making law, the grass underneath them. yes. tremples. and if we extend that metaphor to the geopolitical situation into world today, not just the grass that underneath them, that gets affected. it's the valleys in the villages a far as miles away. do you think russia a fully aware of the, of the kind of damage that confrontation is visiting up upon 3rd party? well, i'm pretty sure they understand. the question is, what i've been doing about the fact is that they don't looking, learned as being a billing with a very difficult global environment for a long time. i would say for 300 years, i think we have been a colony of the british for a long time. and then we had a little new system dominated by the west after the 2nd world war is

traditionally dominated, also by the list. but even in multilateral organization, so dominated by major us. so what is now called the global sound, which is essentially a don't have big countries on it used to be called card world and as you're going to them but has not been in a good position for a long time. and it's only in the last couple of decades with globalization and new opportunities for growth that, you know, countries like china and india, many other countries in latin america and africa experienced. i think the current crisis, international crisis, both the water ukraine, but more importantly, all the policy kind of decisions taken as a consequence of the war on hunting us. it hasn't very interesting sense here because both the east and the west, both russia and the united states. i trying to of course, it to that side. but it, this is, it's out as

a leader for having the leader of the global south. one gas mean for is foreign policy stands in practical terms when possible in practical terms, in doing well this had an independence on, but see, i've been trying to time it became a republican one to talk to someone. it does have different names used to call it non alignment. then we talk about started to go to me, but essentially look, orange and policy towards the rest of the work is to have an independent or policy of decisions based on, on interest and, and understanding that we are a nation that india like china, like russia, like a europe of mainland europe and many other schools are still introduced in latin america of the population. we had a similar national entity. and we have seen our films as a country that has a message based on the longest pre authorization, 5000, you know,

history of us in addition. and the 4th of it deeply for a identity that we hope to have an independent voice. and whether it was in the past or be able to watch by on my way, everyone has had an independent wasn't international affairs well, but i think there is definitely a independence in the rhetoric of many engine leaders. but you, by the way, yourself wrote that despite all washington's efforts to have in your daily conscripted to the so called rules, basically, product order. india has a lot of interest in upholding a different set of rules. those that would support broader economic development and prosperity. but how ground it is in the, in these multi lateral view, i mean, how free it is from the can taishan all fine, you know,

getting some credentials of a democratic state from washington. you mentioned the very long history of your civilization. but when i watch indian media, i also see that it's very important for many people to sort of feel themselves to be in the good graces of the west, because supposedly the west issues, those, you know, good democracy certificates. well, i don't think we are bothered about certificates. i don't think that's a political issue. you're talking about the indian media indian media is very diverse. issue for us has always been the fact that because of our colonial history and english is the most important language in this country. so kind of integrating language because india as a country off a summer languages and english remains are linked to the word. so there isn't much greater influence on the speaking word on the maybe think what we read, etc,

plus the people to people contact. i mean, if you look at the numbers of indians living around the world, most of them out of the united states, united kingdom are those trade center. and so they're all in the media. you will see that by us. but i think we must distinguish between the rhetoric of the media and will be in the media and use of the gun. but i think government and india successfully, including the present, have taken an independent position. we have tried to, i'm issues with, with russia on, with china, on united states on indeed with other countries like japan, germany, france on the basis on national. and it's not as if you're not going to pressure from time to time. come on the fisher and i can talk about innovative incentives, then we'll come under pressure. but each time you come under pressure, i think it is a good fortune that we have how the national leader should get us and centered its independence. when we have just seen recently on the water in the un security

council, india has taken a view off on. now it does not bandwagon with anybody else. now, like you mentioned a moment ago and you wrote about that before that both the humanitarian consequences of russia's military ration, crane and western economic sanctions that were intended to punish russia without hurting the global community. and you think is the excess dental extent? do they do that though in equal measure, do you think they could be compared in terms of that impact? well, i would have some difficult question. i've got a sequence measure, but the fact is that the nation global inflation triggered by the press goodbye that i was in full price. and then the, the, the disconnect in the financial system, if you can amik sanctions imposed by the united states and the nature of ours,

