well, surprise, the great polish right. i said he's left here to last week to see both the 1st and the 2nd world war remark to with the end of his life that we should not expect too much from the end of the world. even that death famine, the war and conquest, the 4 biblical horsemen of the apocalypse. already riding a top of our daily news bulletins, hasn't the world at least as we knew, it already ended. well, to discuss it, i'm now joined by main street training research professor at the higher school of economics in moscow. it's a training, it's always a great july for me to talk to you. thank you very much for coming to the studio jokes are in la thing. thank you. now this mark this month marks the 60th anniversary of the cuban missile crisis. and you just that day published an article suggesting that for all the seeming similarities, the current confrontation between russia and the west is a far cry from the us soviet tensions. why is that? well, there are several reasons for certainly you cannot step into the same river twice.

and the russian federation, although it's just a new name for, for eternal russia. as was the soviet union, it's still very different from the soviet union. it's different than its position and the world, most importantly, it's different and it's a national might. and it's different than the way that it's adversary or the united states then, and now views viewed russia. so basically what i'm arguing is that in 1962, the united states could still afford a compromise with russia. well, there's compromise was presented to the west and public as a wind for the united states. in fact, it was not images matter. optics matters. today i can see no

willingness on behalf of the united states to split the difference. and that's a car to know the difference between van and now he also point out in that article that the soviet union was perceived by washington as an equal or worse. and the current at western leads. see russia as a 2nd to perhaps even 3rd tier country whose province national promise rests only on nuclear weapons and energy sources. now putting the issue of hierarchy aside. nuclear weapons and energy sources. are they really so little in this day and age? what more do you need? well, i actually borrowed that from one of the pronouncements by president, by. and he basically said, i, you know, i have a, i pity the president of russia because he can only rely on energy sources and nukes, with regard to energy sources of energy exposed,

the united states has been doing a great deal to suppress russia's energy exports primarily to europe and to other countries that are in the u. s. a bit. with regard to nuclear, i think that the death in washington is that russia will not use them when they're not living in 962 again. russia might use nukes, a tactical level, most probably in your crane, in that sense. that's the way i. e. nato doctrine was structured, was designed in the days of the cold war. when, if you are losing a conventional battle, you use nukes and then you seek peace on acceptable terms. so you just think about your adversary, the way you would have, you would have behaved you, mr. training at the fact that the americans would go to such great length,

even strategizing about nukes and, and it shows that those for me to pull acids is a, just a new sense when you consider, consider them to be the only thing that the country can base its promise on, well, you know, i'm not expressing my own views. i think the russia has a lot to offer itself and something to offer to the world. and i think that russia is better positioned than most countries around the world. or vast majority of countries around the world, for example, facing the climate change a climate crisis. so i think the rush is by better position than a lot of people in the western thing it is. but i just took those, those words out of the mouth of mr by kennedy, then ask you, do you think that such conclusion is dad? is it based on an authentic bully sigh analysis,

or is it just the preferred version of reality? is that of, well, again, everyone lives in a preferred version of reality and was what's, you know, what's the truth today? you know, who knows? now this is an interesting question because here recently and gave another interview which made quite a splash in the russian media. and he suggested that the biggest problem we now face is the absence of fear that the americans lost a sense of fear. and because of that, they can behave with arrogance. what can possibly disabuse them of that arrogance well reemergence of fear, and how can you help them help themselves? well look of fear is of son, the mental to us. and you will recall a phrase and that was coined at the beginning of the cold war, which basically, you know, i hesitate to, to, to say whether it was churchill or somebody else. but it doesn't matter of the,

the phrase itself is worth repeating. and that is the piece has become to study child of fear. so we live in peace because we live in fear that was the, the maxim during the days of the cold war. now we are, we have returned to the days or it's not a cold war. any wire, i call that hybrid war, people call it the cold war, 2.0, whatever. but again, if you. 3 have an adversarial relationship with another major power. the only thing you can is peace upon is fear. now, for the united states, russia is not exactly a midget, but certainly not a peer. the soviet union was appear in the military and political and ideological times. not so much in economic terms. but the russian federation is just nuclear power and energy. basically,

