well, to discuss it, i am now joined by thomas graham, 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 western visitors here these days. did you have any 2nd thoughts about coming here? because of, you know, reputational risks to yourself personally, in the organization that you're heading. them or advisors are back in or warned me about traveling to moscow at this time. but you know, i, i always leave in dialogue and dialogue, i think is but they really important in times of crisis. and so not coming to moscow was basically for the northern issue. after i got the invitation to the prestigious remark off readings. and i don't regret to

have called me, i think i had the excellent discussions between the citing off the conference. but also, of course, taking advantage to talk to quite the number of important for presented this both within and without or outside of the state structures that you've been talking about. the fact that this conflict may have not only 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 former had of the oil c 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 bell. okay. on the wall i,

i have an understanding for a very determined attitude by vesting countries regarding this very severe breach of a law law that the russian military invasion in ukraine represents about the same time. i think it is, but 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 dialogue. so, you know, 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 accomplish. 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 considered, such a, such a 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 russia and ukraine and some would argue russian the west. but it also now being used to as, as a platform for political posturing and pushing out though, one of the sides. i'm speaking about russia. do you think the oil see currently

stands for either security or corporation? i absolutely estimates that currently, if you see a c e crisis it clearly, i think there is no doubt about it. but you ought to say, you know, that you always see a very valid vert beats or it's feed missions. the best some balkans in central asia are in parts of europe. the stories institutions are, it's the, the programmatic work off a ticket here. it and, but of course, this is politically not but they play relevant. i think, well, participating say self. d always see what that hope is. we 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 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 con sake, and this is, by the way, this was, i think, something back to the saw. you know, so yes, these 2 lines of conflict, manero between a russia and ukraine and the wider between russia and the best. but i would immediately act that both conflicts could have been managed in an online pay. and i regret you know, that the missed many opportunities to do so. and, and including asti, always see, you know, and that the always the hot platforms,

the, to the, they both lines of conflict and up important stakeholders are important . but they said, you say south d, r is c, joe was not to use these tools. all the a partly whom do you mean by those important stakeholders? they look at, let's say, take her example off arms control these been beaten. they're saying, well, yes, i am his followers. a sham a lesson. they stross them on key stakeholders of european security and unraveling off at a very complex net of arms control agreements that you know have been built off the air since the end of the cold war and a surf or i provide to those to be a peace and stability, so we weakness to that unraveling office architecture, graham. and if i'm hands wrapped in here and 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 when strongly against russian interests and those of 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's i would say the agreement here with that it was or a 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 bought what i was

a, a c, v, a try to provide an alternative platforms, for instance, a structured dialogue. create that by a decision off. i mean, a counselor has been humbled end of 2016. and i think for by that was a hope that this platform would serve to discuss military risk adoption, confidence and security security measures. and perhaps also create, 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 go 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, look at the same is true for the other example that i wanted to address. and that is 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 ended on bus or cli, 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 it. these agreements, sir, seriously are on the one side there was a reluctance to implement 2 tacos, the political probations on the other. there was, are a reluctance to really if you seriously beat the security provisions. and basically there was an ongoing blame game and, and, and, and, and, and, and the fight was 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 a, 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 aid, and it only came at the time, i think, when the decision makers would that come to point or to 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, i never committed to with a, you know, a will to implement that. is there any and legitimacy to, to that kind of opinion, i would agree that dinner defied sir, and i, and i used to floral intentionally and not the plum optically or

decides ver, bit never a certain time period, but never, never overlapping bend. i says 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 have the feeling that, that, that, that was a genuine commitment. but then you know, the be in the office, but you need the coast. and, and you know, when i left my mandate that 2nd to child, i kind of felt that the meets are something very protracted. and i didn't see any 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 lack of genuine,

implement the means to pre k. well mr. grandmother, we have to take a very short break right now, but we will be back in just a few moments state. mm mm. a a a a ah

ah ah welcome back to wells of foreign smith, thomas graham, inter 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 k 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 is 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 to 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 principles of fact, you refer to that for a great in a, in the framework of the helsinki final accord in 1975. and then re committed by states again in 90909099

into in, in 2000. and 10, nina now somehow, unfortunately it by nobody questions. these principles, i think the hm. at least lately, not been a serious attempt to deal with the delay most between these principles and the labor day in by a, by dylan mustang needs to be addressed in this, dana not addressed it. they lead to quality intentions and, and complete. 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 a, let's be 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 it. 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 as a say shortened the increase your security at the expense of an offer. and there is another principle and allows us to state to freely choose your security arrangements. now if you apply these 2 principles to states like georgia, ukraine, armenia as a badge on bella russo, moldova, you half a dilemma. and you can as a tried to solve this dilemma by force it up that's probably not advisable. oh,

