respectful, i get why the b b c have opened their world cup broadcasting with a condemnation of cat on human rights record. but i don't remember them doing that when china hosted the olympics written don't have much of them all standing to be judging others, considering its own colonial history of the united states. mexico and canada are going to be joint hosts of the 2026. walcott will be c, be during world war coverage of the united states is atrocious. human rights record, the racist and brutal police. deeply corrupt political establishment. will they be focusing on canada? which of course, earlier this year launched and i'm trusted into virtual cracked out on dissidence binding peoples and blocking people bank accounts and taking away. busy that a truck is in charge times to keep this double standards them. these of many see it's frankly braces, politics out of sport. the interesting feature is to be see how that exact same energy they do. it seems forecastle. that's where we leave the global use,

run up for know a busy news hour and i'll be here all the help to bring you that very like this is where i lose the use. ah, america has made nationalism back demonizing putting a your country 1st. even though it was built on the basis of it has now become

a political so pop, which can even land someone in the same category as being racist homophobic. prentice met at the formation of groups like nato or the world health organization are leading the world down a very familiar path. one which could possibly in world war 3. but this is not the goal of all countries. china is putting himself 1st and seeing their country grow. switzerland refuses to become involved in world affairs. breakfast, it was the outcome of the u. k. trying to put themselves 1st. now leading into the movement is a scotland. it was actually trying to re establish its own identity all with a push for independence from u. k. even though some would argue it, could it so that it can rejoin the you? i'm sky now hughes, on this edition of 360 view, we're going to find the answer on its nationalism, deserves the bad name. and if the goal of reducing pride in one's own country is

more about preparing the citizens to accept their global play. ah, is a nationalism being taught as evil in today's society? what turns out it just depends on who you ask or international correspond. roxana solano finds out. if nationalism is dead or saving the countries embrace it. study to begin to discuss nationalism. we had to start with explaining globalism in world war 2, we saw the negative effects of nationalism as nancy, germany use it as an excuse to eliminate the use it alice wish to unify the country with nationally same in the 19 hundred's lead to the dictatorship rule of mussolini nationalism is defined as the support for your nation's interest,

even if it comes at the detriment of other countries or people. however, in world war 2, hitler in nazi germany and rosaline in italy turned the idea of nationalism into believing one race or people of one country are superior to another. what was once having pride injured country, became tainted by war and geno site countries fell to fight discrimination. they had to adopt a globalist identity. we saw the implementation of organizations like nato, w, h o, and the united nations. globally, some can be defined as the banding together of countries to share ideas, medical advancement, trade of natural resources, and homogeneous immigration policy. has the world over reacted trying to make up for the scenes of the past. now we're seeing the united states and that you go in

the opposite direction with globalism. the u. s. open border policy has led to political rift in the country. that european union president of asserting redford is from anywhere, has put britain to a breaking point. according to peer research, this led to the rise of leader, a slight boris johnson and donald trump, as people began to feel left behind. the research also did a study showing western countries in europe and the united states feel in order to combat racism and discrimination. they must adapt a more inclusive identity during their surveys. peer research found many people mislabeled discrimination as nationalism lead in many countries. to not only adapt a more globalist approach, but also have less pride in their own country. but these views mainly the fur along party lines. when comparing the u. k, u. s, france and germany, those identify as conservative,

are 3 times more likely to say they are proud of their country most of the time. compared to those on the left who lean more liberal on the other side of the world, people in india were surveyed to high attached religion and language to their feeling of nationalism. while india has dozens of different languages. the research found, 2 thirds of hindu indians felt not only practicing the hinder religion, but also speaking hinder, are very important to be truly consider indian other groups including 47 percent of muslims, also agree, speaking keen though is what makes a person. indian chinese taking many steps to teach nationalism in schools. not only are student learning to love their country, but china's education ministry has made up plan to ramp up physical education classes and hire more male teachers to give boys a masculine influence. china is trying to educate boys in hopes of aspiring

a new generation of soldiers to protect them in an invasion. meanwhile, the polarized lack of nationalism in america is actually attributing to record lot recruitment rates in all branches of the u. s. military. while some countries are running from nationally seem others are embracing the idea of food in their countries need 1st, for 360 view, and brooke, center salon all history shows the dangers of nationalism in the past. germany and italy has the world over corrected. now, china is putting themselves 1st at all cost and reaping the benefits. meanwhile, the u. s. who for 4 years did have in america 1st policy is now aligning with organizations who go against everything. the united states was actually built on america joined as a founding member of the north atlantic treaty organization, or nato,