that's it from their point of view. and if you cannot and would not use nukes because again, who would want to commit suicide people. and there is no ideology in the name of which you would, you would have used in the old days nuclear weapons. and if that's the case, then you just, you know, you, we, the united states can press you and can suppress your energy exports. and deter you from using nuclear by just pointing to the now says, listening is the use of nuclear. and then what do you do? it's interesting on the issue of nuclear weapons because i think you in that interview, you directly suggested that the only way to sort of summer up our transatlantic conference is to present a direct nuclear thread of the neck. yes, i was not to look, i need not to bluff about it. i'm not,

i was not suggesting that russia should attack the united states with nuclear weapons. what i said was that the idea that russia can only use tactical nukes in a place like ukraine wishes, something very widely debated in the west is wrong. and again, logically speaking, one way to the united station may be the only way to deter the united states from supporting your credit and to the level when that support can make a strategic difference for russia would be to strengthen, departs. now how do you strengthen deter us, you basically strengthen and by saying that, you know, in certain circumstances, but we will not be hitting at ukraine will be hitting elsewhere. and that shared the so, but people of, so basically the idea was not to try to suggest the russian needs to

know hip united states where the nuke, the idea was to strengthen to tons the foundation of peace as we know it. and it's interesting that most of the western decision makers, when they make statements about rush as possible, use of nuclear weapons, they need focus on tactical strikes upon ukraine. they never met, even conceive of russia being able to reach their own homelands. do you think that said deflection on their part, or do they honestly believe that given russia's potential and those people and they know they know fresh as nuclear potential? they know that they can realistically reach those lands. do you think they simply don't believe or is it they still a game? so to say, i think that as present by the just the other day he regards to mr. put in a rational bus on the rational leader right now. no rational leader would not commit suicide. but what was rational about you, america's,

and his allies on the defense posture during the cold war was if you are losing conventionally strike them with nuclear arms at the tactical level and that, and that, and the conflict on the term that you can accept. and i think that a lot of people in the west through watching your crisis believe that russia is almost with us back to the wall. and in that situation, the only way out for russia, if it doesn't want to be utterly defeated, then conventional times would be to resort to nuclear arms. now you're, since they are rational, you russians rational, then they will use those weapons on the battlefield in your crane. and my i'm someone who has spent decades 3 decades of my life crying to help prevent a collision between russia and the united states and the west. i see that i see my

mission as a failure, complete failure. well, mr. turn and it will be before we began the recording this conversation, the history doesn't stop here. and this administration hopefully is not the last administration in the united states. no, no, no, the number, there was the administration. who knows what happened to me. can i actually ask you about this issue of rationale is your rationality because we know from history and then behaving irrationally or erotically in politics actually has its own benefits . because i think that widens a scope of your actions and indeed transfers the responsibility for sanity on to your opponent. so when considering the american actions, rather than perceiving them as an act of arrogance, that also be an act of despair as sort of a last ditch or, or make or break attempt to preserve that valued but quickly

dissipating contamination. i think that the united states is certainly fighting a battle for, for i started last and it's certainly a battle to preserve it's again money. and does that stay says just did i say so lease of gotten themselves married to the notion of being the world hedge amman, and they cannot difficult for them bustle for them. i think, to imagine a world as not lead by the united states. the most recent national security strategy released by the by to ministration, basically says that there is no other country in the world that's equipped as the united states is to lead the world. and the idea is to shape the world order according to the values and interests of the united states of america. that's. that's the idea. and this deb being serious about that death, but i wouldn't, i wouldn't think that they're desperate about they're certainly serious about that

. they may not have a good job with, they may not have, you know, that well thought through strategy, how to deal with that. so they strategize as the go as, as they move forward. and that carries its own risks. but that's where we are. well, it's not only cares its own risk, but i already, i manifest to multiple, i think its consequences, including for their own society. but let's discuss them after a short break. we'll be back in just a few moments statement. ah, [000:00:00;00] a

the for the move in the business and you will clean the ready daily shoes. you made it comes, graham, you really didn't go to really just such a group ceiling individuals such as circle in with most of the different student employ, chopped, wishing that you get thrown with them the problem and you're still live with you. i wish to lose your hero. thank you. history as to yours. when i brought in the study skills on that, just a bunch of stuff coming to us on ok, which you wish and longer. your bush is just not posted sustainable for a moment because a new, a new parcel, a useful code don't know which i know for the don't know as i should just to do

