and they're gonna be double pricing. and if you're going to have a price gap on russian, i or why not apply skype on, on all other oil producers, even though, because, i mean this is what a lead eventually do. so everybody has to be very careful, why not a gap in gas prices, and we're buying oil and gas from united states. why not a gap on, on those places where i was up, this is our check out all t dot com of all your resume and global news will be back at the top of the hour. so with ah ah

mm mm mm mm, mm. welcome to enterprise insurance. they came from the specialist in cuba and they will, did not speak out because it did not fill the pain down. they came for the movers in iran, and that will didn't speak out either because the pain was too easy to ignore. and then they came for their adversaries in russia and the wolf took notice because because the pain became old to palpable. given the global room vacations of the western sanctions against russia has the international community finally got enough stamina to stand up against the weapon. zation of global economy for geopolitical purposes. well,

to discuss it are now joined by already could decide professor at the department of political studies and director of the geopolitical economy. economy research group at the university of manitoba in canada is great to talk to thank you very much for your time. thanks for having me. now we're recording this interview on the sidelines of the of all day discussion club. and this here is a very vivid shortage of western experts and academics for pretty understandable reasons. many of them fear a certain career consequences are due to their participation or association with the russian colleagues. even though, as far as i know, the participation in this forum does know the oblige, anyone to agree with the cremeans policies? did you have in 2nd or 3rd, thoughts about braving this journey from candidates in moscow? i do wonder whether, you know, i mean, we come here. okay. and i do wonder whether when i go back, this is what were you doing in moscow?

but beyond that, i don't expect anything. if they ask me, i will say i attended this conference and that is no ban on attending conferences. i have been to this conference before. well there, there is no formal band and yet there as rear. those of us who follow can and in politics lately, know that they could be some very informal consequences, pretty serious informal consequences for the academics. well, i think that informal consequences are precisely in the form that, you know, they were told funding or whatever you become unpopular. but i think that we, us, in a moment in history, when i think that you have to brave being unpopular in the sense that what's the point of being popular in a world that may no longer exist. i mean, this is the key. so i feel that i personally felt it was very important to come to russia at this point in history. and in order to talk to russians in order to understand what they feel. i mean, i certainly see quite a range of opinions here among russians among the international scholars. and i

think that unless we leave dialogue lines of dialogue open, we are, we are contributing to the tensions of the was. so i really feel that i'm here as somebody who is pushing against the contribution because one of the ironies i feel that the in, in the west particularly including in canada is that everybody who's same standard for ukraine is actually contributing and has contributed to the destruction of ukraine, because it now appears increasingly unlikely that ukraine can go back to the form it had before february 2022. and that's largely because the, this lobby has essentially advanced the west to the position where it is right now, where they refuse to implement uminski cause they refused to listen to russia's legitimate security concerns. and now look at where we are. so in the name allegedly, of democracy and human rights were actually destroying life itself in ukraine. i

want to discuss the issue if you're around in more detail than before we go there. let's focus on our sanctions because this was the main topic of your speech. a there of all the discussion club and you made a very interesting point. the sanctions are essentially a form of colonial politics and it was a sort of intended as, as a means of warfare without spilling blood. is it still apply this way? because i think if we look at the indirect death of sanctions being applied against the iraq or run, it's pretty easy to see how many live they've, they've taken. the united states sees it as a way of conducting warfare without spilling blood. but what they mean is without spilling american blood, the fact of the matter is and they know it very well. sanctions can be as bad if not worse than bullets and bombs. in fact, if you go back in the history of sanctions to the late ninety's in early 2,

thousands, it was the documentation of the harms inflicted by sanctions against iraq, against children, innocent children, and of course adults, and everybody. reducing the size of the rocky economy to a fraction of what it had been before when these were documented that was when the americans had to shift at least for public relations purposes, to the strategy of so called smart sanctions. of course, these functions are not my there as dumb as any sanctions, and they are inflicting great. hm. but they are at least not putting american lives at stake, their other lives are completely dispensable. and of course, this, as you say, is a continuation as and i was arguing in my paper earlier. this is a continuation of essentially a colonial policy. but colonial policies were imposed by powerful colonizers against weak colonies. whether the same can work by or when you have economy and, and, and the state is powerful as russia is completely different question. and as we have

