because i don't know if you are familiar with the particular novel by novel shoots called on the beach, on the beach, was sexually films made into a film the 19 fifties and in an ever god 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 of 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 read radioactive fallout comes in the aftermath of the nuclear holocaust. so straight 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, multi business 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 humor here in moscow and 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 a very green possibility that only a couple of years ago seems fully distort. pin. 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 stages that space and throughout the acquisition

example of pakistan's nuclear capability. and i went into quite a potential pakistan, obviously need to acquire 11 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 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 a by president, george bush's father, george w bush's father, his defense secretary then who, of course, ends up being vice president with bush junior as when he comes to him later. 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 all desperation, calling rhetoric one of the might be. the fact is that if one is in a situation where one needs to potentially, as you know, ways to save, you know, jangle a few notes and what this is, what's happening. i understand that the, they said these references to nuclear, trying to say can be very distressing for some people. but there was a believe 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 a desire for quote, unquote victory over russia has become a succession and a fixation without the full understanding of what that victory may actually mean in practical terms. as far you can deduct from the speeches of politicians or from

strategic documents. if the west could have it's ideal way. what would it 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 massive 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 out that complex negotiation between east and west and also the coal wolf course famous 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, he's very famous putting together this list of works, trying to understand these very, to miles davis last 150 years or so. and, you know, for, and it comes when we make this very 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 cause writing at that point when the soviet union had ceased to exist . the object of this kind of thing. and i, 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 and as 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. several 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 what not 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 james. 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 a science. and i mean, at least in russia and i hope in 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 of how you actually operate

war, how you try to achieve the results. and i sometimes get a get a sense, the american decision makers, a wasn't 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 it, 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, the defense unification. and there was a famous 1st marshal as famous general helmet one month 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 for every scenario, one of the best. you can plan for any plans for us as rigorously as you want 10 scenarios better on battle and in circumstances the lessons happens. the same thing in terms of strategy have to be 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 that, i mean, i mean there's a consensus i knew, 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, its own capabilities, military military capability, 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. so, you know, very sadly that when i say, i mean, broadly in the western context, 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 general. 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, i mean people who are in the no, no,

it's the general public that may be led astray. but people who make decisions, they actually know about that. and my understanding of history generally, you know, there was this that in the context of the festival wolf example, it both sets rather well. those who started to write about it afterwards. that's the example the british army were led by you know, you know, they were led by donkeys, the lions, bring the donkeys so you know, in terms the strategic sense, i think you to understand for your order 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, privacy in august and i think what they're doing here in terms of signals you mention. but let me witness during segment that the singling is the opposite. it's the mirror opposite. it's rushes weakened. 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 goal is a week 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, you mentioned something about a country that is of course, very power. i mean food for food mistake, the largest on the planet. as straddling the ration landmass, of course, from europe to the borders with japan. i mean, there's no question about this, not,

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

ah mm mm ah

ah welcome back to wells appointment been lloyd 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 want rushes, capitulation,

but one camp is mindful. all am concerned about limiting the costs of achieving that goal to themselves, while the other camp represented by, for example, i your secretary said anthony blink. and believe that this is something that has to be accomplished at any cost. so the, 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. what 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 questions. so just just to give the background that even throughout, throughout the ninety's when there was this kind of sort of the euphoria but sort of the sense that things had changed. the cold as it was a sense of worrying about things and the world had all to they

were very sharper madison observations made by various individuals throughout smith . some of them, for example, like professor mir shineman who's made this point very clearly that, you know, russia has its strategic interest that need to be respected. we even have, 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 adoption 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, out many of the presided over the marine if occasion of germany and arrange of, of the things negotiations with gorbachev. the promises that will make these fun, not binary things. many individuals were passive promises and assurances given to the russian delegation than soviet delegation. constantly. if you accept these propositions and it was extra name by the way to go, but trump didn't have to do what is it? the late, of course, he did out of the good will and i think 11 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 lines that were formerly the soviet lance or the ukrainian, unless it can do that,

