war was over, the soviet union had them concurrent and history had ended for russian people. it was a time of active hardship, humiliation, and disorientation that 2 decades to overcome fast forward to 2022 and rapid change is back with somewhat reversed roles. russia is now confident and the united states is divided. can the q ever reach a balance of january and when, when? well, to discuss that, i'm now joined from brussels by gilbert, dr. off on the international affairs analyst, mr. dr. if it's great to talk to thank you very much for your time. thanks ready. now i know that you were living in this country when the soviet union was collapsing and had that the amazing opportunity of seeing history development front of your own eyes. to the extent that the events of the past years seemed like the past century bygones. i wonder with such conditioning

a pretty rare conditioning. how are you taking this year so far? good thing the the speed and the scale of changes is more or less dramatic than what you so i back in the 90 ninety's. well, there is no question, but there is a similarity here in the way a main street main sprig. clark is allowed to release itself after having been held locked in position for many years. in the case of ranching right is the main st main spray was locked for 70 years. here it has been locked for a brief period, but nonetheless, we're seeing an energy change, drama, and change. that is a historic and it is more controlled when it is more conscious than what happened in the attic. 1990 each. and in this sense. yeah, russia is knowingly willingly taking on a role in changing the world daughter around the principal multi priority. now,

using based matters more of the main spring, one could argue that the more in control, the more it's suppressed, the had the foster and the more forceful will be rebound. using this analogy, where do you seeing the events leading now both and the relation between russian, the west and war globally? well, there changes at all levels, including changes within russia and the balance of power in russia. between conservatives and liberals, that has been dramatically changed. the balance between russia and the west is something we see in the dynamic every day. it has many different vectors. it's vision would be the question of the dollarization, the question of the g industrialization of europe. and it's fading roland world compared to russia's comparative stability and intended growth through

a re industrialization. these are processes that are very much in evidence and use evidence in the, in the daily news the need. as regards the global balance, russia has, has clearly won the interests and attraction of the global south them to there have been dramatic changes in world diplomacy that are swept to the sides of our western mainstream, but occasionally reemerge and attract some interests that have in mind the, the changes in the middle east, the changes in relationships between the united states and iran, or western european iran versus russia's growing strategic alliance for the run and rushes. repro spoke to increasing be important to operation with saudi arabia. it's expensive that countries 5060 years, close ties with united states. these are issues that come into the numbers there.

this is which i'll tell us that he gobblers changing in ways that we'll, we'll do it. we'll see, roll out for decades to come over now, and i think it would agree with me that the speed of change is now being expedited by the russian military operation in ukraine. and perhaps consciously saw at least the, you know, the, the analysts and the decision makers that i sometimes talk to here in moscow make no secret about that. russia also makes no secret about the fact that its main grievance in this whole conflagration with the west was the balance of power and the balance of security in europe reached in the west. the usually looked through the lines of russia, imperial ambitions. i wonder if that's how you see the rush of main motive as this insatiable hunger for more territory and more influence over its immediate neighborhood. the fundamental thing that i see russia was

and remains the reactive power and the basic posture and just not had aggressor or looking for them on the country. much discussions taking place in public station watching over the value or the cost of the empire that was held under the name of the sub material. and there is very little appetite moscow to go back to those relationships, which from the standpoint of much very costly russians, national activities at that time will disbursement side very little. on the profit side, the rushes relations with savers is, has a core idea buffers buffer zones, and security, security for every not conquest and additional new territory, which normally would come as

a cost of political stability within russia itself. now as a russian, i can clearly understand why moscow felt extremely anxious about one of its neighbor after another being courted and then drawn into nathan. but i wonder what is it on the western side that makes one washington and it's l. a . c, rush as an adversary given that until february this year. and i think, to some extent, until this point, the russia has been picked and minimal to negotiations and a compromise. as i said, russia's position, the terry much of the, of this millennium has been, reacted to the aggressive expansionist position that made it is not until february 24th, taking the initiative to defend actually its own interests. and this,