given the other than that we're going to do these best opinion analysis. come on the me or the welcome back to the metro training research professor at the higher school of economics in moscow with a trend. and i began our conversation by quoting steady flow years as a polish writer who was born in what is now western ukraine and leaf in his autobiography. he's quite frank, that in order to keep home and that's the labor camp and 943, he had to kill his nazi guard who had taken him out to dig a grave. and i really get a chance to recite poetry on this program. so please indulge me. he rode that he had dark, his own grave looks attentively at that grave digger's work,

but not to down to cli for this one. digs a grave, not for himself. and i'm sure you can, into my question already given these, declared the american intention to, you know, just in their mind, but perhaps even voice, russia, don't you think that the americans themselves could be digging, if not the grave in the trench for themselves? well, 1st of all, i don't think that most americans would agree with your characterization of them digging a grade for russia really? no, i don't know. they've done that well, you know, i, i still stay in touch with my colleagues and the professional about the united states. obviously they have only good intentions, which we all know leave. we're reyes right. and this is precisely the issue. they asked me to try to explain my notion that they wore in ukraine is of exterior, especially important as for russia and they, they, they, they didn't understand what i meant by,

by existential. and they said that they only wanted to rush out of ukraine, and that's all they didn't one dave themselves that were the military equipment in the ukraine. and that so that they would say that this is only a matter between them and their kiev. and that's, that's basically it. i tried to talk to her, show them what would happen, should any russian leader just accept the terms. and, you know, they, after that they didn't raise the question again. so it is existential for russia. and the problem is that, you know, people, a lot of people deal only informal logic that states you went across the border, you need to be pushed back across your border and maybe pay the debt or pay the

damage to punish the the guilty ones. and then learn to live with the rest of the world on, based on the rules that, you know, the more advanced portion of humanity as a written for you. basically that that's the idea. they will not say there's, there's nothing under russian about that. there's nothing. well, they do not, at least in public debate, they would not to appreciate the consequences of the actions that they demand. i think one of the culinary sides of the confrontation is that the americans are no longer insulated from the facts of their own foreign policy. and by picking up a fight with russia, they have produced a lot of negative consequences, economic, political, and social consequences for their own society. and if for the societies of that closest alley, so they already feeling the pinch as they, as they like to say, do you think that impact on their society is that monumental or persuasive enough to, if not, change the course of that actions,

then it's least change something within the american society, as i see, nothing of the kind, nothing of the sort. what they see is the europe being hit by the disruption of energy supplies to europe, from russia, which they blame on russia and solely on russia. europe is becoming de industrialized. they will not publicly say that, but they are the beneficiaries of the process. the united states is winning back its industrial power by attracting european businesses, european companies, european manufacturing, to the united states. and that is a boon for them. now, europe may become poor i, europe may become less advanced europe now because that europe will not, will not seek to separate a geopolitical and militarily from the united states. indeed,

the opposite is happening. europe has never been as closely allied with united states as it is today. so no, i don't think that the feel the pinch, the europeans filled the pinch, the pinch, but not the americans and americans of the beneficiaries of their was so fun. and of course, all these weapons that are being sent to ukraine, all these weapons that are destroyed in ukraine. and these are these things mean more orders for american defense companies. and that is, that is another good. and that also means higher gas prices at the pump, and more and more people, i mean, look at my data approval ratings. i know that there are many and many ways of influencing electoral politics. so didn't say, but still, i mean, the conservative base has never been as fired and as

a irritated if not the to you some stronger words than it is today. so i will see what happens at the polls. we'll see what happens in november. we'll see what happens 2 years from now. i think big changes are more likely than not in the united states at some point, maybe not 2024, but certainly through the end of this decade that they will have. they will have to be some chain just the u. s. political class, and that means it changes a us for years foreign policy also. but i think that the idea of america's gamma ne, america's global dominance is something that continues to unite the american elite across the aisle. and i see no departure from that. if, unless there is a some sort of an up people within the united states, some soul, some sort of really deep soul searching about that can all become after some major