seen, practically, every set of sanctions has boomerang back on the west. and not only on the west, i think i've spoken to many people on this forum, some of them from south africa, others from latin american. they all was a saying that even though they have no direct interest or no direct role in the, in this conflict between russian, there was they are also being upset penalized absolutely. the 3rd world is being penalized in a variety of different ways, particularly in relation to food supply, in relation to energy prices and all sorts of other essentials. and as you said, they have no, they have no direct stick in this. they have not caused this conflict like the pakistan floods you know, with climate change and so on. and i think that the, that the vast majority of the people in the world will see the injustice of this. and quite frankly, it's going to make the united states even less popular than before. one really key market has been that india, which has historically been a very but at this, in the last many decades, been a very pro u. s. power is staying out of this it's,

it's not supporting the west, it is not condemning russia. and i think that's important as a key. rather when you're, if even india is not doing it. i think it shows that the world is not happy with the united states. now, many experience including western experts noted that the united states failed to properly assess the effects of those sanctions. and 3rd countries which think of hosp, the united states, if a certain benefit of ignorance as somebody who's studied that issue academically. do you believe that's an, an, an unfortunate failure of foresight, or is it actually a deliberate decision to simply ignore and to believe that you know, they can take it if we and they can take it way. i think that the issue, the way i argued in my paper is that the issue of why the united states keeps imposing sanctions. even though it is very clear that they do, they're not effective. and having the effect the united states want them to have.

cuba has not become capitalist. venezuelan is standing, north korea is to standing. it has these sanctions on the whole, they do not succeed. what they do is kill a lot of people, but they do not have the effect of the united states wants them to have his vision and behavior behavior or, or the change, the regime achieves the behavioral grade. you must change the regime. this has not happened in most of the majority of cases. you know, they say it is madness. if you keep on repeating the same action and expecting a different result. this is what the united states is doing. and i think that after 40 years of neoliberalism, 40 years of, and 30 years of unilateral power projection, et cetera, the united states and many western countries are in a spiral of irrationality. and i basically call that what the u. s. is in the u. s . position visa, the sanctions as a kind of mania. they keep repeating the same actions, and i think they're doing this because they want to show that they still rule the world. but in fact, every, especially against russia,

every sanction they have in both has shown has underline how much they don't rule the world. i cited our conversation with their reference to this post world war 2 poem by the german lutheran pastor, martin new miller, who like for 1st they came and it was essentially about the silence of german intellectuals and the clergy and the rise of nazi ideology. and then very targeted that purging of their opponents and for the record, i'm not making a direct comparison. but what strikes me is that those malfunctions, structural malfunctions are apparent to everyone. and yet very few people, a brain, not even brave enough, but seen enough to talk about that. and the things are only getting worse. why do you think with all these, no lip service too? for the most speech critical thinking, rationality would have you. why do thing there so little people who are ready to voice or skepticism or their doubt, even from their own thing,

because i assume they, they one die country the united states to prosper will i'm reminded of 2 things in response to this. in addition to a boston, i'm will as a little pond, there is also the whole. there's also that quote, you know, those, that the gods wish to destroy the 1st make mad. and i think that's what's happening to the united states collectively. the 2nd thing it makes me think is that you remember you earlier asked me why are there more americans here, etc. and you know, what are they afraid of? i think the same thing that makes americans afraid to come here is what is blocking that ability to see just how sick this system actually is. because they're not coming here because they're still looking for those little pieces of, you know, trill treats they will get if they don't come if they appear to conform. but the fact is that they are actually these, these things and nothing compared to the dangers they are reinforcing by not questioning the consensus invest society. and i think of course i have to say many