this, this, this is a basis for some criticism of the kremlin, both within russia and by many russians brushes friends outside of rush. now we're considering b responsibility the kremlin, as for maintaining the world's peace. and for avoiding a nuclear war as being one of the 2 largest owners of nuclear, our nuclear stockpiles in the world. i have to understand the caution when i descend vocabulary of the russian president. so britain was words very repeatedly and speaking about this, so that international issue are careful prudent, that it guided russian a virtual. now it is something that regret of western leaders failed to comprehend or perhaps check for a witness. i given your understanding of what's inside rationale, and mister dr. let me ask you about one thing that puzzles,

many observers here in moscow and it is. and the fact that that the comment has been pretty vague about where and when i and this military operation will be seen as accomplished both territorially and in terms of my strategic interest. what do you think moscow should draw the line and how big is the threat of overreach biting? we're then now moscow can chew russia's primary interest, as i said, is the security issue that preceded the, the, the unleashing of the special military operation. that is to say, additional territory maybe desirable taking the black sea literal may be an ambition that of the kremlin, but it doesn't exist by itself. it is only in reference to the state of play in between russia and the western general and russia and whatever government the city

and the government remain in his hands, free to procure and receive arms and other support from the west. then brushes ambition of brown has to be moved further reaching the conclusion of this work is a they can acknowledgement all around the west tended kids. so that crane can be kind of remain a fortress for did i have states and nato? i brushes borders, of instead, be a neutral state. then the territorial ambitions of russia, in the special military operation will necessarily be reduced. i know that in one of your article, you mentioned that there is a possibility of not just q, but read ukraine's. how do you see the logic of it? from the beginning of a special operation to today. the conflict just as new ball changed in nature and

intensity and solutions along the way. drop off. the 33, ukraine's i don't think is a valid solution anyway for where we are today. however, a rump ukraine has to say, great, stripped of the oxy literal strips of the eastern, a bush, which constitute john barson to other of us are now going to cook. but in russia as well as additional territory, this is a likely and k the. however, if i say territory, per se, there's nothing which security which would be an insured by the neutral status of ukraine by the ability of, are ours to set up temporary or permanent military establishment on ukrainian

territory. that has to be the overall final objective of the chrome. one concern that i have about this possible scenario is that it was named the ukranian national destiny somewhat akin to the kurdish national destiny, which has long been well had a 4 countries that cost large current communities. and any ad division of people are like that is bound to produce an urge to unite that. you know, some powers may choose to capitalize upon. do you think it's really wise to sac on this conflict by sort of potentially sawing the themes of new ones? well, it depends on the nature of the agreements that are reached, not only between russia, ukraine, but with the other interested parties in this proxy war. yes, there are iron clad guarantees that there will be no assistance to rebuilding

a ukrainian army and to providing chromebooks that. but i think russia could be content. they would not face a risk and the resurgence. what you say, the research, the, the type of response is what you are measuring is likely or meet with the score continues and takes of the level and turn the sense that there's additional massive flow refugees from the great that is possible. it is not necessary, but it is possible depending on how this distraction of the energy infrastructure. christine's and whether or not we're from about the permissions and encouragement of zalinski and his regime of the ukrainian people flee their cities and that for the west, seattle of another 10000000 ukrainians across the border in the u. then the

scenario that you just described, of a, a nation diaspora seeking to reconstitute itself. it could be a realistic situation. well, but in this case, it also be that it will have to be dealing with not just russia, misson doctor. we have to take a short break right now, but we will be back in just a few moments stationed a b in there was a shad now shorter one and i'm not going to stay like going skin on union with a finance national z m

a b legible on it, when you sit on like a a ah, welcome back to wells far, smith gilbert, doctor of an international affairs analyst, mr. dr. before the break, we discussed how is essential and strategic this issue for russia. but you also mentioned that native credibility has been put on the line. and that was even before the latest incident with the remnants of a rocket falling on to the polished chair tram, killing 2 polish civilians, something the ukrainians jumped upon to reinforce that narrative,