defeat of the united states at home. i don't think that they will be defeated anywhere abroad, but domestically there may be some upheaval that will send them thinking to subscribe to the popular idea within the american establishment. as a major upheaval, i or major threat can only come to the united states from within the united states rather than from the outside. but they look at the behavior of many of the american allies, including some of the oil producing arab countries. for example, saudi arabia and i'm not even mentioning countries like china, india, south africa, many of their latin american countries. they're not taking sides, but they're clearly not excited about the american hegemony. because for very pragmatic reasons subscribing to anyone's hegemony at this point of time when you need sovereignty as a means of making decisions, it's not just an abstract and constant construction, but it's

a way of functioning in them and predictable world. they don't seem to be buying that concept anymore. do you think gemini is sustainable in the world today? not in the mind of american the leads, but within the global community as well, within part of the global community. yes. that, that part of the community will include europe, that thought of the community will include other america, now lies in what they call the, you know, pacific region and some other nations. with regard to sovereignty, it's a, it's a good thing to have it. but it's extremely expensive. now if you want to be sovereign, you have to be, you have to brace for a very serious pressure. and if you resist that pressure that you're likely to pay at the cost. but if you take the russian with, because you're, i think the russians are very sort of 5 team demonstrating that we want our something to. but many countries i think far smarter and they have their own

independent decision making. but without the irritating the americans to know each nation has its national character in russia, just defies. cannot, cannot accept even notional, even for a period of time. and so, subservience or vision of a follower to the head. giovanni and other countries find that to be fun. would then be more flexible about it, india, for example. it regards itself as a sovereign nation and take some decisions, but to care about what they care about most is chances for development, chance for development can all be be realized if india is growing economically, that means that they have a huge stake in being a growing part of the u. s. lead economic system, global economic system. they can not afford being on the wrong side of the,

of the united states. other countries, such as china, advanced very far and they are considered to be a challenger to the united states. but they still want to try to make sure that this collision does not come to arly, that they still continue to get the benefits from, from exposure to the american market. and it is the united states that takes to lead an escalating, let's say trade and economic sanctions. a china now russia is, is, is it's, it's not a merchant country, it's a country socially for country warriors. it's a country of warriors thinkers, not one of them. a nation of shopkeepers as well, and i guess this is the last question i have time to ask you, but i think russia is also a country of peacemakers. and it's fascinating for me to observe all these mystical

signaling been put in by them because they, they throw in the references to bite out here to bible here and there. and in one of his latest speech is food and again quoted. this is a sermon on the mountain, which also includes a couple of b, b attitudes, including the one, the blessing, the peacemakers, because they will be cold and sons of god. i wonder how much they say is this all rhetoric as far as you are concerned and the thing it has more to it, at least for the russian, the leads. do they see that these battle as a, as in it and me see, i think perhaps one or as is something that touches upon more than just the geopolitics where russian elite is not homogeneous. much of the russian elite, i think, re grip a disruption of relations with the west to wear their assets or

were the weather on their 2nd home. so 1st homes were law. i'm also intrigued by the, for several dozen deputies of the duma who did not show up to vote for the inclusion of 4 new regions into the russian federation. that is very interesting. so the elites are very, are, you know, they're, they have very different views on things. what is interesting though, is that for the 1st time since the collapse of the soviet union, the more energetic the more active part of the elite and those who defined themselves as bait it. those who think in terms of not only geopolitical things and you know, in terms of national interest in the very, very fundamental sense of the word. now you have

a divided russian nation. we have to try to collect the stones that were thrown in, you know, in the throne far and wide in the days of garbage. everything else that we need to, to, to, to, to work for a great, a russia, you know, that mr. potent now mentioned in his, in his a saint george's speech. that is interesting, but who will prevail in the end is still to me, at least is still a question mark. i have my own views and i have my own preferences. but as an analyst, i'm sitting and, and looking at that with a lot of interest, but also with a lot of concern. well, i missed the train. i really hope that in a while we can discuss here when your projections are theories or work. but for the time being, we have to live there. thank you very much for being with us. it's always a great pleasure. i wanna thank you really appreciate and thank you for watching.

called to sir again unwholesome part. ah with mm ah ah ah ah, what should the chagrin of the west?

china in the global south have not condemned or isolated russia over the conflict and ukraine. in fact, the opposite appears to happen. the global south is not embraced the west demand of a rules based order for so called western values. in general, 500 years of western domination is coming to an end the for the business. and you agree in the daily shoes you made, it comes green. we just got to really such an upcoming ceiling and provide you with such sort of 2 different sit unemployed shells washing that you get thrown with