[000:00:00;00] a so 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 has very dramatic development only personally and getting to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very critical. i'm time to sit down and talk ah with

mm welcome to well, the part of the conflict in ukraine has manifested and new security at paradox in europe. many in the west contend that until russia is fully democratic, whatever that means. ukraine will lead to western security guarantees in its active military support for its part. most people believe that until global governance is truly multi polar. whatever that means, any extension of 4 in the military infrastructure towards rushing waters will be considered. and that is essential security threat. can this to contentions be reconciled without another continental war in europe? well, to discuss it now joined by thomas gram anger, director of the geneva center for security policy and former secretary general of the organization for security and cooperation in europe. is great to see you a great you talk to you and i have to express a double gratitude for being here in moscow because to be honest with you,

we don't see many visitors here these days. did you have any 2nd thoughts about coming here because of, you know, reputational risks to yourself personally, and the organization that you're heading them are advisors are in, are warned me about traveling to moscow at this time. but you know, i, i always believed in dialogue and dialogue, i think is but they really important in times of crisis. and so not coming to moscow was basically for me not an issue. after i got the invitation to the prestigious remark off readings, and i don't regret to have call them i think i had the excellent discussions between the setting off the conference. but also, of course,

taking advantage to talk to quite the number of important for presented this both within and without the outside of the state structures that you've been talking about. and the fact that this conflict may have not only a regional, but also global implications. and i think we're increasingly seeing that at least one as far as sanctions that concerned. but i, i wonder, as a, as a form i had of the oil see a, what do you make of the fact that this potentially very dangerous situation is being dealt with by the policy of boy cod and ostracizing. russia, which i think is preferred course of action for many european countries as well as for the united states. by look on the one hand i have understanding for a very determined attitude by investment countries regarding

this very severe breach of in class law. that the russian military invasion in ukraine represents about the same time. i think it is that they clean these times. it's important to remain on speaking terms to to discuss if it's at least to prevent further escalation. but also if you want to come out of the current situation, we need a platform for, for dialogue. so, you know, by, i mean, favor off, you know, very clear term language. at the same time, i don't believe that isolating, excluding and important interlocutor serves the purpose of managing come, take and off, taking us closer to resolving conflicts. you might have the need for platforms, for dialogue and the oil, the,

the organization for security and cooperation in europe. which you used to have a few years back was once consider sasha platform. and i, i interviewed you a couple of years back when i just assumed that leadership position. and at that time there were already doubts whether the osi was relevant. do you think it's still relevant, given that not only the failed to prevent an active kinetic conflict between russian ukrainian some would argue russian the west. but it also now being used as, as a platform for political posturing and pushing out though, one of the size i'm speaking about russia. do you think the oil seat currently stands for either security or corporation? i absolutely estimates that currently it's always c a c l e crisis. clearly i think there is no doubt about it, but you ought to say,

you know, that you always see a very valid work beats or it's feed missions into basketball. comes in central asia or in parts of europe. the story institutions are, it's the, the programmatic work off. it's 2nd period. but of course this is politically not but they play relevant. i think while participating face off the always see what i hope the always see being able to play a role in preventing or at least now in managing a conflict between russia and ukraine or, or russia and the best. by the way, how do you see it? and given that you are now in, i guess a lesson diplomatic position you perhaps more freedom may have you perhaps, can afford yourself more freedom of speech. do you see that as a conflict between russia and ukraine or something large and i think it's an

overlapping conflict then it is by the bay not no weight loss. i think something back to the saw. you know, so yes, these 2 lines of conflict, the more narrow between a russia and ukraine, and the wider between russia and the best. but i would meet at the act that both conflicts could have been managed in an online survey. and i regret to, you know, that the missed many opportunities to do so and, and including asti always see, you know, and that the always the hock platforms to the they both the lines of conflict and the up important stakeholders are important. but they said id, say south d r is c, and chose not to use these tools all the and partly whom do you mean by those

