[000:00:00;00] a ah mm mm mm good. walking towards the park and he's out of biography, the great american writer, mark twain describes being at the end of the earth club and witnessing it's chairman, a retard army officer, pronounced that we are of the anglo saxon race. and when the anglo saxon,

once i think he just takes it a sentra later, this attitude is enshrined in many americans, strategic documents and speeches of its politicians, but collect, finally find it. and in the ukraine, hopefully without the end of the earth. well discussed that i'm now joined from australia by b noise. come mark, senior lecturer in the school of global urban and social studies at r m i t university and melbourne professor is great to talk to you. thank you very much for your time. it's a pleasure being with you. now you are very far away from the focal point of this new confrontation between russia and the west. the confrontation in which references to nuclear strikes are becoming more and more frequent. i wonder if this distance give here any relief because if things in the go nuclear trailer will be among the last to feel the impact. it's a very nice question. well, it's a great question, but it's

a nice question and away. because i don't know if you are familiar with the particular novel by novel shoots call on the beach. on the beach was actually cells made into a film the 19 fifties and in it ever got the actually visited melbourne where based out of the moments now it's never been quite concerned whether she said this the same as some american actress. but she had these wonderful lines to said, if this is a place to film the end of the world, this is exactly where we need to be. and the irony of the story is that of course, the novel features strange as the last place, rare radioactive fallout comes in the aftermath of the nuclear holocaust strain is last place supposedly where these things will happen. and in fact, it's an interesting point to note that there are individuals from the united states multiple and a few other countries who are buying up places because they want to retreat in the

event that might be a nuclear holocaust. well that's, that's an interesting observation. and the reason i ask you this question is because there's a lot of gallo humour here in moscow and just the other day, one of my military friends tried to reassure me that in the case of a nuclear apocalypse mostly is a good place to be because of the instantaneous death. you don't have to suffer it, but i think we can take it as a defense against the very green possibility that only a couple of years ago seemed fully dystopian. how do you think we found ourselves in this place after spending so much time and effort and money on nuclear disarmament only 30 years ago? well, i think the, the response to that question is based in a few things. one is i actually don't think the nuclear ship really went away. i think the, the threats of nuclear weapons is always been the threat of using them as always in simmering. be it's example pakistan in india that stages. let's face that

throughout the acquisition example of pakistan's nuclear capability. and i went india quite a potential pakistan, obviously new to quite 1. 1 needs to hinder, what needs muslim and these sorts of things. but in the context of it, it's not really gone away. we shouldn't forget, for example, that even before you know the attacks on the rock. so for example, the just and this by the way, the 1st one, this is the in 919091. when of course, the coalition of the united states has it by president george bush's father, george w bush, his father, his defense secretary then who of course, ends up being vice president with bush junior as well. and when he comes to laser, dick cheney actually advocated the use potential use of nuclear weapons against the

rocky forces. it's never really gone away. so i think now it's spin, articulated so a high extent because of the circumstances where whole desperation, calling rhetoric what it might be. the fact is that if one is in a situation where one needs to potentially as ways the same, you know, jangle a few notes and what this is, what's happening. i understand that the, they said these references to nuclear trends. they can be very distressing for some people, but there was a, during the cold war and that fear is actually very instrumental in politics because it's keep the politicians thinking, ground the, you know, this is something that limits the emission and you make the point in your writing that there was the desire for quote unquote victory over russia has become a succession and a fixation without the full understanding of what that victory may actually meet

him in practical terms. as far as you can deduct from the speeches of politicians or from strategic documents, if the west could have its ideal way, what would this mean with regards to russian? to get to that question, let me just put it like this. your listeners may be familiar with an old monster store and he's no longer with us. he died actually no longer. his name is eric homespun, and he was a very fine student and pupil of that complex negotiation between east and west. and also the coal wolf course favors very much in the tradition of that, danesh english appraisal about, you know, the cold war. but also the 20th century, and in fact, the 19th century, he's very famous putting together this list of works, trying to understand these very, to miles davis last 150 years or so and in a fall. and it comes when we make this re striking remark. but all over again,

the end of the soviet union was essentially the end of a stable system, a control system from triest and the west of course, and then of lot of our stock. so, and that was, of course, writing at that point when the soviet union had ceased to exist. the object of this kind of thing in the night, i'm sad to say that it's reached the point where the fixation on the obsession was dealing with russia is such that they and this is this kind of defeat obsessional, they want to defeat russia. and it's, you know, as much as one can understand where people have stakes in this, it's very dangerous prospect to trying to talk about all the seeds and things like that. because that may raise the stakes and other areas. but it also raises the prospect about what happens in russia, and i think that that is also very problematic, simple levels. the fact of the matter is that, you know,