i think there are people matic means to deal with this issue and the back to the property then lead to an agreement on the status of these countries that goes to non alignment neutrality. something like that. combined with security guarantees combined with arms control agreements, you know, that would prevent, for instance nate in establishing natal infrastructure there ukrainian or russian border. you think that's a reality specifically on the principle of individual ability of security because i heard you say in the why, i think at some panel that you would lack the countries that the member stays by 2025 not only would 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, is she think conflict prevention long term india, or atlantic in eurasia area. i don't see any other way than to deal with that. the land must be these principles. i don't think i global conflicts could be one way of dealing with it. absolutely, and i think you wouldn't that i will need to eat or, and i think at some point we need to come back to the negotiation table and then building on dr. drive to we construct their, your p insecurity order in that, that allows us to, we commit to these principles bought by open to addressing a m d m d c lamps. and i think that that is a vision. it's not gonna happen tomorrow. thought it might happen. they stories

political in 58 years. well it for that to have happened besides, also need to come to certain calculus. that piece is more beneficial for, for their goals than war. and i think on the russian side, it's pretty, it's easier to defined where 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 than that and proxy conflict. look, i don't have a crystal ball it, but i would agree with you with that that was a soc solomon calls the mutually hurting state made which makes a conflict drive for a solution is not reached yet. and i think of both sides, they seem to be believe that the by military means they can reach a much more advantage, just

a negotiation position. i wouldn't exclude that at some point, you know, they're at ration exhaustion, se seen and, and you know, there is a resumption of negotiations. but for the time being that my, that the most realistic scenario that i see for months is to call me is unfortunately continuation of a high density conflict. now, in previous conflicts in which european powers took part, i mean in various conflicts of the century. the cost to the european population was either minimal or non this time around is different than the economic and energy corporation that has long served as, as the killer of both stability and conflict prevention and europe has been suffering. how big of a challenge is it for europe in 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 agree that the cost has been enormous in your, in a time terms in economic terms, in political terms. you know, if you will see us currently again moving in some sort of a cold war, i think in the short term and it's a shortage is et cetera. i think that being dealt with people, people suffer about my perception. you know, off the political situation in european countries is clearly that this is soley barrett, the ukraine, a such a d 's sufferings are taken

into account and, and, and do so. it's neat or, you know, the refugee flows and, or energy shortages that made a change, or at least in the medium term, the perception of the european audience. i remember that the, the always, the 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 they, terry has to deal with to actually struggle with fulfillment of economic rights for its own citizens. do you think it may change in the discourse, at least in general,

and the realization how, how important is a economy versus politics? i hope it elite us again to recognize how important a comprehensive approach to securities and basically the political rationale of to see. and you always see was always combining political, military issues, military affairs, heart security issue, want 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 always see is a history of play. one i mentioned against my daughter, i began at the same time the organization has always been a browser for its comprehensive approach. she was like, you're at the and the security channel. i have always reminded participating states

at the end, you know, security. it consists of these different dimensions, and we should also be respectful of different dimension and also respect all the states. you know, that may perceive economic and environmental a fast will be a more, more relevant, like the central asian say. although you're saying that we have to be respectful of diversity, which don't you think it has become a run. the controversial proposition is based on diversity of views, political, economic, humanitarian views should be respected. i agree with you, but unfortunately this is a feature all of the 3 and the polarized, or political environment that we are currently in the, it's a feature of a cold war. for those of us that hastily through cold will walk on gong hong kong warrant, correct. me if i'm wrong because i was born in the final years of their cold war,

but i remember that at that time, difference was actually respected because it was dangerous. there was a realization that was fear, that if you don't respect the 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 de la at the east, the among the major powers said there is still a certain respect in all for for instance, the concept of mutually assured destruction. i think that hasn't been seriously on the mind or. and fortunately, and bob walked was the typical feature off the cold war loss, basically d, so images off the n b, m, i dollar g. 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 if between the rural and i'm struck by that and so both sides in best, to locked in at this docs are then being sold market that asked deep sold to 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 the world's apart. ah, a

ah. so what he's 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 personally, i'm going to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very political time. time to sit down talk ah ah, well, i

a ah with ah, once a year, a year

with the russian not hillary here. every crew like this one daily, get a list of talk at crews. they're operating here every day. and i'll take reports from a flash point all gone by the front lines observing the operator low russian artillery unit tension. that's great in survey as go rated his is the breakaway program. so couple of violating peace agreement with both of the deployed quite both sides and a full vice charles of.