important stakeholders? they looked at, let her take her example off arms control. these been beaten as saying, well yes, i am as follow recession and lessons. i stross them on key stakeholders of your be in security and, and unraveling off a very complex that of arms control agreements that you know have been built off the since the end of the cold war and surf or pipeline provided us with peace and stability. so we beat this to that unraveling off this architecture germond or if i'm having to refuse here just for a 2nd because you're trying to be very neutral and diplomatic. and i understand why . but i was doing the piece and the d conflicting efforts service. when we are trying to sort of smooth the lines, so diplomatically here,

because it's not just the, the, the random unraveling, isn't it? it's the west taking a decision, making a decision that they want to pursue certain policies that went strongly against russian interest and those russian interest and concerns were very clearly communicated for many, many number of years. are we doing reality ever didn't choose the service when we just describe it as single unraveling it? i would say the agreement here with that it was for the beat. some of these are you paler saw off this or arms control like architecture? it was indeed the united states that pulls out of it. i thought that was, i was a, a c, v, a try to provide an alternative platforms, for instance,

a structured dialogue to create a by a decision off. i mean, a counselor has been humbled end of 2016. and i think for either that was a hope that this platform would serve to discuss, made it very risk, adoption confidence and security security measures. and perhaps also great. again, a common understanding on how to resume series arms control conditions and negotiations. but unfortunately, they offer was not taken up and it's a vest. nato did not seem to be publicly interested, but frankly, also from the russian federation. i did not really a sense of urgency, you know, to kind of get back and try to reinvigorate

this arms control architecture. so that was, i think, my lack of interest to all the relevant stakeholders. and this was frustrating and look at the same is true for the other example that i wanted to address and that it means agreements. you know, that i tried to deal with the conflict in the, in the don't boss. and i think of course, being far from perfect, but they would have re present the blueprint to resolve at least the conflict into don't boss and partly bob 50 exception off a relatively short period of time. i think that was never at the same time, at a genuine political commitment on either side to take

a decent agreement, sir, seriously. or on the one side there was a reluctance to implement to tackle the political probations on the other. there was a reluctance to really do seriously beat the security provisions. and basically there was an ongoing blame game and, and, and, and, and, and, and the fight what to come 1st, only think of revisions. i'll security probation well, and that's why it was going on as don't boss was being continuously shell from the ukrainian side and the majority of the dental. we know that and like it's documented and import thanks to the always see emissions that the majority of casualties of that war. a starting from 2014 was on the eastern ukrainian side on the separate decide. but putting that aside, i want to ask you about an sort of the, whether the negotiating process holds any prospect whatsoever it at this point, because russia took a very dramatic step for itself. i think many russians are shocked by the actions

of the russian government did. and it only came at the time, i think, when the decision makers, would that come to a point or to a conclusion when they would not believe in the negotiating process. and i think there is a strong sense in moscow that piece process the conflicting efforts have been methodically abused. that all the negotiations i used simply as a measure of getting some respite from military action and never are never committed to with, you know, a will to inclin than that. and is there any and legitimacy to, to that kind of opinion, i would, i would agree that did all the sites are in that, and i use the bureau eventually and not the plum optically or decides ver, bit never a certain time period, but never, never overlapping. bend i felt that was a genuine commitment to move forward with implementing or means agreements. for

instance, a few months after presidential entity to power. i really had the feeling that, that, that, that was a genuine commitment. but then you know, the been awful, but you need the coast and, and when i left my mandate, the 2nd child, i kind of felt that very meets off something buried, brought rock that. and i didn't see a baby out which in my view doesn't justify a war. bob, i have sympathy bits, the prostration. but again, i would put the blame on both sides for this lock off, genuinely to implement the means to pre k. well mr. grandmother, we have to take a very short break right now, but he will be back in just

