at the end of the earth club and witnessing its chairman, a retired army officer, pronounced that we r o b i was stuck for race and when they talked to once, i think he just takes it essential later. this attitude is enshrined in many americans. strategic documents and speeches of it's politicians, but can, let's finally find it's and in the ukraine, hopefully without the end of the earth. well discussed that i'm now joined from australia by be noise comp, mark, senior lecturer in the school of global urban and social studies at our mit university in 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 gives you any relief because if

things in the go nuclear australia 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 films made into a film. the 1950s 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 the strange as the last place, rare radioactive fallout comes in the aftermath of the nuclear holocaust. so straight is the 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, as a defense against a very green possibility that only a couple of years ago seemed fully distort. peon. 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 on 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. but let's face that throughout the acquisition example of pakistan's nuclear capability. and when india acquired a potential bucket on, obviously new require 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 you know the attacks on the rock. so for example, the just and this, by the way, the 1st one, this is the in 91991. when of course, the, the coalition of the united states and the 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 it was when he comes to power.

and later, dick cheney actually advocated the use potential use of nuclear weapons against the iraqi posts. it's never really gone away. so i think now it's been articulated to high extent because of the circumstances where call it desperation, call a rhetoric what it might be. the fact is that if one is in a situation where one needs to potentially as ways to save, you know, jangle a few notes and what this is, what's happening. i understand that they said these references to nuclear tribes. 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 limit the ambition 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 meet him in practical terms. as far as you can deduct from the speeches of politicians or from strategic documents, if the west would have its ideal way. what would that 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, a store and he's no longer with us. he died actually no longer. his name is eric constable. and he was a very fine student and pupil of 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 is, he's very famous putting together this list of works, trying to understand these very small stress last 150 years or so. and, you know,

for eric holmes probably make this very striking remark. but all over again, the end of the soviet union was essentially the and of a stable system, a control system from triest in 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 that ceased to exist, the object of this kind of thing and, and i, i'm sad to say that it's reached the point where the fixation on the obsession was dealing with ration is such that they, and this is this kind of defeat obsessional, they want to defeat russia and, and it's, you know, as much as one can understand where people have stakes in this, it's a very dangerous prospect to trying to talk about all of the seats and things like that because that may raise the stakes in other areas,

but it also raises the prospect about what happens in russia. and i think that that is also very problematic on 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 up to come to good faith in terms of one bathroom and whatnot. but there's so many people from various countries investing in attacking russian. now that it becomes difficult to miss, 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 russia on the run and this is what we're going to do. and this is where things become very dangerous. 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 and how you actually operate war, how you try to achieve the results. and i sometimes get a get a sense that the american, the decision makers of western 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, there's a few things you mentioned. one of them's the times. well, i'm afraid to say is, yes, it's true that it's been elevated, this notion of, you know, military doctrine to science, but sadly, it's sort of to me, it more samples, a kind of 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 stops before so before germany was unified as the 1st unification. and there was

a famous 1st martial, as famous general helmet one month to actually sent that. so you can of course, always plan you know, assigned typically 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 11th happens. the same thing in terms of strategy here. broadly speaking, the issue is to be wise enough to anticipate that there has to be leg room. that's the point. and the, the issue here is yes. 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 already have the, must be smell of the library of the archives. they don't apply for the circumstances that are in the the, the consensus are new,

but then the very least one has to consider him analyze an opponent and the rush at this point of time is at its strongest point militarily. economically, i was the claim socially. then it has ever be, and if the goal is to, let's say, wiccan russia or as we've been hearing lately, change the regime in russia. why would the west wage for so long and then allow russia to accumulate that strength. and the 2nd question to that does was actually have the resources, its 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 very sadly, that when i say, i mean broadly in the west and complex, the strategic community is that there is a perception of russia is actually not that strong. and the russia isn't typing. we can, i mean that's, that's wrong. but the general, surely know, all the, you know,