americans are standing up. many americans are demonstrating a many americans, a part of organizations that are spreading the, the real information rather than the disinformation but, but they're obviously a small minority. i don't know if you agree with me, but i think from better or worse, this very inconsiderate or ill considered moved by the united states to introduce very, very broad sanctions against russia and penalize the rest of the world. as a consequence, it produces certain a very strong result and resentment among the 3rd countries. and you can hear them both and the vall, that for my i sense it in many of my interviews, do you think that's enough for, for producing n e n? no practical change when the countries of the won't will say that in the global economy belongs to all of us, and it's ultimately not to one country to decide how we're supposed to leave and there who are we supposed to deal with? well, i think if you look at what's happening, you know,

when the united states demanded that everybody should impose sanctions on russia, everybody should support ukraine, et cetera. a small number of countries, essentially the old imperialist score of the world economy, plus a few added hangings on like the eastern european, some eastern european countries, i should say. but beyond that, the basic and the vast majority of the peoples of the world and the people of the world have refused to support the united states, what we are entries. and i should also add, by the way, that the europeans, whose governments are currently cooperating seem to be bent on economic suicide as everybody can see that economies are being destroyed as a result of complying with us demands. so even the so called a lion, this idea that somehow suddenly president biden has found a way of uniting the best. this is not true, it is creating new cracks in the european union. it is creating new cracks in the alliance. is that the, you know, that pro american alliances and it is creating cracks within european societies is

going to sharpen political contradictions in them. so that's a 2nd thing. so basically what we are increasingly looking at is, okay, europe is and certainly still clinging to the united states. but increasingly, the rest of the world is going to look elsewhere for the economic relationships and the economic models that they wish to have. and that will be more towards china, russia and other such countries. and i feel that we are in now looking at a new bipolar world. but you know, in the all bipolar world you had 2 sets of societies that were all reasonably prosperous and reasonably stable. this new bi polarity is more dangerous because on the one hand you have the western, a poll, which is increasingly unit possessed, not only of collective madness, but the material basis of that is economic decline. and along with its social division, political division, cultural degeneration, et cetera. and on the other hand, you have

a set of societies that have the possibility and in many cases, the reality of greater stability, a greater prosperity. so i would say that a, the weaker side in the madness site is going to potentially create a lot of problems. so that is the key danger in the world. that's why we're entering this dangerous world. we have to take a very short break right now, but we will discuss that particular danger in a few moments stationed. ah ah ah

welcome back to windsor parts with radical decide professor at the department of political studies and director of the geopolitical economy research group at the university of manitoba professor decide before the break when we were talking about the potential dangers and that the world is facing right now, and i was recently reading through the ladder, is that nikita khrushchev and john of kennedy exchange during the cuban missile crisis. because we are marking the 60th anniversary of this month. and i was trying to pay the sense so far share the responsibility. both leaders expressed the desire for negotiations and called on each other to demonstrate some sort of state wisdom . i think that was a direct quote from crucial. do you see that same sentiment all for sharon's, you to not only before your own people but also before the rest of the world

expressed these days? absolutely not. and this is obvious at so many levels. so 1st of all, let's say in terms of, and by the way, i would say that it's the west that does not display the same set, same sense of responsibility. so 1st of all, they are fighting. all of these was in the name of democracy and human rights, but in fact, what they're doing is extremely unpopular beaches. vice president biden is going to lose the mid term elections, or his democrats are going to lose them into molecular unless it is used some tricks up their sleeve. well, maybe, but we'll have to see. and in which case, i think the other side is not going to sit quietly aside. so we will have another civil war like situation in the united states. then at the international level, the central responsibilities absolutely absent in at least 2 or 3 different ways. number one, russia is being demonized in a way and not mr. booted russians are being demonized. and this is something really scary. you are deal now using a nation of nearly a 150000000 people. has a group like what kind of a thing is that i thought we left that behind with the,

with the demonization, the hip, that's the demonization of jews, etc. so that's the 1st thing and that's really scary. the 2nd thing is that the biden administration is basically out to and they don't want to talk to russians and russia on the whole. i mean, i know many channels the open, but on the key points, the channels and then the hopefully express that it's below them. i mean, there is a sense of superiority that really to exactly, and that is something that our world cannot afford. so that's the 2nd danger, because, you know, remember the cold war was a heavily stage manage just as a stage member, heavily managed to fade and the 2 sites always had communication with one another. this is not so anymore. and this is why we are very, it's very dangerous. and finally, i'd like to say that there are so many problems in the, in the world, primarily climate change, but many others of that need. international cooperation. we need international

