a time of rapid change, but they are not saved. the cold war was over and the soviet union had been concurrent and history had ended for russian its 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 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 for having. i know that you were living in this country when the soviet union was collapsing and had that amazing opportunity of seeing history development front of your own eyes to the extend, 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 years 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 german change that is a historic and it is more controlled when they're just more conscious than what happened in the attic. 1990. and in this sense, yeah, russia is knowingly willingly taking on

a role in changing the world daughter around the principle of multi priority. now, using the matter floor of the main spring, one could argue that the more it's controlled, 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 in the relations between russian, the west and war globally? well, there changes at all levels, including changes within russia and the balance of power. then russia, between conservatives and liberals, has been dramatically changed. the balance between russia and the west is something we see in the dynamic every day. the content has many different vectors. his vision clear would be the question of the dollarization, the question of the g industrialization of europe. and it's fading rolling 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 read, as regards the global balance, russia has, has clearly won the interest and attraction of the global sounds them to there have been traumatic changes in world diplomacy that are strapped to the sides of our western mainstream. but occasionally reemerged 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 stub, and increasing be important to operation with saudi arabia, it's expensive that countries 5060 year, close ties with states. these are issues that come into the nurse there. this is

which are tell us that the global was changing and waste that will, we will 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 sometimes talk to you 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 at which in the west is usually look through the lines of russia, imperial ambitions. i wonder if that's how you see the russians main motive as these insatiable hunger for more territory and more influence over its immediate

neighborhood. the fundamental thing that i see was russia was and remains a reactive power and basic caution. and just not had aggressor or looking for them on the country, much discussions taking place in public station, russia over the value for the cost of the empire that was held under the name of the signature. and there is a must have to go back to those relationships which from the standpoint of we are very closely russians national. i to visit that time. brutal on the just person side. and very little on the profit side of the rushes relations with the status is. and that has a core idea of buffers, buffer zones and security security for every not conquest and additional the territory, which only would come with the cost of sweat,

equal stability within russia. now as a russian, i can clearly understand why moscow felt extremely anxious about one of its neighbour after another being courted and then drawn into nathan. but i wonder what is it on the western side that makes washington and it's alley? see russia as an adversary given that until february this year. and i think, to some extent, until this point, russia has been pretty minimal to negotiations and a compromise. as i said, rush is position. and during much of the of this millennium has been reacted to the aggressive extension this position that made it has not until february 24th taken 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, asked for maintaining the world's peace. and for avoiding a nuclear war as being one of the 2 largest owners of nuclear are 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 mr. dr. let me ask you about one thing that puzzles, many observers here in most k and it is and the fact 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 them on and how big is the threat of overreaching, biding? why then? moscow can chew? well, russia's primary interest, as i said, is the security issue that preceded the all the, and the unleashing of the special military operation. that is to say, no 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 is sitting in tive if that government remain keeps his hands free to procure and receive arms and other support from the west then brushes ambition of ground has to be sure the reaching is the conclusion of this war is a, make an acknowledgement all around the west centered can so that a crate cannot be, cannot remain a, a fortress for united states and nato at brushes, borders of instead, be a neutral state, then the territorial ambitions of russia in the special military operation. melissa, certainly he reduced. i know that in one of your articles he mentioned that there is a possibility of not just q, but. a we ukraine's how do you think the launch commit from the

beginning of a special operation to today? the conflict is as new, both changed in nature and intensity, and solutions along the way. drop off the $33.00, ukraine's. i don't think this is a valid solution anyway for where we are today. however, a rump ukraine, that is to say great stripped of the, the black sea literal stripped of the eastern, a bush, which constituted on boston to other of us that have now been incorporated 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 our hours to set up temporary or permanent military establishment

on ukrainian territory that has to be the overall final objective of the crime spent. one concern that i have about that this possible scenario is that it was named the ukranian national destiny. someone that came to the kurdish national destiny, which has long been well, had a 4 countries that are 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 and 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 credit to that. but i think russia could be content, they would not face the risk and the research and what you say, the research, the, the type of response is what you are measuring is likely only if the score continues and take some level and turn the sense that there's additional massive flow refugees from the brain 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, lensky and his regime. the ukrainian people flee their cities and that for the west coast you see and out of another 10000000 ukrainians across the border in the u.

then the scenario that you just described, of a, a nation diaspora and seeking to re custard 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. 5 mr. dr. we have to take a short break right now, but we will be back in just a few moments stationed a b one ah ah ah ah

a ah ah ah ah ah welcome back to wells fargo smith, gilbert, doctor of an international affairs analyst, mr. dr. before they break,

we discussed how is essential and strategic this issue for russia. but you also mentioned that made us credibility has been put on the line. and that was even before the latest incident with the remnants of iraq and falling on to the polish territory and killing to polish civilian something that the ukrainians jumped upon . to reinforce that narrative, beth rushes out to conquer and the free world. but nature written response for now has been fairly subdued. they've not seen it. how would you explain that? well, the response of nato is given by the people who run a setting in washington, not in brussels, where we heard a couple of hours after the the missile strike. and in forward, when we heard president biden respond to report his questions involving what this was all about. and he said that from the trajectory information,