people are coming to this in good faith. and i know it's very hard to come to good faith and in terms of one battle and whatnot that there's so many people from various countries investing in attacking russia now that it becomes difficult to ness, you know, the idea is not to seek you know, a consensus and understanding about peace between your brand and russia. but the idea is essentially we've got brush on the run and this is what we're going to do. and this is where things become very jenkins. but professor you said a moment ago that it's hard to sort of approach war in a good faith, but i'm in the military science is the science. and i mean, the least in russia and i hope when the west, it's approached from a strategic and tactical point of view. you have to consider your goals, you have to consider your means. you have to consider possible consequences. i mean, and there is a long list of literature by american writers and how you actually operate

war, how you try to achieve the results. and i sometimes get a get a sense the american decision makers are what the decision makers don't even bother about, you know, 2nd order consequences. let alone something that may come. i don't know, 5 or 10 years down the line. do you share that impression? well, the, the few things you mentioned one of them is the science. well, i'm afraid to say yes, true that had spin elevated this notion of military doctrine to science. but suddenly, instead of to me, it more resembles a kind of a fallible odd form. you know, when it comes to military adoption and what i mean by that is that you just need to look at the writings of the trash and general stuff. so the old german stuff before so before germany was unified, this the 1st unification. and there was a famous 1st marshal as famous general, a helmet, one moment to her actually said that. so you can, of course, always plan, you know,

as scientifically, as you want to say scientifically, you didn't quite use those words, but he said you can plan every scenario you want the best. you can plan for any plans for us as rigorously as you want. 10 scenarios, but on battle and in circumstances the lessons happens. the same thing in terms of strategy or group. the speaking the issue is to be wise enough to anticipate that there has to be leg group, that's the court. and the, the issue here is yes. so, you know, i think it's, you know, if you look at every historical strategy in history, these are usually strategies of all dictates. so the documents, when you talk about referring documents, they already data. they already have the musty smell of the library of the archives . they don't apply for the circumstances, a consensus, a new, but then the very least that one has to consider. he can analyze an opponent and

the rush at this point of time. is it at its strongest point militarily? economically i was the claim socially than it has ever been. if the goal is to, let's say, we can rush out, or as we've been hearing lately, change the regime in russia. why would the west wait for so long and then allow russia to accumulate that strength? and the 2nd question to that does, there was actually have the resources, it's own capabilities, military military capabilities, strategic capabilities, political capabilities, to take on the country, the size of russia. well, 1st and foremost, i don't think, and this is the general consensus shot, you know, very sadly, when i say, i mean, broadly in the west and complex, the strategic community is that there is a perception that russia is actually not that strong. and then rush raise in typing week. i mean that's, that's the name of the generals. surely know, all the, you know, and put in is very good at signaling. he, he showed them what russia possesses in terms of hypersonic,

hypersonic weapons. and what have you to, i mean people who are in the no, no, it's the general public that may be led astray by people who make decisions. they actually know about that. and my understanding of history generally, you know, there was this not in the context of the 1st, for example, it was sets rather well those who started to write about that afterwards. that's the example the british army were led by you know, you know, they were led by donkeys, the lions being that i don't case. so you know, in terms of strategic sense. i think you to understand your audience to understand this, the thing, it's important to realize that the general approach and thus this is the media cycle here. whether whether the thing privately in august and i think what they're doing here in terms of signal you mention. but let me witness during segment that the singling is the opposite. it's the mirror opposite it's rushes weekend. russia

does not have enough in terms of its weaponry. it does not have targeted weapon range running out of it. it's using now indiscriminately weapons that it has from service era. so that's, that's the context. it's happening. yes. so beyond that context and i think this is the thing and i think that gets back to the question that you mentioned, which is very important. what is the ultimate goal? the outset go is a weak and russia, and that raises all sorts of deep problems, of course. well, but of course i'm sure you would agree with me. one cannot, we can rush by pretending that it's weak. i mean, if you actually want to win over a powerful adversary, you need to be fully aware of the strengths and weaknesses. look at you mentioning something about a country that is of course, very powerful. i mean, if we're going to take the largest on the planet straddling the racial land mass, of course, from europe a to the borders with japan. i mean, there's no question about it. that's not,

it's not that it can be taken that has to be taken seriously. but i think this is one of the reasons why it troubles me a lot. is that a lot of the tactical and the strategic approach to this is not realizing the fact that one russia is not going to russia has genuine considerations in the context of the grand street. yes. whatever. one describes in the context of aggression the reality also remains that there were serious issues that been linked to the conflict. originally, these have been ignored. nato once expansion and they to wants to be globalized and it's role. but just extraordinary and very dangerous. just as a, this is a fascinating point that we have to explore in more detail. so let's take a very short break right now. i think we will be back in just a few moments they can ah