beth rushes out to conquer and the re the free world. but a need to written ages response for now has been fairly subdued. they've not seen it. how would you explain that? well, the response of nato was given by the people who run late in washington, not in brussels. they, when we heard a couple of hours after the, the missile strike and in forward, when we heard president biden respond to report, questions embody what this was all about. and he said the from the trajectory information about because since 9 states planes in that area was clear that this missile did not come from the russian side. when he did that, he pulled the rug out. monday, not only was mister lansky, but also from those nato countries protecting the baltic states,

which had johnson as the jackals that they are to repeat and, and just so russia was to blame and that's the article for, and also the article side of the science treaty should be invoked, bringing is very close to world war 3. what we saw this bent was something extraordinary because similar incidents that occurred in the last 5 years or more. but actually going back to me and age 17 case, these false flag operations, the syria, the allegations that the syrian region had used, chemical weapons against civilians. these incidents were within minutes of their occurrence denounced from washington and brussels as

showing the malevolence, criminal nature, respected machines in moscow or in domestics. this did not happens the 1st time that venice like this just occurred when the united states put a sub to pull the plug is working backwards. it's a very good evidence that those previous events, like i think 17, which is b b c. s. for today. i'm here in europe the these events were stage managed from from washington and london. that's looking back, looking person and forward. it tells you that states is working with a war. mr. so that's good. and then we'll go and they both statements to mrs. suttonberg or washington, that yes, lessons to play. most of. secondly, because we're there raging. the behind the scenes, we're very sure that there are very right scripts because let's for trying to pull

nato into a war bridge. russia, well, it's a little because it doesn't wanna sacrifice or isn't the lives of its own soldiers . it would run the preferred to fight this war through the lives of the ukrainians . now, i agree with you totally that this is quite an extraordinary and event, and i was particularly surprised by and then one of the articles in the financial times which i expressed are undecided. anonymous diplomat from a native country in key that directly accused is the landscape flying and saying that it was more disconcerting than even the missiles. so essentially telling the ukrainian leadership that it's not ok to provoke nato in such a way. do you think i've ever reach a point when both sides of will be so irritated with

a child and that they will have to show them what then they have that common enemy, which is russian? yes. so i think the love affair with landscape is fading. arise and it's fading. and here, i think no one rationally welcome the realization implementation of article 5. no one rational wants to go into a more which russia, which has its logical outcome, nuclear exchange at the end of life on earth. and the united states in particular, and watch particular as you say, it's been very brave, but with the cranium soldiers as a bit more realistic or if you want to be unkind, cowardly, when it comes to a direct contradict with russia, i do hope the criminal takes note of that cowardice because it should be used going forward in dealings between the 2 parties. now speaking about the clement on analysis,

you've been pretty irresolute about the years and they don't roles in this country . but he also lay the blame with lodging and putting intelligence advisors and him personally for what you call a miscalculation of colossal proportions at the beginning of this operation. what did they get wrong in your view? well, i think it was quite surprising was there was, there's this rony as intelligence for information coming to the kremlin and guiding the conduct of the 1st few weeks of the war until it became manifest the clear that this would not do what was wrong was the notion, which came out of my experience in 2014, in march of that year in the, the, the procedures and proceedings on crimea, where a force of 18000 russian soldiers on the, on the peninsula matching approximately the same 800000 the premium armed forces on

slip in the serenity, the raising of the white flag by the ukrainians, by many of those ukrainians. abandoning ship literally and figuratively and joining the russian army and joined russia. while others were allowed freely to go home. when they gave up weapons that experience assessed in motion, a vision of ukraine has been very poorly organized as having very location artic levels. and that's certainly not to influence. the way that russia entered the special military operation, expecting to be met by flowers as their, as their tanks approached. nothing of the sorta ignored the h ears and indoctrination and of very heavy investment in the training that the nato has done over that period. and also be the work of dishes

propaganda. street believes across the ukraine when forced age, patriotism based on relation to russia that took, have stuck. and so the, the challenge that russia face to entering into this was different nature, then period what was expected when it again now i spoke and say a couple of russian and don last military commanders recently. and i think some of those lessons have been learned, and i think over the last couple of months, and what i'm seeing in russia is both the humbling of public rhetoric and the tightening of the, of the military operation by more focus on tactical issues on the preservation of resources, both people and weapons and the overall i focus on the actual combat rather than any chance, something propaganda. and it's almost as if the russians have given up on now,