i mean if you remember after the reification with crimea specifically address the germination saying that we supported you 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 stroke 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 reading instigation was extraordinary. there was a lot of opposition, even in some european quarters, but the fact of the mattress 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 that. they actually have these remarks made by individuals who gave those undertakings. and then in the scheme, and that's the danger of who press you know, that old i greet being so confident in having a week in russia, the dissolution of the soviet union. that okay, we get undertakings but the circumstances change 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 what you're saying with these 2 comes 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 who do say that have been subjected to call it's black labeling, labeling you name. it's just,

it's very hard to get a debate about this in any career and context into strategic communities, militarily and politically and west and circles. you mentioned nathan before, and i think we need to transition to that subject. i think there is a belief here in moscow that nathan doesn't actually want ukraine in because i think stands right now. they're already getting everything they won from your brain without having any obligations without having they 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, but looks at what is being done on the ground. and if your brain is being militarized, if western infrastructure moves there without any formal association with nader, it's still a threat for russia said, don't you think that this way of sort of

a proxy taking over in your crane is even more dangerous than that. you know, you're being part of nato, the treatment in line of what you are saying, the treatment of your train is not. it reminds me of the way that other proxies, other allies in the context, for example, is united states of pakistan. the way the pakistan has been trees in the u. s. constellation of power 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're essentially america's condom and the dispose of us when they want to reviews this. so the use sauce, top season 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 sponsoring. and it's going to say yes, not even after,

not even during this conflict. we've seen individuals from nato and the general in 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 try 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 nature of the i actually don't necessarily see that a toll. and i think, you know, remind me again of the, the terrible tragedies happen when allies or individuals about that. then at a certain moment, abandoned. 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 pow 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 in part by nato's. strive to become

global and on the psychological level, i think we can hold understanding 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, and saudi arabia. i'm 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 this is no, it doesn't any box. it's like, you know, and i can't say i missed the man, but i have to sad to always find him very comical. but of course, the recently deposit boris johnson, the u. k. prime minister, who at this idea of global britain, well no, is not local anymore. and i did say it was at one point,

but certainly not. this is the kind of ambition for nate. so sort of, you know, having hubs here and then having some kind of ambition beyond its elements borders . but because ultimately, let's face of what was it's time 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, you know, bizarrely individuals such as the current is trailyn prime and stance beneath it of course wants to be added to the list. some are, feels important in a 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 the charlie as well. this 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 ours, 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 is the rational they are the practical rational law would the decision makers but for, for the people of the continent? not much reflection has been given about this issue astray 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 police lead unit the girl because, and i like to always upset that before i written about it and sent that straight to tend to be the good sense of the united states. so they're sent and these trades 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. ready strategy, 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 would, would change this. it's also worth noting, just on that point as a straight, it's encouraged by u. s. analysis essentially tends to sort of see the ukraine, russia conflict by looking at the way china behave. so it's quite intriguing. so to

me it's, it's quite designed some point that they're trying to see the way rush behaves in ukraine to the way china might behave towards taiwan. and again, that's dangerous because that's a potential conflict. wedding to happen. where a country that has no interest in dealing with that will probably get involved because of fairly adopt obligations. 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 read me, i appreciate your expertise today. thank you very much for your time. so it's a pleasure being with you. i really enjoyed it. thank you. i think of watching this here again on the walter part a with

me for so what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy, even foundation, let it be an arms race is often very dramatic development only really and get into this. i don't see how that strategy will be successfully, very difficult time. time to sit down and talk with you. we deal with project with

the, with the, with that other, lose the money done. love it. it's moving with there that would with only one main thing is important for naziism, internationally. that is, that nation's allowed to do anything. all the mazda races, the reason us, hey jim,

it is so dangerous. is it the law? the sovereignty of the country? or is business and business is good and that is the reality of what we're facing, which is fashion. and a at least 3 people, a wounded as a result of explosions in the russian gallagher region massage. defense systems have been activated to repel rockets reportedly launched from across the ukrainian border. and staying in be able to read 11 people are killed and another 15 wounded in a terrorist attack, a russian military base in the western part of the region. it was during a live fire exercise for volunteers. friends applied in ukraine also on the program just.