all of them together are certainly back to us when we are we and, and you read that know, looking would have been at the receiving end of the combined effect of all of and you know, you can get into a blame game who's to blame with the rest just to man. but i think the fact is that you, in the history of this conflict, i would argue both sides of leaning in gleaning is irrelevant than joe poland because they kind of do anything with that. but the reason why, why i'm asking this question is because i think we will like nobody would think twice before condemning when we all understand that this is the worst possible outcome. the question is whether there was any alternative to that. but i think there is a perception in the international community that sanctions somehow and more moral and more ecological means of doing politics. even though if you look at the number of people who are affected by the decisions,

i think they're much larger than the number of people contacted by the direct conflict. so i think it's a, it's also very important point to sort of look at the motivations a contained war for, for the concrete interest, various versus essentially a how the culture style action that affects everybody. and very, very little consideration for, you know, 3rd parties will have nothing to do with struggle. well, you know, you're right and that's what i with some of my columns which are published or to go back to march april this year, beginning of law. still it is that sanctions supposed to wall out of blood instrument. they do not distinguish the targets. you'll see the impact of one example, us sanctions on iran, and everybody has been impacted by that we in india and the receiving end office transactions for a long time. so sanctions on a blunt instrument. and i think it is to say that

a conflict between 2 countries could have been contained within those 2 countries, which has happened in many other cases. but the minute ground global sanctions. and that to sanctions huge in from each thing to natural system. i mean, you take, for example, the sanctioning of the russian center back. i was reading somewhere that, you know, right to the 2nd one was the bank of international study runs in switzerland. never sanction b. i spent the german central bank for a close company. the german banks will not sanction so you know, better than discrimination. and i think sanctioning central bank certainly is, is something which has hurt us. and most importantly, you know, the pressure on the market to try and fist on them saying don't buy russian on my list. and i sent all of this her don't a big country and you know many i was in india, i've been right now. and this is

a fascinating question for me. how that was applies it's pressure because on that one hand, it has many indirect ways of sabotaging its own direct commitment. but on the other hand, if we look at the news about old pack making a decision to lower its oil production despite very heavy and very african american loan being, it's clear that americans scope of influence even with, with its own allies, is somewhat limited. how do you assess western capacity of getting out what washington wants at this point of time? do you think the masses of pressure have changed in any way? well, 1st of all, that stuff changed in the sense that there's much greater willingness. now to use a financial sector as an instrument, i've been asked to kind of do it and i'm with nomics. you see that the

instrumental sanctions have longer. what time? as i said in the past of central banks remember sanction, but now that is happening. so the financial, a consent, but more importantly, i think the change that has happened in the last year compared to before that. but you're going to put on india is the global average nobody. and in some ways, you see that in the china, the dependence of chinese companies on the market depends a lot of companies. so the change in the global system, you can all make says government trading. that was, it has the full jacob in which sanctions are being used to kind of sanction techniques of being device. but i want to still make a distinction between the destination of the states of government. i mean, you talk about opec. opec is an organization of government, so and when it comes to you stand by national interest,

when it comes to private companies, you know, a corporate boards, a understandable to some extent, mr. bar, we have to take a very short break right now, but it will be back in just a few moments station. a a got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy foundation, let it be an arms race is very dramatic. development only really and get into this . i don't see how that strategy will be successful. i think it was time time to sit down and talk with

them because these are the federal to sweden, c o. c. smith, fernando, also for the about sean, on the phone a few more minutes. if you don't mind, you can put a little partition, you show a teacher, you're gonna get a new owner. sheila can do is get a minute. looks that on the get a minute. those now about which foolish social but i'm wishing to get a minute. those new with grease ga. gov to other but i sure with fact is until we have

a sub washington. dick tier 2 dash 1250 says ok. so why is his mission in v fan to the folk along, as often deutsch went on behind, been fun for by my daughter, and i will probably to my music on each one's when i spawns, and wasn't with ah ah, welcome back to. well, the parts with son, jaya, barrow, distinguished fellow at the united service institution of india. well, before the break, we're talking about this somewhat a divergence that national governments may have on politics and doing business internationally and private companies. and yet, at the same time,