winning the informational war. and instead they're focusing exclusively on the conventional war. do you think that that's our sort of a wise choice of priorities in this case was the old expression in english folk wisdom. that sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can't harmony and information. war is a war of words. the russians. oh, do not have the experience to not have money vested the information were submitted states and u. k in particular have, and this is not a major name, thus has material consequence. what happens on the ground in conventional warfare thus have consequences. and the same time a point to the within russia, there's also has been information and it is a war which has had consequences and has helped determine what the public mood

rushes today. as far as i understand the, the there is, can we talk about the exist of young men from russia to places like your son to avoid, but i think of the war, but there's been a very big axis within russian ministry ranks of those who were sitting on to church of those who were on closet or even open liberals in over the last 20 years and were playing brakes were slowing down. the development of a massage, genuinely, sovereign rush. those peoples of lesser ranks not entirely but largely. and the rushes moved is it is decided governed war by people who are in the recent past would have been called conservatives. and is this conservative page principle that i see and it is quite

a change. and the public announcements about the war have also changed since the middle of september, since the turn starts. the public information that i see when i watch a russian television is far more transparent and trying to say, farmer honest with the public, both the 2 states, the military affairs, and it's very good because with the whole of the reserves, this has become national more not a war of the contract soldiers, i agree with you. and i think at this point of time, we are even seeing the whole notion of conservatism being re interpreted as something that is encouraging people to stay in touch with reality. and in vast i, with the old lives in what is happening about rather than pontificating, about some abstract ideas. and i'm reminded here about this old american expression . a perception is reality, which in fact was introduced by one of the republican spin doctors. and we asked

whether concerned as an, as an advisor to run a reagan and help him win those elections. and i think ever since the american public life and the american policy to a large extent is based on that mantra and ukrainians are very eager to sort of reinforce. and that percept is reality. that's my than investing so much in the propaganda ephra than various falls narrative. but i think that a decision has been made in the kremlin and by pushing personally when he called the united states, the pyre flies that he wants to introduce a new sort of. i'm sort of a new attitude towards reality and the respectful reality as it is. it's an ontological and philosophical question. but the thing russia has enough resources, not only financially, but i would say, an intellectual or spiritual resources to you know, prove that point. and to reintroduce reality, as it is and realism, as, as

a way of doing politics in the world will going to realism is all too good. you spoke about perceptions that is up to date. it took it back to, to ronald reagan were living in the age of furniture. that is your father removed from what is under your feet. so they're not suffering from that infatuation with virtual reality. and from being cut off from the reality around from like, we are create and where's what rushes moving precisely. that direction. charged realism and full appreciation of the challenge that you faced and not covering a home the rest of the world also find some bird sure. in that mr. dr. if we have to live in there, but it's been great talking to you. thank you very much for this conversation. my pleasure. thank you for watching folk to sara again. well,

the part ah with mm ah. so what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy foundation, let it be in arms. race is on often very dramatic development only personally and getting to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very difficult time to sit down and talk with

business and you will clean with that was chosen. yeah, americans great. you. when you wrote it, you just got to really just such an article and i was hearing it for you was just such a short it was nice talking to different student info with you throw in the with them on the phone and you're still there with yours. that are both in the study school does not restrict meaningful choice thought it was a community or not all thought it which, which no longer interested in useful, not for the push to, to stream remote because or lose new or your course load. you school, of course, i don't know who's got i know for the don't know is that just to begin with who used to play in finances come on

both. he's with our parliament is saturated with unconditional case was russia, these parliament will support any measure that goes against most of those policies, even if it will not bring any benefit. the sponsors of least resolution want to push us to war. members of the european parliament condemn a resolution to brand russia as a state sponsor of terrorism, warning it will only serve to increase tension and a warning. our next story has been disturbing. images had with the united nations now says the videos are $4.00 to $3.00 executed are highly likely to be authentic.