agreements to, to, to, to, to solve climate change or international terrorism or whatever problem. that's your favorite problem. you cannot have it without international cooperation and we've just undermined any basis of that. now present is, i also have to say that the military campaign that russia is waging in ukraine is also very unpopular in russia because nobody like sending their sons to the battlefield. and nobody likes being extremely worried for their relatives across the border. many of us have families in ukraine, but the biggest question i think for the russian political establishment is whether they had any other choice of stopping a very arrogant and i would say, very ignorant. i had gentlemen who ignore the all the premise efforts off i solving this issue diplomatically. i'm not asking you to take rush aside, but i'm sort of trying to rely on your academic expertise and geopolitical expertise

to see what means were there thrushes disposal to put an end to this constant pushing by then by the united states? well, i thing like in the, so 1st for my position is that no matter what you think of russia and i have to say in my case, i do try to follow the war and its conduct as much as possible. and my understanding is that there are not that many choices for russia between fall of 2021 and early 2022. the russians did everything possible to try to achieve a negotiated settlement to their concerns. but this was not given to them by the west. so having said that, i would say that the russians are kind of doing what they're doing. and a, to me, the most important thing is that should need tool, which is basically the force that is at war in the united states, which is the other major force that is at war with russia through ukraine. should they win this war? it would be a disaster for the world. so it seems to me that once again, like in the 2nd world war, the russians are going to pay

a disproportionate price for world peace. and it's very unfortunate, and i totally sympathize with everybody who has relatives on the front to his body about their children going to the front. i think obviously this is terrible, but i think that if nato wins this war, which it is fighting extremely irresponsibly including well, there are 2 things that i should say irresponsibly. but with the support of fascists in your, in ukraine. and in a way that is actually destroying ukraine, while claiming to stand for ukraine. i find that, you know, we are living in an orwellian world where everything is, it's opposite what people are saying. and what is really happened was our authorities are seeing and was really happening could not be further upon. but even in their raylynn world, you don't have claims of a potential use of nuclear bombs. and this is something that is very much on in the focus of the russian officials, lately they've reached out to the american british turkish,

french colleagues. fearing that there could be some provocation involving a staged explosion of a don't and wrong. and they were essentially dismissed without any interest in the technicalities of the intelligence that they had to they could provide. what does it tell you about the stage of this conflict and the stakes involved? because one can, you know, the argument that here from the russian side is that right radiation, there was no borders or if there, if there is a, an incident that will affect all of us and it would be a major escalation. it would be extremely difficult to sort of put that genie back into the bottom bottle. why do you think there's so little sort of self preservation in things in the west, at least in europe? well, i mean, i've thought about this a lot. i've listened to various sites before the present, a russian attempt to try to get best and power to pay attention to the possibility of this dirty bomb. there were a couple of other things. remember,

the western countries were saying, all russia is going to use tactical nuclear weapons in the back of philly. and before that, there was this whole issue of who was bombing, does that bro, she a nuclear power plant? so i think we have a lot of really irresponsible actors that play on the other side. on the western side, on the ukrainian side. number 2, i would say that it's important to remember that historically the united states is not only the only country to have used nuclear weapons without any reason to do so . it's not true that they needed to be used to stop japan. there was absolutely no and, and americans, scholars have shown this. so they're the only country in the world to have used nuclear weapons. they have driven the nuclear arms race. they have been offensive. they have never accepted, no 1st use. and they have also be known to have used radioactive weapons in wars. so they are the ones i feel that they have been creating. first of all, they have been spreading stories about potential russian use, spreading stories about potential russian of tax on nuclear power plants. these are