a few moments station. ah ah ah ah ah welcome back to wells of foreign smith, thomas bremond or director of the geneva center for security policy on former secretary general of the organization for security and cooperation in europe. at mister graham anger, in 2025, the house in key ag, the, the founding document for the oil c will mark it's 50th anniversary and it has some

beautiful principles there that actually helped us to put an end to, to the cold war. and i think when that i was signed, there was a clear recognition that differences exists and that they have to be dealt with. and yet when we look at your of right now, there seems to be so much stress on unity that there's barely any room for even the negotiation. not only between russia and europe, or russia and the west, but even within the west. why do you think 50 years after the creation of the oil see, which is supposedly dedicated your freedom of speech, to you know, dialogue as contentious as it may be? why do you think there is such a fervor such a demand on uniform agreement within the western camp? i think me a half again or come back to were

and euro off. very tough jail political, a competition. and unfortunately, you know, the brain principle, the fact you refer to with that for a great in a, in the framework else for helsinki file accord, 1975, and then re committed by states again in 90909099 into in, in 2000 intending now somehow, unfortunately, it by nobody questions, these principles, i think the hm at least lately not been series, attempt to deal with the delay most between these principles and the, the labor day in by a by dylan mustang needs to be addressed. if dana not addressed it, they lead to quality intentions and,

and conflict. and let me illustrate that point. you know, there is a, regarding all those states that the, our geography jell graphically between the russian federation and natal and there isa. and you alluded to it in your introductory comments and there is an issue and their status right? because you half the de la elizabeth, specifically in their security state, is because russia never precluded down from developing their democracy, the markets, whatever they won. the issue was always as the name of that organization stresses on security, correct? correct. so there isa, there are 2 principles, are backed by the charter, is down all the address diplomatically. there is a principle off in the visibility of security. that is, you asked to say, chilton, increase your security at the expense of an offer. and there is another principle

and allows us a state to freely choose your security arrangements. now if you apply these 2 principles to states like georgia, ukraine, a media as a bi, jump, villaru, some oliver, you half a dilemma, and you can as a tried to solve this dilemma a by force and up that's probably not advisable. oh no, i think dar diplomatic a means to deal with this issue and the battle properly then lead to an o. m. an agreement on the status of these countries that is coastal and non alignment neutrality. something like that combined v security guarantees combine are obsolete arms control agreements. you know, that both prevent, for instance, nato in establishing nato infrastructure at the ukrainian or russian border. you think that's still

a reality specifically on the principle of individuals ability security because i heard you say in the meanwhile, i think it's some panel that you would lag the countries that the member saved by 2025. not a little bit commit to the old principles, but to try to redefine them in a, in a new way that would be workable for all. do you think that's still a possibility? i think not by 2025, a box. you know, if she think conflict prevention long term india, or atlantic in your asian area, i don't see any other way than to a deal with the di lan must be the these brands because i don't think i global conflicts. could be one way of dealing with it. absolutely, and i think if you wouldn't that i would need either. and i think at some point we need to come back to the negotiation table and then building on dr. trying to,

we construct their european security order in that that it allows us to, we commit to these principles bought by opened to addressing a m d m a d c. them us. and i think that that is a vision. it's not gonna happen tomorrow. thought it might happen, they stories political beetle in 5 ages. well, it for that to happen. sides also need to come to 2nd calculus. that piece is more beneficial for their goals than war. and i think on the russian side, it's pretty, it's easier to define the way the russians can draw their line because they, they, we've been very open about it. but what about the west? when do you think the western powers will calculate that? that piece is, is better for their long term security goals than war or that and proxy conflict. look, i don't have a crystal ball or it,

but i would agree with you with the bathwater socks archman calls the mutual you hurting stalemate, which makes a conflict ride for a solution is not reached yet. and i think both sides still seem to be belief that the by military means they can reach a much more advantageous negotiation position. i want to exclude that at some point, you know, there and duration exhaustion sites in and, and, and know that there is a resumption of negotiations. but for the time being that my, it, that the most realistic scenario that i see for monster. com is unfortunately continuation of a high density conflict. now, in previous conflicts in which european powers to part, i mean in curious conflicts of the century. but the cost to the european population was either minimal or none. this time around is different than the economic and