all back in 1949 during the cold war to form alliance with other countries seeking protection from the soviet union. now nato was originally supposed to be disbanded after the fall of soviet russia in 1991. as ukraine looks to join nato, this could very well lead to world war 3. americans now vowing to protect a country. most americans couldn't even point out on a map. 6 months ago, ukraine's bed to join nato has garnered animosity from turkey in russia all to launch an attack. as united states pours itself into conflict, should we actually be taking the lead from other countries like china, and putting ourselves 1st. robert ross is a professor of political science at boston college and associate at the center for chinese studies at harvard university and joins us to talk about nationalism in today's world. thanks for joining us, professor ross. hi, pleasure. ok. let's start with an organization like nato, as

a whole. have we learned nothing from the former ally and access powers and history? well, i do think that we are facing russian intentions, important intention to use force to advance russian power in europe. the question is how we respond is the appropriate way to respond as to be thought. the american president, a ground force present in europe, is the appropriate way to respond to expand 8 o 2 and sweetie. these are the issues at the bay, but there is no question that russia is changing the map of post code where you are to the detriment of nato allies that caused some response, at least some response to russian activities in the ukraine expansion russian power . but is there a reason for nato today? i mean, originally when that union was formed, it was meant to disband, and yet we have seen that not only not happen, we have seen more and more funds be poured into it. with united states having the most china actually has continued to grow by not being involved in those types of

partnerships. so who hasn't. right. and who has it wrong with the case responding to the ukraine there where we can be grateful that nato still exists or there's an organization with united states to participate in to respond to russian activities and ukraine. whether united states should be taking the lead in nato, whether it should be the frontline and resisting russian activities or whether to be friend, answer germany or great britain or other country. that is a bait that's in question the united states should the united states be focusing impact hillary in europe, the detriment of its presence in europe are attending. i'd say you to front once you're right. the chinese certainly are more restrained in international affairs. they are focused on the stager and expanding your influence and undermining american presence in the states. do that and they're building a very large navy with one focus in mind. and that's the state. the challenge united states is we're so active in civil wars, syria,

yemen throughout the middle east. and now we're involved with activities in europe to resist soviet activities near cray. can united states be involved in all these hostility and focus on asian simultaneously? that's the fundamental question facing american security policy. one that's very interesting because, you know, after this disastrous pull out that we've seen in afghanistan is seen, this administration was going to focus on putting america 1st. i mean, did we learn our lesson and not get involved with other countries politics, as you mentioned, there's multiple theaters that the u. s. is involved in right now. that doesn't necessarily have a direct correlation with american security. so does america really gain more from being a part of nato than to stand our own? i mean, do we actually think nato would come to the u. s. as defense on our soil? if ever challenged, they are certainly came to american defense quite with great commitment falling on the web. so yes, if they went to say that was in afghanistan, when we know the saudi arabia was the one that was behind 911. so was that really

target offense? if you're asking about neo and wouldn't it america wonder under attack with a come to our defense and they did come door defense. they did fight nap garrison. so yes, and the answer to the question is yes, they would. so again, the question is not much leather, the russians to pose a challenge to american security. because of course, since $776.00 american security is dependent on developments and you're as much as they have. and then the question is, how forward should america be in the more forward america is less likely you will see the french, the germans, the british step up and defend their interests in europe by themselves, america, seeing who it cannot do multiple wars and multiple regions simultaneously. the fundamental challenge is china major. now understand we have an interest in asia to is not in stronger than our contemporary interest in europe. but the russians are less powerful and less of a threat to america. so it's america 1st, but what is 1st for america? it is defending american interest in asia and our relationship with japan and other

countries there who are vital to american security interest in the state will be interesting to see if china does decide to go an aggressively in a stage. if they decide to go in and how nato will respond to feel, consider them to be an ally. but it's not only in regard to the military. it's also a regard to the pandemic, because another organization, the world health organization, really botched the way and handle the coven 19 pandemic across the globe. it did not properly, i think, investigate china's claims. initially. the disease could not transfer between humans. surprise, we've learned a can and advised against restricting travel from countries which actually could have slow the initial spread. and there seems to be this lack of transparency about finding the origin cove itself. labs are looking more and more suspect president donald trump ever ties with who present bite and rejoined on day one and office should america continue to pump money into an organ? is this organization that some say actually exist really just to serve china and

it's interest? well, we should not be surprised that the w t o is a political organization for obviously they operate in international park. and if they want access to other countries, whether it's in africa, whether south asia, whether there's latin america, to promote health, global health, which america has an interest in, they are going to have to work with local governments, with the local government to find the w t o hostile to their interest, they can't get into those countries. so it's a w t o political of course, they are no more, no less than any other international organization. whether it's the un, whether it is the map, whether it's the w, t o, all international organizations or political, including the world health organization. now you're absolutely right. the chinese will, less than parents. they were slow to respond. in those circumstances, we want the w t o in trying to learn as much as they can, even though it's not as much as we like. is core more beneficial. so i'm active, which i rather have no access. so in that, in these circumstances,