4 stories in order that they may prepare the ground for essentially launching a false flag operation. you mentioned that the united states was the only country that used the nuclear weapons before, but it's also has a very painful experience of supporting certain proxy forces. and them being attacked by those very proxy forces and the other day. russia's foreign minister spokeswoman compare legitimacy. lensky to bin laden, saying that he's actually even more dangerous, because he has the, the power of the state of his hands. and he also has access to pretty dangerous technology. and what are the chances do thing? and again, it's hard to say, but based on the knowledge of history, do you think there's any chance the ukrainian leadership after not getting what they want from the west will turn against it in the same manner that the sun i'm in love and gosh, i actually haven't listened to that to a interview myself,

but i have personally made a similar analogy. you see what happened in ukraine over the last many months? is that not only do they have new, not c, supporting the government going back to 2014. but now most of the opposition is gone, so they're basically reliant on these extremely new, essentially neo nazi forces. in addition to that, they have issued a call for other people who think like the as of battalion to come and fight with them. i'm not sure how successful it's been, but whatever success it's had. now you have an international brigade of essentially fascist forces who are fighting on the side of ukraine. this is not unlike the creation of al qaeda and which i had dean and so on. so on the, the model is the same, you essentially attract people on the basis of a really reactionary ideology. and you know, in the kind of sick world in which we live. there are always some people in every society who will be attracted to these ideologies. and so they're encouraging the worst aspects of our society. and i suppose, i mean, you know, this is

a frightening thought. if it is, if, as i believe is quite likely ukraine is mr. zelinski is not going to get what he claims he's going to get, which is, you know, the restoration of the old ukraine, including crimea. i mean, this is completely, you know, to completely nuts. and in fact, everybody who is for peace should be, should be telling him that this is not going to be possible. but anyway, if he does not get, i have no idea what will happen. and certainly this is among the possibilities of what could happen because who is going to control this force, or if the state authority collapses, or even if it doesn't collapse, the state of florida is tries to use it against other forces. i think within the russian culture in doing governing culture, there is a certain respect for the enemies in an understanding that you need to accommodate your enemies, interest, free own sake, to preserve peace, medium or long term. and what puzzles me is why something like that is

lacking on the american all for that reason, the in the ukrainian side because he like russia, whatever you think of it is a huge country with an enormous military potential. you use it. we talked about rationality, you saw here it to make those analysis. i mean, this is this, it goes back to what i said earlier, because american blood is not being spilled russian. russia is spilling its own blood in order to, you know, essentially achieve its. but i think they're fairly limited military object is i don't think russia is out to take all of give unless of course, something changes and it is forced to, you know, all of ukraine unless something changes and it is forced to do so. but i don't think that was the aim at the start, but the russians they, they are. and as far as i know, by the way, the conduct of the war is broadly speaking, you know, many of the so called retreats for example, have been undertaken in order to ensure that there is no excessive loss of life on the, on the opposite side. however, you have the mirror image, you have a,

essentially, a, essentially an army which is into putting on a show of going to war a. so there is a lot of smoke and mirrors on their part. and they seem to also have an army leadership that wants to defend undependable positions, even if it sacrifices a lot of life. so they're going to give the americans when the americans one year, you know, winning television image, exactly sunday. so that, you know, in the waste this completely, shall we say, completely nuts type of strategic behavior on the part of those who are governing the ukranian army is portrayed as bravery. this is ludicrous. armies don't need this sort of bravery. what armies need is cool, collected decision making about where it is, where it is a reasonable and where it is advantageous to fight, and where it is advantageous to withdraw from. can you or not in this to, you know, when some kind of a psychiatric, victor, you're in this to been a real victory. well, has to do so. we have to live in there,

but let's hold the world to still be in place for the next year. well, they're meeting, hopefully we'll talk some other time. thank you very much. and thank you for watching hope to see her again and well to part with the conflict in ukraine is turned into a test of wills and endurance. and as such, escalation is part of the couch with this is what makes this conflict so dangerous . when nato escalates russia react accordingly. and we know now american boots are

on the ground. what could go wrong with the critical you are a rough up or both to determine the composition of congress and that the majority of states, governors, price, inflation, an abortion rights among, with the communities $1000.00, a violent extremism, flourishing on social media with terrorist groups recruit the young people, while online packed for algeria has a 50 applied to join the bricks, economic group, the african gas, i'd say that they have finalized all necessary measures necessary for members.