got the right to school on the main settlement street where settlers permanently pass through and therefore there is a permanent point of friction between school students and their corporation forces . there are 6 children from these schools who are currently in the prison of the occupiers. there is no accountability and there is no monitoring of what the patient soldiers are doing against our people and our children. discussing next, whether vladimir putin has miscalculated the western response to the ukraine conflict, or if it's the west, which is miscalculated, the russian leaders move its world supports they close for them in a with

on the welcome to worlds apart. western media, now it wash with articles about how gravely big crumbling has miscalculated strategy and your brain failing to achieve a belief. great and having to adjust its military operation there. the couple of times i'm yet a moscow is ready to welcome back some of its historical lands with the overwhelming support of the people to leave their unlike many with western adversaries, it's managed to keep it's budget. developmental goals, mostly intact, has vladimir putin miscalculated the western response. i have the west miscalculated put into calculations. well to discuss that, i'm now joined by as a senior fellow at the washington based institute for china. america studies is a group that it's a very rare treat for me to speak to anyone who is based in washington. so i'm very

grateful for your time and i'm looking forward to an honest and an elliptical rather than propaganda driven conversation. thank you for the invitation. miss michael, i'm looking forward to the conclusion to now you wrote not so long ago. that's why i didn't put in like joseph style and back in the late 19 forties. miscalculated that 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 stay in its current form, is led by the same expansionist, self aggrandizing ideological aspirations as the soviet union was off to the 2nd world war? absolutely fine. good, 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 walk 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 kremlin 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's own domestic. these, for example, the drive to develop the far east. but there's also recognition that these moves serve. he security and national identity goals repelling nader 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 think motives 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 on 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 means accord over and over and over 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 calling totally 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. and this is the modus operandi, or what the west has done in 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 or 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 coffin, but in this broader confrontation, if in russia, in the west and to some extent the west and the rest is in fact, some presumption, unexplored, 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 is one 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 are and capability anymore. and i would add one more, one more feature out here. this was just the same, you know, in the 1040. so, you know, i talked about the comparison started. the west was confident when it was confident,

it did not have to take this thought off radical action. the fact that it to sticking radical action now is itself, it's lack of confidence that back in 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 it can be maintained. the u. s. without extracting as much out of that system when it 1st quarter 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 good. that until recently the west was indeed capable of extracting whatever it wants from the rest of the world and being and came by. but with this late confrontation and the, 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 ruth? you're correct on that front. i think the 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 the 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 her brush, you're standing 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, just 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 is an enhanced so it is doing that it should be given an opportunity, but we'll see how far as it goes in capturing to defending territory is

a lot easier than capturing territory. the ukrainians need to capture recapture 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 and then be you can, can then be in force. not mr. go to your role so long ago that russia, quote, unquote invasion of ukraine is as naked violation of international law as it can be . and i personally agree with your, although vladimir putin being illegal is provided or sought to provide some legal justification. you know, people have been 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 its 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 want to, 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 naked indicated violation of international lawson. saddam hussein moved into career, but there have 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. wanted magnitudes higher than

what's happening in millions of people across the states, across africa. and frankly, even across europe, precisely as you, no doubt, no question about that. but i, what i would still submitted at this point of time is if that is going to be something as international and international on or not the liberals rule based order, which is, which is an external, 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 would agree with the i know that you often you often 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 dancing and even the soviet union as communism as it was in the art of balancing. but the question is whether the west is opening is open to balancing in any shape or form because at least from most good things that washington, once everything for itself, it's not interested in any power sharing. am i wrong that? well, you're not wrong that you're correct on that. i think george kennan point of the sound to 996. that if you, we're going to take natal right to russia's models, you are going to the european settlement is going to fail. you know, when president put in, 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's to, let's ensure that we have legal guarantees. let's ensure that the nato doesn't get onto, onto the russian borders. let's not have offensive every systems in adjacent states