i'm pushing is very good at signaling. he, he showed them what russia possesses in terms of how high the song about hypersonic weapons and what have you. i mean, people who are in the know, know if the general public that may be a lead astray, but people who make decisions, they actually know about that last my understanding of history generally, you know, there was this that in the context of the festival was example it was 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 of strategic sense, i think you to understand for your audience to understand this the thing it's important to realize that the general approach, and this is the media cycle here, whether whether the thing privately 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 russian is 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 also 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, we know very 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 goodness sake, 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. been that but i think this is one of the reasons why troubles me a lot. is that a lot of the tactical and strategic approach to this is not realizing the fact that one rushes bumped 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 a name to wants to be globalized, and its role was just extraordinary and very dangerous to this. 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, only one main thing is important for knox ism internationally speaking, that is, that nations that's allowed to do anything, all the mazda races, the reason us had gemini, is so dangerous, is it the law? the sovereignty of all the country. wars business and business is good and that is the reality of what we're facing, which is fashion with

welcome back to wells appointments, benoit comp mark senior lecture in the school of mobile, urban and social studies at r. m. i t university in alberta, 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 rushes 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, i 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're 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 the background 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. that the co who had, as it was done there was not a sense of worrying about things in the world at all. they were very shar from outs and observations made by various individuals throughout know some of them. for example, like professor mashaila, who's made this point very clearly that russia has its strategic interest that need

to be respected. we even have, of course, the person, former state department official, george kennan. now there is no longer with us, but he famously said he's the author. so if you'll, if you might be to minute he was famously the author of the telegram in the 1940 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 advanced nature that this was falling. this is, it's 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 re and if occasion of germany and arrange of other things and 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 anyways, go, but trump didn't have to do what he did. but the late, of course, he did it out of the good will and i think one that one of the factors that is not fully appreciated 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 lives, it can do that. i mean, if you remember after the re invitation with crimea specifically address the germination saying that me support or do 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 just just made on the stroke rate and that sounds good. well from then ago, but 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 in that particular point said that this could happen and so reassurances or, you know, undertakings were given. and then what happened subsequently, was that actually 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 undertakings, 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 general 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 a black labeling libeling you name it's, it's very hard to get a debate about this in any career and context in the 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 mason doesn't actually want ukraine in, because i think stands right now. they're already getting everything they one from

your brain 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, but 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, 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, you're being part of nato, the trip, and a firm in line of what you are saying. the treatment of your 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 system has been treated in the us 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 essentially america's condom and the dispose of us when they want us 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 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 about that. 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 certain, as you say, the real pow reality is realism and so on. it may well be that ukraine times something the middle again, that sensors. now, you said 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 understand the need, but then 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. 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. no, there's no 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, a u. k. prime minister, who at this idea of global britain? well, no. it's not local anymore, and i did say it was at one point, but certainly not. this is the kind of ambition for need. so sort of, you know, having hubs here and having some kind of ambition beyond its elements borders. but because ultimately, let's face it, what was it 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 in a 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, 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 point because we began with charlie. we can and with the charlie as well, these countries in a very interesting position because it is far away from all the

a 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 for 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 natalie lead unit, the girl has. and i like to always upset that before i written about it and sent that straight to tend to be the good of the united states. so their sense and the is trained in governments and 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 would. but change this, it's also worth noting, just on that point as a straight encouraged by u. s. analysis essentially tends to sort of see the ukraine, russia conflict by looking at the way china behave says quite intriguing. so to me it's, it's quite designed some points, but been trying to see the way russia behaves in ukraine to the way china might behave towards taiwan. 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 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 work. we have to move in there, but i really 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. out of think of a watching focus here again on the world, depart a with me for a

dwelling doctor about a week with a choice issue. somebody over there, both those with poverty over you look out to you up boils up

with the and i do so as you know that way, if you don't mind ah ah. north atlantic alliance recognizance aircraft washing cruising close to russia's borders, have become commonplace.