[000:00:00;00] ah, ah ah with welcome to worlds apart, the 9 to 9 to so we're a time of rapid change, but they are not saved. the cold war was over and the soviet union had been conquered. and history had ended for russia, its people, it was

a time of acute hardship, humiliation, and disorientation that 2 decades to overcome past 142022 and rapid change is back with somewhat reversed roles. russia is now confident and the united states is divided gambit. you ever reach a balance of january and when, when? well, to discuss that. i'm now enjoying from brussels by gilbert, dr. off and the international affairs analyst, mr. dr. for the great to talk to thank you very much for your time. no, thanks for having. now i know that you were living in this country when the soviet union was collapsing and had that amazing change of seeing history develop in front of your own eyes. to the extent that the events of the past years seemed like the past century and bygone, i wonder with such conditioning and pretty rare conditioning. how are you taking this here so far? do you think the,

the speed and the scale of changes is more or less dramatic than what you saw? i'm back in the 9 ninety's. so there is a question both. there is a similarity here in the way of main street main sprig. clark is allowed to release itself after having been held locked in position for many years. and the case of ranching right is the mains. the 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 changed. that is a historic and it is more controlled when they're just more conscious than what happened in the chaotic 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 this matter for 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 and the relation between russian, the west and war globally? well, there are 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, the content has many different vectors. it would be the question, they 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, the global balance, russia has, has clearly won the interests and attraction of the global south. i'm to, there have been dramatic changes in the 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, rapprochement and increasing be important to operation with saudi arabia. it's expensive that countries 5060 years, close ties with him and 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 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, which in the west is usually look through the lines of russia, imperial ambitions. i wonder if that's how you see the russia, the 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 for 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, were very costly and russians national activities at that time will disbursement side very little of 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 with cost of political stability within russia itself. 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 l. i 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 in a compromise. as i said, russia's position, the, too much of the, of this millennium has been, reacted to the aggressive expansionist position that made it has not until february 24th, taking the initiative to defend actually its own interests. and 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 were considering the responsibility of the kremlin as for maintaining a world 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 of britain, who was words very repeatedly and speaking about this, so that international issue are careful prudent that it guided to 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 in 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 them on? and how big is the threat of overreach? biding? we're then now, moscow can chew. well, russia's primary interest, as i said, is the security issue that preceded the, all the of 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 the city . and if,

if federal government to remain keeps his hands free to procure and receive arms and other support from the west. then bushes. ambition of brown 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 crane cannot be, cannot remain made 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. melissa sirway, he reduced, i know that in one of your articles he mentioned that there is a possibility of not just. a cubed, we ukraine's how do you seem to launch a combat? well, from the beginning of a special operation to today. the conflict is as newbold and 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 has to say, great, stripped of the oxy literal strips of the eastern a blush, which constitute john barson to other of us are now going to cook in russia. as well as additional charity, 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 foreign powers to set up temporary or permanent military establishment on ukrainian territory,

that has to be the overall final objective of the crime. that one concern that i have about that this possible scenario is that it would mean the kind of 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 on the 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 russian crane, but with the other interested parties in this proxy war. yes, there are, are included guarantees that there will be no assistance to rebuilding

a ukrainian army and to providing chromebooks that. but i think russia could be content and would not face a risk. and the research on what you say, the research, the, the type of response is what you were measuring is likely only the score continues and takes of a level and turn. the sense that there's additional massive flow refugees from the grade. that is possible. it is not necessary, but it is possible depending on how this distraction of the energy infrastructure for students and whether or not we're from about the permissions and encouragement, lensky and his regime. the ukrainian people flee their cities and that's for the west coast. you see an out 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, mr. dr. we have to take a short break right now, but we will be back in just a few moments stationed with with

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 often very dramatic. development only personally and getting to disease. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very critical time time to sit down and talk a while. come back to one's apartment, gilbert, doctor of an international affairs analyst, mr. doctor on 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 cherry tree and killing to polish civilians. something that the ukrainians jumped upon to reinforce that narrative, beth rushes out to conquer and the re the free world. but a nature written response were 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 late, but no setting in washington, not russians. 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 introductory 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 just so russia was to blame and that's the article for and also the article side of the last tree should be invoked. bringing is very close to 3. what we saw this bent was something extraordinary because similar incident occurred in the last 5 years or more actually going back to the and a 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 as showing the malevolence, criminal nature respective regime in moscow or in domestics. this did not happens the 1st time, but eventually this occurred where 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 b, b c. s. for today. i'm here in europe this, these events were sage matter from, from washington and london. but looking back, looking person and forward, it tells you that states is but 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 are to blame of me because we're there raging. the behind the scenes. we're very sure. but there are very right words, because let's get for trying to pull nato into a war with russia. well, that'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 land scale 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 and 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 in front of 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 and nuclear exchange at the end of life on earth. and the stations particular washing particular as you say, it's been very briefly, but with the cranium soldiers, it's 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 kremlin 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 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 experience in 2014, in march of that year, and 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 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 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 locations arctic 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. it ignored the cheers and dr. nation and very heavy investment in training that the nato has done over that period. and also be the work of vicious 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 rushes face to entering into this was different nature, then period what was expected when it 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 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 find me. and information war is a war of words. the russians. oh, do not have the experience to not have money vested information, worship nurses, and u. k. in particular have, and this is not a, a domain 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 who to avoid, but participating in the war. but there's been a very big axis within russian ministry to ranks of those who were sitting on to church of those who were closet or even open liberals in over the last 20 years. and we're playing breaks. we're slowing down the development of a son genuinely sovereign rush, whose people have left the ranks not entirely,

but largely. and the rushes moved it is decided governed war by people who are in the recent past would have been called conservatives. and is this conservative patriotism that i see? and it is quite a change and the public announcements about the war has also changed since the middle of september, since the terrorist acts of the public information that i see when i watch russian television is far more transparent and trying to say far more honest with the public about the 2 states and the military affairs, and that's very good because with the pull up, the reserves is just begun national war, not a war of the contract. so 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 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. we ask whether it was served as a, as an advisor, sharon and 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, ukrainians are very eager to sort of reinforce 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 putting personally when he called the united states, the pyre flies that he wants to introducing you 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 financial, but i would say, 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, so they're not suffering from that infatuation with virtual reality. and from being cut off from the reality around from la brea, or create been, where's, what rushes, moving precisely, back to rich charged realism and a full appreciation of the challenge that you faced not covering

a hold the rest of the world also find some birds true 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 me for

with ah watch and it was a when you sit down with your, your, your, your, your ah