basically rather than propaganda driven conversation. thank you for the invitation . miss michael. i'm looking forward to the conclusion to now that you wrote not so long ago that i didn't attend lab. joseph stalin, back in the late 19 forties, miscalculated in applying, quote, unquote, brute force to its neighbors. and i'm sure it's a tantalizing and very gratifying comparison to force some of your readers. but what makes you believe that the russia, as a state in its current form, is led by the same expansionist, self aggrandizing ideological aspirations as the soviet union was after the 2nd world war? absolutely, thank it. absolutely is not. russia is a defensive country and a defensive force and is just looking to secure its voters. it is absolutely not the country that the soviet union was. and the analogy which i brought in out there in the report that i was written is about how that can be miscalculations in

terms of responses from the from the other side. even at that point of time, joseph stalin did not wish to bring upon the sort of school war containment that the americans brought on. and to be very frank, the americans over played the hand at that point of time in the late 1940 s. but america was so powerful at that point of time that it couldn't get away with that and it could create the institutions like it did, you know, the marshall plan and the nato, etc, etc. that was successful. the americans mistakenly believe that they can do that today. they are not in that position and power to do that today. but that having being said, the analogy that i wanted to bring out here was that mr. poo tunes,

actions have provoked the response that most unexpected at most schools and, and to which to some extent have under cut to it's broader geopolitical positioning in the i think it's pretty clear that any incursion into another country is bound to have pretty serious ramifications and i think the problem was fully aware of that from the get go. there is also a lot of discussion here in russia about how the ukranian operation and the very likely admission of the former ukrainian regions into russia proper will divert resources from russia own domestic. these, for example, the drive to develop the far east. but there is also recognition that these moves serve. he, security and national identity goals repelling nato, as well as shielding the people of eastern your brain from ethnically and motivated

prosecution differently. dismiss those motives. no, i don't, i don't believe those i fig. notice what i would have actually suggested if mr. hutton had this plan, the special military operation. as we've seen, the initial operation went all the way to here. now let's step back a moment or 2. we had the minutes because means 2 in particular. and the irony is that the west was reading off the russia off the russian hill sheet. and telling you current that you must do what is written in men's, which is the special status, et cetera, et cetera in trying that in the constitution. and i would have suggested that mister putin hammer on those points that the miss cook or all were and all were and will, or whether it's in the normandy format. when it's the clusters proposal was being violated by men's. and that's the reason foreign operation,

which would be limited to the non best area. i think the best response would have been called tentatively different in that regard to the western sanctions response . it would not have been a happy response, but it would not have been also as far reaching. this is the modus operandi, or what the west has done between iraq, et cetera, et cetera. it has for soften the ground for its own military operation and then going forward. and so that would be my suggestion in this regard. you also wrote that the, one of the most important 4 sides of the western architect and after the 2nd world war was their decision to an international system. and then a cholesterol economic system that was based on openness and universal isn't a global economy that could belong to essentially every member of the global community. and i wonder if one of the main underlying factors not only in the ukrainian culture, but in this broader confrontation dive in russia in the west and to some extent the

west and the rest is in fact, some presumption, i'm explaining inexplicable presumption on the part of the was that the global economy belongs to the west only, and that it's up to the west to decide who has access to new york city. correct. and i, and i stand by what i, what i mean, the west design, the plumbing out there. and it terms of the economic infrastructure planning is designed by the west, and it's owned by the west and it can shut it off when it wants to. and that's completely wrong because the u. s. doesn't have that aren't capability anymore. and i would add one more, one more feature out here. this was just the same, you know, in the 1940. so, you know, i talked about the comparison started. the west was confident to when it was confident, it did not have to take this sort of radical action. the fact that it is taking radical action now is itself, it's a lack of confidence that bad germany,

that it enjoyed, can be perpetuated. and so it is now trying to realize all the gains from underwriting that system on a short term basis, regardless of whether that system will then can be maintained. the u. s. without extracting as much out of that system when it 1st used a poor to underwrite that system, and that itself is a reflection of how the best itself feels like it's in the international system. is coming to an end thinking about extraction. mister got that until recently, the west was indeed capable of extracting whatever he wants from the rest of the world and being an skate by. but with this late, the confrontation and the policies of sanctioned against russia, it seems that it can no longer shield itself, its own societies from the consequences of its own action. have we come to a point, perhaps even a turning point when the chickens have come home to roost?