i think perhaps you would agree with me that the, the globalization, as we knew it only, you know, 5 or even 10 years ago. it's not there anymore. and the united states a while trying to punish someone with enemies is undermining these various systems . so let's say the horizon of 5 or 10 years going forward. which policies, state oriented policies or state oriented intention or private oriented intention of each of them would prevail? well, i think suddenly, you know, looking at a 5 year term on 10 year period. so in the state, we already have seen a shift in the last 5 years a month and then the government has lost what is called a self reliant india, which is essentially went to reduce our dependence. particularly for could you

going to do something from the chips, you know, food and other. i think we should have done with that much more to reduce our dependence on other countries and become much more so i, i joke with my friends in the got a ruling party which is about to give them a party. that movie is now like, got a lot of this was a policy of metal in the fifty's of building a sensor. and i do based on the list of capacity and get it. and now once again, we have to pay is red because of the challenge of globalization because of a go w, a training system is no longer looking because of track some sanctions. i think for all these reasons and also from an indian point of view because of the pressure from china's we're trying to reduce our dependence, extend them dependence,

and become more so for life. and i think that's the next next weekend. now you speak about self reliance on bigger involvement of state and the economy, anonymous, things, things that are related to each other. and i think there's a very strong narrative in the way that whenever i states role, especially in bigger countries, that can challenge the united states whenever safe role is increased. and that's, that's a, wait, it's you, i talk christie or to town and parent isn't, but i think we are coming to the very interesting point in history where self sufficiency or sovereignty are becoming a means of achieving democracy. am i wrong here? is it because it sounds like a paradox, but if more countries are pursuing their own self interest, the democratic system internationally seems to be improving?

well look or see, i don't know when you're saying, well, because you know, one is studying the doing is to bring the focus back to solving. i think what you saw doing it all. globalization reduced emphasis on sunday. and the idea that you're the one to slap a book on the, on the quote, trading on the well, along with the kids and therefore missions auto center. yes. all that is that's part of the don't know what kind of systems like on the world, a different direction in the form that you come to. so i don't think, you know, the united states are going to decide what are the democracy in one month. but it isn't that i understand what it did. democracy, working on a domestic level, essentially means that every member of the society or every group has

a certain input. and it's treated fairly in proportion to his size within the society that everybody's interests are accounted for. when we trust laid out to the international system, it seems to be working. it could be working in the same fashion. so countries big and small, it doesn't mean that they have the same amount of influence, but it's leaves our interests would be taking into account the global processes could be structure, is in a way not to penalize or ostracize one or the other. in this answer, do you think global democracy as a way of taking into account various interest and trying to integrate them into the decision making? isn't it possible we already and moving towards in that direction? i'm a friend moment. now your system is a power based system we talk about, you know, you want to give states of the united nations was constructed on that principle of equality. but even in constructing united nations,

we need to un security council on which we have seen other members. and the more powerful and the less positive. and even within the next organizations, like the mid july and my bank, the big economy, some of the bigger lights. so in the international system, we have never be any factors, demarcus. it's cloud based system and will always have. so i don't think we are that is going to change much. in fact, if anything, what we are now see is a real question. rather than in the session office, no democratic way of dealing with issues. now, one of the most interesting discussion, the post i circled today is about neo colonial is indeed an effort to reassert your power as a way of preserving your some would say, unfair privileges. i think the russians are really trying to frame that struggle

with the west and those tribes, they presented as both that nomic sovereignty, but also as an effort to create a more fairly more affair and international system. what do you think about that? do you think western had you want to conditions a colonial and they're very core? well, so just the last i said, when i sit in india and look at the one you see a neighbor, china seeking to be an issue. and that is why i said that, you know, we're in the one where our is the currency and in this, on the word now look in countries and she's a global, so are seeking space for them. so i think that is the way i would look at, i'm the one today that the west has always been dominant for the last 200 years. but other countries have this all of major on the soviet union,

which is no longer there. but russia, in its own area, is a dominant china initial seems to be a dominant, a big brother to our smaller neighbors. it's in the nature of the international emissions that the currency is all, and therefore the, the, the weak show on this fight against the strong. and when you look at the long run systems which continue, i'm done. so benign of market back says in terms of when i looked at one of these in terms of that section of intellectual property, right, which you maintain service, you know, global inequality. that is one of the developing one was fighting against when we talked about a new address. you can only go to the eighty's and ninety's and, and many of us that go to pick 112, changes in the global system. we want to do much want to quit to one system, but in order to that struggle continues. but if you look at the global does down