should we be part of the w h o after holy, because they're not only involved in china, revolves in africa, as we well know. we don't want americans to become sick from cove it. we must prevent the spread of coven around the world, because it was 1st occurs in africa, or india, or japan, or china. it will ultimately end up in the united states. american health is a global issue, and the w h. o is far better to deal with global health issues. it's simply the united states acting alone. well, that is one thing that we have learned from the pandemic is how quickly one thing can spread and how quickly can come over. but obviously, transparencies important. now, china is a country, i think that we can universal agree put themselves 1st. the government cut all the red tape for buildings and continues to erect cities really honestly without much care to the environment, even though they say they do. china continues to gain a larger influence in the world as it takes over america's spot as a world power, but also their education. they are taught to love their country is one of china's

main goals right now is to raise the next generation, not only of citizens, but soldiers. is china success with nationalism something that other country should mirror or is this potentially going to far? well, the unity of the chinese people behind their government is clearly a strain. and no last decade or so, the united states become increasingly polarized, with many people believe in the american democracy in the united states. americans believe this or democracy is illegitimate. and so we have to ask ourselves, what is causing this polarization in america rather than coming together to address national problems into some extent. this polarization reflects us government policy, leadership, policy, leadership, speech and speak to some members of congress, members in the senate who are resisting, creating a unified perspective, legitimacy of american institutions. so you can say part of the problem is china and how to use the again, the system, but don't promise us leadership congress and send it disparage american democracy

you undermine or institution. and that creates as much polarization and the absence of unity as anything else in this country. well, professor ross, i just hope that we could actually encourage more unity and courage. the good that's in the united states where so many times we focus on the bad. i think that would pay a good role in a future society. thank you so much for joining us and sharing your insight. thank you. now after the break, we're going to look at a brack said and the current status. and if the boat without the day, would the nationalist is still have the power to pass that when we come back, ah, ah, ah, crane will never be a victory for russia. we solution to what you're still waiting much really new modem, but you look at a meal. ukraine, more is a proxy war. this is

a war between russia and the united states. mezzo mom made. it comes to know she kept them in carbon dioxide. america forces are and you're not in your engage in conflict with russian for use. american forces are here and defend nato allies with nato escalades even more than discussion. military operations become a war when you what bills have so that was the dealership and that was a 1000 is my story. i see it that i see your to us. thank you. costliest. go to me with so i use please be sure you can use stuff to with almost them with home when you're still finished covering the sewage. no speaker for a girl who's l. look forward to talking to you all that technology should work for people. a

robot must obey the orders given by human beings except where such order that conflict with the 1st law show your identification. we should be very careful about artificial intelligence. and the point obviously is to create trust rather than fear with various job with artificial intelligence, somebody with a robot must protect its own existence with ah, welcome back to you. 360 view i'm. it's got a know he's now brooks. it took over national headlines as a britain tried to sever ties with the european union. now it looks like scotland

is following their lead. so discuss, we want to bring an economist, dr. richard. well, thanks for joining me, dr. wolf. glad to be here. now. thank you. ok, well, i want to hold off on scotland for a moment. i want to start with bracket. you know, this was the original. i'm putting my country 1st plan as a britain voted to exit the you. now this would prevent the united kingdom from having to pay the european union as was limit who can easily travel between the countries. now the sentiment was jumpstart by a string of terrorism attacks in england. and this form of nationalism allowed bring to protect themselves. so do you see this form of nationalism leading other countries to break out of packs, such as the e, u, nato, and even the united nations? absolutely, nationalism can go both ways. it always has, historically, it has been progressive, assuming we all agree on what that means roughly, and it has been regressive or reactionary. it depends on who's making use of it for

what purpose. so for example, with briggs it, there you had a group of politicians, a conservative party that had been in office for a while, and that was looking that it was going to lose its position. england's situation since 2002008 has been declined by every important measure. and so a winning of the conservative is led by mister boris johnson decided that kind of nationalism would allow the conservative party to hold on. and they were right. they guessed, politically correctly. they went on a chair and they forced the vote, which they decided to have. and then they were often broke, broke away from europe. i don't think anyone, including most of the people who supported it, would today tell you with enthusiasm that they were right. there's