your current on that front? i think there on both sides. i mean there's, there's mutual damage, especially in europe. i think particularly when i look at germany, i just don't understand that country. 50 years of diplomacy has literally gone been flushed down the toilet in a half a year and they're going to have a very difficult winter. and yes, those blow back all around. but i would also submit that this has heard rush, you're spending and rushes capabilities going forward for some period of time. and so this has not been, it's been lose lose for both parties, frankly. and it's time to tell who has lost more in this context. well, i know that you have dedicated a lot of years of your career to political risk analysis. so it's not just about wishful thinking, or, you know, best hope it's about calculating no means versus goals and

help us understand that this is one thing that many in russia i'm not able to understand what we hear a lot of politicians and the west say that ukraine needs to be supported until it defeats russia. what exactly these people mean predict, defeating russia and what kind of risks it involves. so great question i to be very honest, i have no understanding on the west of thinking, in terms of defeating russia. i what i would submit i'll kill is. well, ukraine feels that has been a violation of its territory. it deserves a chance to fight back and recoup as much of its territory as it can. this is an inherent right to self defense. it isn't in him. so it is doing that it should be given an opportunity, but we'll see how far as it goes, i mean capturing to defending territory is a lot easier than capturing territory. ukrainians need to capture,

re capture territory. and i mean, there's been a lot of glee and jumping around that. they've got little bit of care, some problems and a little bit here in a little bit. but my argument would be like, let them have like one chance and after it still made those 2 areas with the film, it becomes should become more permanent lines across which if peace settlement can then be you can, can then be in force. not mr. go to your role to long ago that russia, quote, unquote invasion of ukraine is as naked violation of international law as it can be . and i personally agree video, although vladimir putin being illegal is provided or sought to provide some legal justification. you know, people of them by officially appealing to russia for support and protection, but regardless of how weak or how strong that legal justification is. i would argue that international law can only be international and law when it's universally

applied systematically and universally applied when it's applied selectively. it undermines it's very purpose and it becomes a weapon of injustice rather than a means to justice. i simply don't understand why would people still make these arguments about international law? does international law even matter anymore? i understand your point. i am what i would submit would be that yes, international law has been violated. really let me, let me be very frank about this thing. this was yes, the most make it in naked violation of international law since and i will say moving to quit. but there been many violations of international law by the west. and in the intervening time and the amount of people who have died as a result of that violations of international law, wallet in magnitudes higher than what's how many millions of people across the

states across africa. and frankly, even across europe, precisely now, as you no doubt, no question about that, but i would, i would still submitted at this point of time. is it going to be something as international and international on or not the liberals rule based on a, which is, which is an extra which is which is not, not a very honest characterization, but if that is going to be international owner, then international relations is not must not be, not just be about power and interest, but it should also be about certain lucy norms, which can be respected by all parties. i think most of the, most of the decision makers in most of us would agree with you. i know that you often you also point out that balance is one of the key values in foreign affairs. and i think that the russians ultimately are very byzantine in their approach. they're all about balancing and even the soviet union,

as communism as it was in the are the balancing. but the question is whether the west is opening is open to balancing in any shape or form because at least from mostly it seems that washington, once everything for itself, it's not interested in any power sharing. am i wrong that you're not wrong that you're correct on that? i think george canon point of the song, 1996. that if you are going take needle right to russia's bonus, you are going to the possible possible european settlement is going to fail. you know, when president put out those very reasonable demands to the american side in december to president biden, it was about let's on, on men's men stu, let's ensure that we have legal guarantees. let's ensure that the nato doesn't get on to until brushing borders. let's not have offensive every systems in adjacent states. i think those were all reasonable on a basis for a conversation and left to me, i would have said at the end of the 2nd,

then of the cold war. yes, the visa grad country should have been allowed into nato, but nato should have been stopped. nato expansion should have been stopped that moment, not the more dex, not even in romania and bulgaria. and from that point on, the west sea should have been made as the primary framework within which european security was regulated for the, for the west, essentially the cold war didn't. and it was, they told russia, the cold war ended for you. and, you know, need to do all these things, but for us we will continue with awkward woman quality. and that's, and we've, we've come to the logic, logical situation today in seeing what's happening in ukraine unfortunately. and the germans could have done better in europe. it's like, well, we cannot talk loudly because of ice softly, softly. they were the ones against giving nato membership action plan. ukraine on an image of actually, but they didn't nothing about it and the ukrainian on asking for mo, from new to mr. group to let's discuss the issue of german, our product,

german rationality after a short break, which we need to take right now. but we'll be back in just a few moments. ah, a ah, ah, needs to come to russian state to never see a house with within the 55 with speedy when else with will van in the european union, the kremlin media machine, the state on russia for date and r t spoof neck,