. i think those were all reasonable and a basis for conversation and left to me, i would have said at the end of the 2nd, then of the cold war. yes, the visa, grand country should have been allow into nato, but natal should have been stopped. nato expansion should have been stop that moment. not the multics, not even romania and bulgaria. and from that point on, the west sea should have been made as the primary framework within which europe, in security was regulated for the west. essentially, the cold war didn't end. 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 without war mentality. and that's, and 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 you softly, softly. they were the ones against giving a membership action plan. ukraine on

a membership. actually, they didn't nothing about it. and the ukrainian on asking for mo, from new to mr. group to 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, with

ah, a welcome back to was the price mr. up to a senior fellow at the washington base institute for china, america study. it's a good thing before the break we. it touched upon the issue of german rationality and it's true that the russian, germany cannot make relationship based primarily on got,

but not only so. hm. managed to ensure that the cold war stayed cold and it's not cold anymore. and we have a major kinetic conflict in the middle of europe and just down the damn sure. you heard the news about the explosions. i've been north stream one gas pipeline for, for sure. will leave germany in a number of other countries in a very hard situation. energy wise. 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 the 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 it 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 to 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 a big 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 it, that there are certain values and rules or norms that needed to be defendant 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 have hope that they might have been much more wiser in which their group, 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 our normal business intercourse is placed. and in the, in terms of energy supply would, would, would operate a, 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 deal 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 on dan or 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, keep thinking america going up the russian bible and bringing gas to, 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 for an unshakable but on all of a trying time in the americans are competing as much with the europeans as

competing with other people. and you see that, you know, if we have in america 1st president and 20242028. i mean policy might change and pointers pretty radically in this regard. and the are appeals 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 ridge, 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 president, a kron, 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 active manner, not only russia, but also with regard to their own population, is simply because they have absolutely no accountability. 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 option? 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 the responsible action, of course, is a responsible but, you know, sending weapons that kill our service. men is also responsible, blowing up a major gas pipeline is not an example of the best behavior. so, i mean, the, you have to respond to other acts of irresponsibility. provided that you do that in a, in the moral way that respects the rest of the world. what i would say is,

you know, what the americans are to, if you're trying to do is move the needle as far right to rushes motor. what? and then what, what that is, and just and just create insecurity in russia. and perhaps you hope for is you change in russia and hope that are a super liberal administration then follows on its way. and i would submit that russia has a great bar, 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 winter comes out, that the call will, 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 in the metro trend we used to be very well received in washington. and he said the other day that even though i didn't put in is pretty straightforward in 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, the 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 insensibility is simply don't count. am i right on that more unless you are correct on that, but i would say, i mean the husky, some limits of what the u. s. has gone up to and stop the u. s. has not been o. u. s. is 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, you know, kinetic way in terms of them or so it does understand well where those limits are. and also, as we saw earlier,

you to ensure that there would be no actual from in it all stated, know 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 posed 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 of direct part? it is conflict. you can make a bona lancaster. yes, they are a part of those conflict in our full treasury, but they're also,

they also are because they themselves are not directly in works. and as i said, their goal is to take it all up to nato, to russia's border. i'm and create insecurity in russia, and a wonderful ended for the us on the call. and then so just thought of the prosecution off that cornwall, which they don't want to get locked from their perspective. but as you said, they were willing to fight with the last you 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 war closer to the american homeland, i'm thinking about industrial infrastructure. i'm thinking about all kinds of special forces operations. i'm thinking about even targeting american forces in 3rd countries and perhaps a credible thread 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 states. i think that line needs to be preserved because of that line as 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 from day one should have been about don bass and even today it should be about preserving frontlines in don west and let them leave madison that. well, mr. good backup, 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. have a pleasure speaking to you and thank you for watching hope to see her again. on it was a part of a

ah, ah a good, but it doesn't matter for russia whether western countries, except our decisions, are not russia top diploma calls on western countries to accept the new reality. the russian agrees to include 4 regions into the country. also ahead 155 millimeter shill supplied by nato countries to ukrainian military landed right here in this yard. the process of the new territory being incorporated by russia concludes in want all of them done. yes, republic civilian centers are shells report.