a lot of debate in london to say the least about whether that was and a political mistake. and by the same token, on the other side, you have ukraine or places like that, that are trying to go in a very different political direction. but seeing nationalism in their context as a way to do that. so scotland is pushing again yet in another direction, located not so many days ago, the republican party meeting in texas insisted on making a statement that they reserve the right for texas to secede from the united states . so the notion of a nationalism defined at various different levels, whether it be a region like scotland or texas or a whole country, i think you're going to be seeing nationalism played with by all the political

sides over the immediate future in lots of ways. we, we will find surprising, you know, dr. wolf, i love that you look at this and both ways. on one hand, you have nationals and causing people to separate from the bigger organization. on the other hand, you have it causing to want to join the big organization. it's amazing to think if the present time situations between the pandemic and obviously the war in ukraine if that same vote breakfast held today if it would have the same results. but i do want to look at the scotland rolling all of this, 52 percent of people in britain voted in favor of breck sit back in 2016, 38 percent of scotch voters, actually wanting to join their british counterparts and breaking away from the usa was not scotland is supportive this now scotland once their population out of control of their own future and is paying a vote on becoming an independent country. all this is scheduled for october of 2023. what does scotland have to gain by declaring independence? and do you see this vote being more about having to join the you as the number one

leading factor? i think what you're seeing in scotland is 2 things coming together. the and i'll try to be polite here, the animosity felt by large portions of the scottish people toward the british, the english is very old and runs very deep. so all the politicians in scotland have known for a long time their whole lives that this is a very powerful reality that could be tapped in the past. it was kept under wraps because the british empire would not allow their to be the thing to go anywhere. and the pressure from london was always weary economic center. you could never make it on your own, given the size of scotland, given where england's whole economy is developed without scotland having its own

reality within it. what has changed now? is that brags it opens up the space to break away and what the scotts could do is cut a deal with the rest of europe, go the other direction. and then you'd have the irony, that part of the british uh, united kingdom, expressed its nationalism by breaking away from europe. whereas another part of the united kingdom, scotland expressed it's nationalism by reconnecting and becoming part of the e u. that kind of a scottish break away? well, that's a very different story and could be imagined economically in a way that kind of going it along. literally, that's a hard sell to get even to the, to the people there. when dr. off as the economic environment continue to decline in your becomes more strain,

it will be interesting to see when countries going to self preservation mode for themselves rather for the entire entity doctor, i've always great to talk to thanks for joining me. my pleasure. thank you. 10, so when has it become wrong for the people of a country to not have pride in their homeland now granted, having too much pride to be just as dangerous as germany showed us in world war one and 2. however, if you tell a good person, they are bad enough times at some point, they begin to believe it and even act like it. the same can also be if you turn entire nation, they should not be proud of their history, their present, or what their future looks like. they eventually will believe it. even more convincing is a fact that it is coming from the leadership of that country. that ironic part is what a society should do when they're being told by their leaders. they are not good is hold those leaders accountable and ask why the leaders are not motivating or

creating an environment for the people to be their best. but this is the only way the world a lead can get the strongest of nations to agree to a global agenda. why else would you want to involve yourself unless you were being deceived? to think you were less and you were at the mercy of others for help. a country being its very best does not automatically cause it to be a detriment to another. the more self sustaining and successful a country can be on its own, the better it is for everyone else moving forward, it might be those nationalists to exist within a country who might be the best and only hope for preserving its existence in the future. it has been part one of our series on nationalism come back next time to discuss how nationalism is specifically affecting economies around the world and sky. now he's, if you're free to give you up today's world news. morale, thanks for watching. ah huh.

ah ah ah ah ah! for only one main thing is important for knox ism internationally speaking to that is that nations that's allowed to do anything, all the mazda races, and then you have the mind, the nations who are the slaves. americans, brock, obama and others have had

a concept of american exceptionalism. and international law exist as long as it serves american interest. if it doesn't, it doesn't exist by turning those russians into this. danger is boy, man that wants to take over the world. that was a culture strategy and walked out of it on your own. i not leashed off in zebulon and tablet block. nato said it's ours. we moved east. the reason us, hey jim, it is so dangerous. is it deny the sovereignty of the countries? the exceptionalism that american uses and its international war planning is one of the greatest threats to the populations of different nations. if nato, what disbanded shareholders in united states and elsewhere in large obs companies would lose millions and millions or is business and business is good. and that is

the reality of what we're facing, which is fashion. with a british law enforcement official in charge of fighting organized, crime warns that masses of weaponry being that ukraine could find their way back to the u. k. in the of the terrorists both have coming up on the program with en route. going to be load the coordinates provided with but by an rti cru, observes russian artillery positions within close range of ukrainian force. is them in persistent attacks like he has the military and the new gals republic. i'm a are to be essentially because it's still go against our national interest on very foreign minister. it's russia and say ideology doesn't hate home.