even our video agency roughly, all bands on you to send with . mm hm. ah welcome back to was a party with srp, a senior fellow at the washington base institute for china, america studies. it's a good thing before the break. we touched upon the issue of german rationality and it's true that the russian, germany cannot make relationship based primarily on gas,

but not only so we have managed to ensure that the cold war state cold and it's not cold anymore. and we have a major kinetic conflict in the middle of europe, and just down the dam. sure, you heard the news about the explosions up in north stream one gas pipeline, which for sure will leave germany in the number of other countries in a very hard situation. energy wise, this is this winter now, as a russian, i don't care about how germans warm up their homes. but what i'm really concerned about is the state warfare, turning to industrial turn tactics. when do you think about it? how worrying is that? i think it is maureen and i would say what's more worrying is the fact that german russian relations have splintered and spent and so badly of their perhaps been for quite some time. it will take a lot of effort to repair that relationship. and it's in some ways to the us china

relationship on the us pushing for deep coupling and the damage that that can do with not just the bilateral relationship, but to the broader global economy. i taught russia, russia, german relations was the ballast for economic security in europe, and that ballast has gone. and it's now uncertain as to what sort of profile, what sort of a country germany itself b this honey singer joe knew it wants to speak up, talk out and do things. and of course it's going to be hurt economically. but i think it has really hurt it's long term foreign policy by seeking a policy of bad relations with russia. i think it could have done a lot more to preserve that relationship. but to preserve that relationship, we're not required to be aggressive much earlier and say this is auto nonsense to have folks like the ukrainians internet or we just don't oppose their membership

actual plan. we of course, lower the even the request for them to join me too, because this is nothing but a public issue. but the germans didn't do that and now did themselves. as i said, going to see the ramifications of 50 years of wise diplomacy. just go down with you . now, i think there is a feeling here in russia that germans and 2 larger extend the west has taken both rushing china for granted as a sort of the underpinning the base for that industrial mind. it's very easy to ignore the, the basement of a house when you only look at the roof where there was, but many would argue that access to relatively affordable russian energy sources. somebody would say cheap energy sources was the very basis for german economy. do you think, in terms of economic analysis, do you think the europeans understand how much they actually depended, how much they are? well being dependent on russia?

to a point, i'm assuming that they did know about how much the dependent, what they call that there are certain values and rules or norms that needed to be defended regardless. and so they chose to do that. and unfortunately, everybody's going to live out the consequences of that. and so i would say that it's not a knee jerk reaction from the europeans, but i would, i hope that they might have been much more wiser in which live, in which they are laid their counter sanctions. because these are effectively, i mean, the equivalent of nuclear sanctions on russia and they cannot expect then that normal business intercourse is police. and in the, in terms of energy supply would, would want to offer it that i would understand that some of the rushes actions may seem extremely distasteful to the europeans or somebody else. but they are beans also have to do with the americans. and some of the american policies that we,

europe are hard to describe as friendly and even if we look at this latest attack, one day in north stream pipeline, which has not been attributed to fernley to anyone yet. but we've seen a former polish minister of foreign minister, right. x, of course, get thinking america going up the russian pipeline, bringing gas to germany. i mean, i understand that they would be extremely angry with russia and they would feel the need to stand up for, you know, for certain values. but what about the american? don't they need to stand up for the same values with that closest ally? yes, they do what i mean america, america alliances are alliances of convenience when it wants it to be in the lines and it can americans operate like that? and yes, i mean the defense guarantees will stay on the defense. part of it is from an unshakable but on all of the trying. so, i mean, the americans are competing as much with the europeans as they're competing with

other people. and you'll see that, you know, if we have in america 1st president in 20242028. i mean policy might change and point to it's pretty radically in this regard. and the rpm then will be on their own trying to figure out their own destiny. and i know them letting down their own rituals at this point of time. so they had their warning, donald trump, which gave him a, a very comfortable time to acquire a certain degree of autonomy. if not, sovereignty, both economic and political. and they attempted to do that. there was some lip service from present micron and from then leadership of germany, but it don't seem to evaporate very quickly. well, joe biden came back to office. now let me ask you about the american thinking because you are in washington after all, and you're more exposed to that mentality. i think many people here in russia believe that american decision makers have lost any existential fear. that the

reason why they behave and these extremely provoke it if manner not only does that mean russia, but also with regards to their own population, is simply because they have absolutely no accountability. and do you agree with that? and does russia have any option of bringing that message home to the decision makers in washington without threatening the entire world? that is without using a nuclear auction? no, i think it's gonna be difficult and it gets dangerous to go down the top often nuclear option, because the way it is received though, is that this is irresponsible talk and you're responsible. what is the responsible but you know, sending weapons that kill our service. men is also responsible, blowing up. major gas pipeline is not an example of the best behavior. so i mean, you have to respond to other acts of irresponsibility. provided that you do that in a, in a moral way that respects the rest of the world. what would i would say is that,