ah, ah ah, with a ah,

a welcome back to wells appointment benoit complex senior lecture in the school of mobile, urban and social studies at r m. i t university in melbourne. professor, come tomorrow before the break, we touched upon the prevailing attitudes. i'm a western elite, and it is my perception that when it comes to russia, they roughly fall within the 2 camps. both one, thrushes, capitulation, but one camp is mindful all i am concerned about limiting the costs of achieving that goal to themselves while the other camp are represented by, for example, your secretary said anthony blink. and believe that this is something that has to

be accomplished at any cost. so the distinction between the dogs and the, the hawks is not really about what they are aiming at, but rather about the cost of that policy. or am i right here or do you perhaps see a 3rd? campbell was somewhat saner and decision makers. many years ago in the context of your question. so just this is to give a background even throughout, throughout the ninety's. when there was this kind of sort of the, you fauria. but sort of the sense that things have changed, that the coal had as it was. and then there was not a sense of worrying about things in the world that old they were very sha promotion observations made fine, various individuals surround snooze, some of them, for example, like professor mere sharma who's made this point very clearly that in russia has

its strategic interest that need to be respected. we even had, of course, the person, former state department official, george kennan. there is no longer with us. but he famously said he's the author as some of your view as might be to minute he was famously the all the of the telegram in the 1940s that led to the doctrine of containment of the soviet union. and he said in the aftermath of the, of the cold war and with the mutterings of the advance of nature that this was falling. this is very dangerous. and this added to the fact that the bush administration business bush senior administration, of course, house many of the presided over the re and if occasion of germany and arrange of other things and negotiations with gorbachev the promises domain and these fun, not binary things,

many individuals were passed with promises and assurances given to the russian delegation than soviet delegation constantly. if you accept these propositions and it was extra name anyways, go, but trump didn't have to do what he did. but the late, of course, he did it out and the good will, and i think one that one of the factors that is not the way appreciative in the west is that russia actually supported the reification of, of germany. i mean, russia allow this to happen and it fell, deceived afterwards. and now it feels that if it has to protect some of the last that were formerly the soviet lance or the ukrainian was, it can do that. i mean, if you remember after the re, initiation with crimea specifically address the germination saying that me support or do back them. we count on the same historic justice from your side. but obviously it's not coming. you make that plan. this is exactly what i was getting

out. the fact is that there were various gestures made on the strong rate and that sounds good. well from then they're going to trust me when, when it came to the issue, the fall of the berlin wall and not sending and tanks and so on. i mean, these kinds of things be and the issue of reintegration was extraordinary. there was a lot of opposition even in some european quarters. and, but the fact of the matter is it was, it came from the kremlin and that particular point said that this could happen. and so reassurances or undertakings were given. and then what happened subsequently, was that actually, you know, president bush seen actually just made the remarks specifically, oh god, there was a throwaway line. so the archives actually have actually have these remarks made by individuals who gave those undertakings and then in the scheme. and that's the danger of who breaths, you know, that old greek being so confident in having a week in russia, the dissolution of the soviet union. that okay,

we get on the tape things, but the circumstances have changed now. so, you know, you're absolutely right to acknowledge the historical ro here and the fact that it's, you know, and, you know, back to what you were saying with these 2 camps about, well, you know, we accept elements of the russian issue. but also there are those who want gentle victory, but they have been those, you know, actually suggesting that this is absolute madness and very dangerous to keep assisting along this line. and it's worth noting that many of those to do say that have been subjected to call it's a black labeling libeling you name it's, it's very hard without having any obligations without having the need to come to the defenses. they can just use it without any consequences. and i wonder if that makes this conflict even more dangerous because of all the a symmetry between what is sad and what is being done because russia, after all, you know, it's subscribed to

a really point of view and it doesn't look at the speeches of paula western leadership, it looks at what is being done on the ground, and if your crane is being militarized, if western infrastructure moves there without any formal association with made or it's still a threat for russia said, don't you think that this way of sort of a proxy taking over ukraine is even more dangerous than that. you know, ukraine being part of nato, the trip, and a firm in line of what you are saying. the treatment of you train is, is not. it reminds me of the way that the proxies, other allies in the context, for example, is united states of pakistan. the way the focused on has been treated in the us constellation of our stages. there was a pakistani general that explains also why the relationship is so tense between those 2 powers. the pakistani general in question said that we essentially

