i mean i myself, i mean my mom is a jewish, and my father is tanzania. so i quite, i'm quite familiar with the global style voices,

and especially in africa. and as you probably know, recently the american ambassador to the united nations black lady, african american lady, said explicitly, during her visit to africa, that there will be significant consequences if the african countries will deal with, with russia. and this met with outrage. i have several conversations with people from gun, from, from, from, came out from, from the boss, from, from tanya and people with outrages how united states can you know, whose countries and this goes back to let me give you an example, a famous president of gannon, from a cru, mom, he wrote it famous book called the neo colonialism, the last stage of imperialism. and it was published roughly in 1965. so once this book was published, the united states department was outrageous. and they cancel out dramatically this local a to gunner, which was worth $25000000.00. so we have to understand that going back,

feel fed governments governance on the world stage, the global so want to participate in russia and china. communicating that the global government should be democratic regardless whether the country is perceived according to the west standards as a demo receipt. but the global governance should be democratic, which means one country, one voice. so that's why we see there's a strong support for the global, seldom countries for russia. and it will be a strong support for, for russia and china as well. because there are a lot of grievances, as people who in global out in africa in latin america was the see being now conducted these of the rust is the same treatment that they've been,

they've been met with from the west for all these years of colonial era can i bring the artillery and legend one more time? because i think there's one more metaphor that is very, that are relevant here. and that's the metaphor of the round table. if you remember, it was merlin, the magician, who gave the king that a round table, and what was it inscribed on that table was a thing by helping each other we become equals initially that was supposed to be the rationale of the united nations that all countries with feed around the round table, they will be able to settle their differences by mutual respect, by some minimal distance, the towards one another. understanding that they're doing that for the sake of the global piece. do you think the your has lead up to that noble goal and what could be done to make that organization truly efficient? while this, i think unfortunately i think there's

a high probability that the united nations will shad the faith of league of nations which was dismantled. it doesn't represent the, the, the, the, the global voice. i mean, the voice of the international community. it is a very narrowly constructed voice of international community, which is united states and it's colleagues and friends around the world. we in asia, we have japan, and now does the dominant be in the western hemisphere. but unfortunately, united nation doesn't have tools to, you know, to somehow impose its will on the united states, which is the most powerful country in the world. we what we can go back to the fact that unit had in the united states invaded iraq even though that coffee and was against that. so whenever we hear about the, you and charter, the russia should come. why would you in charge that we should, you know,

ask i was so how many times united states has broken the united charter you and chop and so sorry, so, so this is a double standard. i mean, you can, you know, require from other countries to comply with you and chart the although they require, but not applying the same rules and laws to your so, and this is what, what, what the united states is doing. we've been hearing about this multi color world or more democratic governance for quite some time. but it's one thing to aspire to something. it's quite another thing to actually practices. do you see any signs around the world that the countries that actually ready to engage with one another on an equal footing that is being a generous front and the enemy to one another? i mean, we have to pay close attention. what is happening in different, you know, frame multilateral frameworks, like bricks, alike, shanghai, a, corporation,

organization which you're going to be the summit. and we can see that many countries are, you know, trying to, to, to move away from dollar and habit exchanges in the national currency. so these are the size. people are afraid, we have to understand it's not so easily. i mean, it's not so easy to say to the edge, i'm on the, you know, look, i want to participate on equal footing with everyone around the globe. so people, you know, just hedging their best, because they don't know, in what way the united states, i mean the, you know, the declining edge, a mom will react. and once this icon a g of decline is that once you realize that you don't have any other way to, to suppress and make other people complain with your will. you are becoming very much aggressive and countries are afraid. but what we have seen around the world is

that, yes, there is a mutual consensus that the governors and the interactions between countries have to change. and hopefully the, you know, the, the change will be brought by the relationship between china and russia. otherwise, i can see that we will just start in this multi follow unipolar world, where america is just costing other countries and you know, making the life of other people miserable as well. it's been great talking to you. thank you very much for your time. thank you. for having thank you for watching hope to see her again on the world. ah me.

me ah ah . ah, ah

. a ah final referendum results and ukraine's oper. oh, she and her son bridges with 93 and 96 percent, respectively saying yes, joining russia. that preliminary data in the dawn valley republic shows over 90 percent of the voters are in favor. our correspondents report on location with video evidence emerges, showing what's been described as an unprecedented damage to the north stream pipeline system.