you know, what the americans are to have trying to do is move the needle as far right to rushes bono, what? and then what, what that is. and then just then and just create insecurity in russia. and perhaps you hope for is you change in russia and hope that are well super liberal administration and follows on its way. and i would submit that russia as a group of must be able to hold the lines that it has new lines. and it has drawn in ukraine and create a steel made out there. because once we have a statement and when to come, so that the kong i think that will be a crescendo sooner or later. and after winter with all the hardships that are going to happen, that we need to have some form of the settlement. there's one very well respected political analyst here and asked me to try and we used to be very well received in washington. and he said the other day that even though i didn't put in it, pretty straightforward them communicating russian red lines. and he said there is

simply no space in washington playbook for russian or in fact, any other nations read lines. in fact, one most good tries to draw any limits. people in washington believe that that obligation is to show very publicly to demonstrate it to moscow, to the point of humiliation that it sensibilities simply don't count. am i right on that more unless you are correct on that, but i would say, i mean, do you have some limits on what lily u. s. has gone up to a stop. the u. s. has not been us as a de facto participant in the wall. and i think to this day, it provides a lot of very significant intelligence support which has not been reported much. but the u. s. has not itself got engaged physically in terms of kinetic way in terms of the war. so it does understand well, rentals limits are and also as we saw earlier, it to ensure that there would be no actual from in,

it'll stated low. the armaments will be sending to you print and then you can can do stuff and, but it should not target russian country even though it has to do some on the boundaries. so there are limits and that's with a mr group here. say that there are limits and yet quite clearly they are not really being observed. i wonder if those limits, i'm post for the sake of the united states itself, so that the present bible can tell the american people that okay, we're not participating. participating, even though everybody knows that the americans are in key, that they're advising the ukrainian military leadership that they're providing all the satellite data that they're providing weapons. is it, is it really authentic to argue that they're no longer part? the direct part, it is conflict. you can make a borderline get yes, they are a part of those conflict in office regina rayburn, they're also they also are because they themselves are not directly in works. and

as i sub, their goal is to take it all up to no need to, to russia's border. i'm and create insecurity in russia. and as i said, the cold war never ended for the us on the call. and then so just part of the prosecution off that cor, well, which they don't want to get locked from their perspective. but as you said, they were willing to fight with last year grievances. well, if they're willing to take nato all the way up to russia's borders, do you think it would be a wise strategy on the part of russia to take that for closer to the american homeland? i'm thinking about the industrial infrastructure. i'm thinking about all kinds of special forces alterations. i'm thinking about even targeting american forces in 3rd countries and perhaps a credible threat of a nuclear strike on the american homeland. do you think something like that could bring those people in check with reality? yeah, but i think we'll cross an important line if there is a direct exchange between the russians and the americans, are russians and

a neutral state. i think that line needs to be preserved because if that line is violated, i think we could be in for a conflagration. and so i think those some element of even self restraint from the russian and which needs to happen. and that's why i said, i mean the real concentration should have some di, one should have been about don bass and even today it should be about preserving frontlines in don bass and let them leave madison that. well, mr. group, i hope your advice is heated for the time being. we have to leave it there, but i'm very, very grateful for your participation. thank you very much. you're most welcome. thank you miss. like it's a pleasure speaking to you and thank you for watching hope to hear again on it was a part a with

ah, for the 2nd world war affected millions of people. during the conflict, the balance of power was held by the leaders of 3 nations. the united kingdom, the united states and the u. s. s. on that piece dying when they go to the main tried krista creek. top is not because hitler was weak and knew he would wake and he was bluffing. he was the major political figure. certainly one of the most

prominent political leaders of the 20th century where they were sent for the germans of the germans of renewing support the russians. and that way, let them destroy each other. there was that kind of sentiment in the west at this time. the redrawing of european borders had begun. britain and the united states, and then just any plan to attack the ussr of britain to survive. russia had to be sacrificed. he's as doctor b like and tish davis. mr. boy from us as deluxe of summer holland oak capital, a mixture, malice, whole of knowing that the cold war had begun. ah ah

mm i ah, the republics of dunbar as well as their her so up at rosier regions which voted to join russia. a wait on official embrace us the treaties on the recession are set for a final note later in the russian parliament. we'll go live there in moments also ahead. 155 millimeter shell supplied by nato countries to ukrainian military landed right here in this yard of in the process of new territory. joining russian years, the finish line in raleigh. they've done yet for public civilian centers are shelled. r t reports from a.