says that exist today, it's pretty clear that they are hurting the powerful chase and more even than smaller countries. because the united states is no longer capable of maintaining its alliances. and, you know, investing in them to an extent that it used to do that before. i wonder if a more fair distribution is that not only is that of an ideological or moral, but the necessity of what in time. because, you know, having your neighbor or your who even, and me get something that is once ultimately serves you as well because it creates a more predictable expectation. don't you think that the time itself is calling for more and more fair distribution of both resources and our well, i think that is why many of us, if you simply,

i do believe that the global system is evolving towards what we call a my diplomatic system. i think, you know, the saw unit on what you saw, my point on what the direction in which we're moving and that is sent to you on the didn't go to the leadership and i believe was probably the real rush and wanted to let you know that the actual home on monday to call no one to reach a larger number of countries play a bigger. i mean, it may not be a perfect democracy. you know, a small country, let's say like more abuse. and that it can see may not have the same wise as india, i because it's contribution to the global common good is smaller, i mean, our is proportionate to what you bring to the table. yeah. so the direction in which you're moving in my judgement is a multiple us system and the current crisis will accentuate that process. and i think the, the west, particularly united states, i think in europe has come to one example in the french have talked about the

multiple lab system. if you see the speed of french a long day that they then they don't follow through on that on that talk with. it's good to begin with the talk a talk about being a monday. so i can found, we are going to come to a started, you initially see frontier as a center or and the whole we are moving towards the most people in our system and whether the foster slow depends on the rents. you know, like what we're seeing right now, let me ask you one last question and this is something that political analyst i rarely ask, that i think is absolutely essential to understanding the design, the spirit of the times. i think both russia and the west until logically, i'm born and most basic worldview where there's only one, you know, gone,

and one devil, which i think, give that rivalry such an intensity and such a high school for demonizing, why each other? india, on the other hand, is this the culture which i assume comes with a different understanding of diversity. the, the sort of the structure of diversity, the practical value of diversity, as well as the practical value of power distribution. because within your pantheon of god, you know they're stronger, god, they're, you know, less powerful goes, but they're all important than they all make the big county on. i wonder if the pulling, the stick ontology could be more conductive to the, to multiple. and one that we've been talking about, especially in the new that is that to the leadership, the presidency of both g 20 and the some high corporation organization is here. a very fascinating question. i think it's also very important question because that

was the me, me look at our sense in the last 75 years that we have been that we are multicultural motor and just multilingual. you know, in many ways anybody a mission. and therefore we bring plurality block thinking, not just about ourselves, but i want to well, unfortunately in india we now have already done debate between this pluralist tradition and a growing a session or not. majority of them is. and i think that some domestic on that is what was happening within the country when all of us will be in the list of that, you know, the, the slogan used to be unity in diversity. that is the foundation of india and the diversity. but construct our unity based on our diversity. i think that's the message of the indian republican. i hope that that knowledge, india as a nation remain. so that the rest of the world, we have a message. i mean,

i used to be just a newer prime minister and you repeatedly make this part that india plural nation is a nation of diversity and therefore brings to the world. and you will looking at things . and that is our son. and i hope we preserve that character on it. that's only your strength, but i think that's something that the world is very desperately needing right now. mr. bar, it's been a fascinating conversation. thank you very much for your time. thank you. thank you for having me and thank you for watching. you hope to hear you again. well, the part a with

ah, with ah, glad to visit with you. i finished the good. i did miss steward with key at the win washington's keep. the process is to the dealer marley. com. could you please give us a little bit. it was put in a row, spoke with you guys just to phone us in the so could i get you a new video with

lexia professional lithium? do you have a list of all but yet with ah, a headlines on, off, international, a, russian whitehead jet crushers into a house during a training flight in siberia. we understand that both of the pilots were killed, authority, se ukrainian forces of 5, at least 30 artillery shells of the city of antarctica daughter. that's why europe's largest nuclear power plant is located the barrel at a hotel where russian nuclear energy workers had been staying. with friends, president steps up the rhetoric about a nuclear conflict because he urges his western backhoes to retaliate in kind of rushes stripes with atomic weapons. bus engaging being is really.