america's condom and the dispose of us when they want to reviews this. so the you south prop sees of the use this notion that ukraine will be slaughtered in and of course festival, any sort of slotting in there's not going to be a sloughing and it's going to say yes, not even after, not even during this conflict. we've seen individuals from nato and the general and a european and us strategic community say, well, come on. thank you very much. we're welcome you in your i to say that this is becoming a kind of this, this proxy war where it so testing ground, it's a means where it's been used to trying to get to russia. but it doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to go full and full, ukrainian, you know, for the use of ukraine as part of the names i read the, i actually don't necessarily see that at all. and i think everyone's been going to be the terrible tragedies that happened when allies or individuals that are but then at a certain moment, a band. and it's not, you know,

do not look away from the fact that when it comes to set. and as you say, a real how reality is realism and so on. it may well be that ukraine times something the middle again, that sense. now you said the also a moment ago that this warring spirit is fueled, implied by nato, strive to become global and on the psychological level, i think we can understand the nipple and fantasy. but i wonder if if that is even possible. i mean, when we look at the america's own capabilities, right now, its ability to shower money on to other countries. is it really realistic, given that many of america's own alice look, for example, in saudi arabia. going that all the way does need to have the power of the resources to become global at this point of time, regardless of russia now does it? no, it doesn't any box. it's a bit like, you know,

and i can't say i missed the man, but i have to sad to always find them very comical. but of course, the recently deposit boris johnson, the u. k. prime minister, who at this idea of global britain, well, no, no, not anymore. i did say it was a one point, but certainly not. this is the kind of ambition for an age. those sort of, you know, having hubs here and then having some kind of ambition beyond its limits, borders, but because ultimately let's face of what was its kind to do. it's ultimately the north atlantic treaty organization. but what has happened is that they've been trying to use the ukraine, russia conflict to expand its relevance. and you've got even in a bizarrely individuals such as the currents is trailyn prime and stance. beneath it rule of course wants to be added to the list. some are, feels important, you know, wanting to add a bit to the ukraine, russia conflict and so what you do,

you start jumping up on these particular things and not quite understanding the implications. it's the same thing with the, the all cos agreement, the security arrangement that straight to the united states and the u. k. signed declared in september. okay, we know who's running it. we know that the u. s. essentially is running the of it is essentially just, you know, the butler's trying to make sure that the drinks are served. well, let me actually, let us finish this fun because we began with charlie weekend and with a charlie as well. these countries in a very interesting position because it is far away from all the war theaters. it is safe, it wouldn't be the safest place to be in, in, in the event of a nuclear apocalypse. and yet, on the other hand, it seems to be very eager to do the us as bidding, not only with our cause, but also with other formats, even though it comes at a cost of very profitable, very lucrative corporation with china and perhaps some others as well. what the

rational they are, the practical rational, not for the decision makers, but for, for the people of the continent. not much reflection has been given about this issue. a stranger has had a strange habit over the years of doing the fighting of the countries. it's, it's one of these strange things, you know, the, the british have this net police lead unit the girl because, and i like to always upset them before written about it and said that straight, you tend to be the good of the united states. so their sense and the history and government claims or tries to get some kind of added advantage from the united states by providing forces. but it's never really clear also and should be added the fact that with this new agreement, we don't know when i say we, i mean 9 us trailer, we don't know in terms of how what the use of the nuclear submarines what is deployment issue. and so on,

it's coming to huge cost to the chinese stretching relationship and a more independent thinking approach. what would change this? it's also worth noting, just on that point as a straight, it's encouraged by us analysis essentially tends to sort of see the ukraine, russia conflict by looking at the way china behave since quite intriguing. so to me it's, it's quite designed some point the been trying to see the way russia behaves in ukraine to the way china might behave towards ty one. and again, that's dangerous because that's a potential conflict waiting to happen where a country that has no interest in dealing with that will probably get involved because of fairly adopt auditions. well maybe that will lead to migration of those multi millionaires somewhere closer to siberia. we would not mind that on this new professor. we have to live in there, but i agree with me. i appreciate your expertise today. thank you very much for your time. it's a pleasure being with you. i really enjoyed it. thank you. thank you for watching. the theory again was

a part ah, ah ah, ah ah ah, 11 people are killed,

another 15 wounded and a terrorist attack. it's a russian military base in the western gallagher region. it was during a life i exercised for soldiers training to go to ukraine. germany delivers the 1st of several iris t, a defense systems to ukraine. it follows that russian air strikes on the country and comes despite concerns over germany's own depleted weapons talks. also coming up on the program will now a promise to renounce the use of force against the interference of external forces