energy corporation that has long served as, as a pillar of both stability and conflict prevention and europe has been severed. how big of a challenge is it for european countries as far as you're concerned? and do you think that will lead to any sort of reassessment in values or political commitments in europe? i would absolutely. the cost has been enormous in you're going to turn terms in economic terms in political terms. uh, you know, if you will see us current again moving in some sort of a cold war, i think in the short term and it's a short, this is an etc. i think it, that being dealt with people, people suffer about my perception. you know,

off of the political situation in european countries is clearly, you know, that this is soley barrett, the ukraine, a such a did. these sufferings are taken into account and, and do so. it's neat or, you know, the refugee flows, an energy shortages that will change, or at least the, in the medium term, on the perception off, you know, the european audience. i remember that the, the always see golden here is there was a lot of tension between political rights and economic rights and more developed, more prosperous countries were sort of in the habit of preaching down to less

prosperous authoritarian neighbors. and sort of prioritizing political rights over the economic necessity given that europe for, for the 1st time may, the century has to deal with have to actually struggle with fulfillment bill for comic rise for its own citizens. do you think it may change in the discourse based in general and the realization how, how important is economy versus politics? i hope it elite us again to recognize how important a comprehensive approach to securities and basically the political russian, all of the c a, c and d always c was always combining political, military issues, military affairs, hall security, issue, warmth, economic and environmental affairs. the 2nd dimension and the human dimension, meaning respect for human rights,

rule of law and democratic institutions. and i agree with your, with the, has been a history of the all you see is a history of playing one dimension against the other day. but again, at the same time, the organization has always been a browser for its comprehensive approach to security and the security channel i have always reminded participating states at the end, you know, security. and it consists of these different dimensions. and we should also be respectful of different i mentioned, and also respect all the states, you know, that may perceive economic and environmental affairs to be a more, more relevant like the central asian style. basically, you're saying that we have to be respectful of diversity, which don't you think it has become a run? a controversial proposition is based that diversity of use, political, economic, humanitarian views should be respected. i agree with you,

but this is unfortunately, this is a feature all of the extremely polarized or political environment that we are currently in. it's, it's a feature of a cold war for those of us that have to leave to go to war, correct me from wrong because i was born in the final years of the cold war. but i remember that at that time, difference was actually a respect because it was dangerous. there was a realization that was fear. and that if you don't respect their, your partner enough, you know, then the in the world can blow up into pieces. do you think that here, that respect for, for the enemy is there? i think there is, they lay at least among the major powers at various de la, a certain respect in all for for instance, of the concept of mutually assured destruction. i think that hasn't been seriously on the mind or, and fortunately, a bob walked was

a typical feature off the cold war was basically a image is off the n b m ideology. if i'm right, you're wrong by definition and, and i think i see that happen again and on both sides. you know, i'm, i'm, i wonder between the rules and i'm struck by that. and so both sides in best locked in merit this that are then being sold, market that ass deep soul, true. well, at that time, back in the seventy's, there are 2 sides were wise enough to come up with a new forum and you east west forum to try to discuss those differences. let's keep our fingers crossed, that that is still possible in this day and age. in any case, i really appreciate your bravery and your time during this interview. thank you.

thank you so much for your interest. and thank you for watching hope to hear again on will's in part a with mm ah. so 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 very dramatic development. only really and get into this. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very critical of time. time to sit down and talk

with the headlines until are reported killed and another 10 wounded. as the printing artillery fire this slide a couple of blade prepare to officially inform nato that it will send the troops into the breakaway republic. of course of support ethics with the local authorities. a exclusive interview is being free for us prison. he says america is an inherent strong country that has been ravaged