because since then states planes in that area was clear that this initial did not come from direction side. when he did that, he pulled the rug out monday. not only this was a landscape, but also from those nato countries protecting the baltic states, which had johnson has the jackals that they are to repeat and, and just so fast. russia was to blame. and that's me article for and also the article side of the ryans tree should be in vote, but bearing is very close to 113. what we saw on this bench was something extraordinary because similar incidents that occurred in the last 5 years for more actually going back to me and a 17 case. these false flag operations,

the syria, the allegations that the syrian rigid 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 regimes in moscow or, or in domestics. this did not happen. so the 1st time that venge like this just occurred when the united states put a sub to pull the plug on. this isn't working backwards, it's a very good evidence to those previous events. like i think, 17, which is the receptionist for today. i'm here in europe this, these events were stage managed from, from washington and london. that's looking back,

looking present and forward. it tells you that states is working with a war, mr. so that's good. and then we'll go in a public statements to mrs. so simberg or washington that yes, lessons to blame me because we're there raging the behind the scenes. we're very sure there are very right words, because let's for trying to pull nato into a war rich russia. well, that's a little because it doesn't wanna sacrifice or isn't the lives of its own soldiers, it would rather prefer it to fight this war through the lives of the ukrainians. now, i agree with the children 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 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 mr. landscape is fading, arise, and stating. here, i think, but 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 and their 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 ukrainian soldiers as a bit more realistic, more 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, 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 culture . but he also lay the blame with lighting 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. there was erroneous intelligence for information coming to the kremlin and guiding the conduct of the 1st few weeks of the war until it became manifestly clear that this would not do what was wrong was the notion

which came out of experience in 2014. in march of that year in the, the, the procedure in proceedings on crimea, where a for some 100000 russian soldiers on the, on the peninsula matching approximately the same 800000 cranium armed forces slip in the serenity, the raising of the white flag by the ukrainians by many of those ukrainians, abandoning ships literally and figuratively and joining the russian army and joined russia. while others were allowed freely to go home when they gave up their 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 a 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 tiers and the dr. nation and very heavy investment in training that the nato has done over that period. and also be the work of dishes propaganda. street believes across ukraine and force age. patriotism, based on relation to russia that took, have stuck. and so they need to be challenged. russia face to entering into this was a different nature. then what was expected when again, 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 this i am 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 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 so 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 turn me and information. war is a war of words. the russians. oh, do not have the experience to not have money vested information, the worst night states and u. k. in particular have, and this is not a domain,

thus has material consequence. what happens on the ground in a conventional warfare, thus have consequences. and then 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 rush is 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 in the war, but there's been a very big axis, was in russia, ministry, the ranks of those who were they some genuinely sovereign rush, those people of less the ranks not entirely but largely. and the rushes moved it is decided governed war by people who are in the recent past. what have been

called conservatives and is this conservative patriotism that i see. and it is quite a change. and the public announcements about the world have also changed since the middle of september, since the terrorist acts, the public information that i see when i watch russian television is far more transparent than trying to say far more honest with the public about the 2 states. the military affairs, and that's very good because with the pull up, the reserves is just begun national war and 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 conservative being reinterpreted as something that is encouraging people to stay in touch with reality and invest with how all lives in, in what is happening about rather than anticipating 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. we ask whether it was served as, as an advisor, sharon and reagan and help him windows elections. and i think ever since the american public life and the american policy to a large extent is based on that mantra, ukrainians are very eager to sort of reinforce that perception is reality. that's why they're investing so much in the propaganda effort and barriers all marriages. but i think there a decision has been made in the crumbling and by which, personally, when he called the united states been prior life that he wants to introducing you sort of so that when you attitude towards reality and the respectful reality as it is, it's an ontological and philosophical question, but do you think russia has enough resources not only financial, but i would say, intellectual or spiritual resources to you know,

to that point and to reintroduce reality as it is and real isn't as, as a way of doing politics into 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. and that is your father removed from what is under your feet so that i states is suffering from that infatuation with virtual reality. and from being cut off from the reality around dutch from law, we are create where's what russia is moving precisely back to rec, torched realism and a full appreciation of the challenges that you face and not covering. oh, i hold the rest of the world. also find some furniture 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. and thank you for watching focus here again. when was the part? ah ah, what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy confrontation, let it be an arms race is on, often very dramatic and 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 a schools. if you look on the initial, you want to pull up not to get a can use to put body. what do you do or ching, but you also the was done those a you would you what i see the student bussey's though group you motivation says decent. you don't both

a parliament that he's saturated with unconditional hatred towards russia. police parliament with any measure that goes against the policy struggle, even if it will not bring up any benefits of these resolution, wants to push us on water. 50 members of the european parliament to reject the revolution to brand russia as faithfully as terror with a neighbor it strikes in ukraine plus using protests to demand changes to public policy. this is something that i think is his is worries. but only in canada.