they are gone, i mean, it was in frantic was president or launch in in the u. k, it was cameron in germany was char, i thought it was mack and so i people we, we have seen a huge rotation in people in the office and with them cabinets going hi, officials coming and going and there is snow continuity. there was not enough continuity in really understanding what benz shook me and this, this is a failure, thought your question is about responsibility. the people who started it are not anymore and office. and you can see more of that interview with the camera can i saw throughout the day here at the international all read more about it at all, etc. dot com. in the meantime, we were talking about top with the our hope you can join us. ah

with me. hello and welcome to wells apart. as shakespeare contented, 4 centuries ago wore makes for strange bedfellows. a principle that turkey seems to have taken too hard in the current ukrainian conflict. on the one hand present, aradonda calls on nature to take concrete steps to deter the so called russian aggression. on the other hand, anchor kids deepening its relationship with moscow and handsomely benefiting from it. what is turkey's game? well, to discuss that i'm now joined by you now to because a member of the turkish parliament and the countries for man bassinger it's you re, britain, and there's ever john, it's great pleasure to talk to you. thank you very much for your time. thank you for inviting me. now. i mentioned the a we're in ukraine in my introduction as we are going tomorrow. the 10 month

anniversary of with soon. and what's interesting about it is it is a very peculiar synchronicity because you and your party issued a statement 2 days before the official launch of that operation in which you warrant about the increased risk of a burning conflict. did you see that more coming before it began that the war itself, but if we actually predicted that kind of a military operation and the reason for thought that it would be dangerous for the whole region. because since the disintegration of the former soviet union, turkey has developed equitable relations both with russia and ukraine. and both countries are neighbors at the black sea by the sea side of course. but of course, if those 2 countries says that to somebody a nation or a how to conflict it, that would of course, create the serious danger for the whole agent. that was the reason why we wanted to urge that it wouldn't happen. and we also explained that to not recognize the

developments indeed done. it's a later on in your speech before the council of europe, your call, this operation unjustified and unprovoked and described it not as a war between russia, ukraine, but as a war between democracy and authoritarianism. even if i take this contention without arguing, excepting that russia is indeed an authoritarian state and your crane is a burgeoning democracy. do you think authoritarian states have no security interests worth defending? no, that's not what i meant actually. so certainly, every country has its own definition of its own security concerns and that's, that's perceptions. but the issue here is that the development of democratic values, which are generally defended by the western countries, was probably extending through ukraine towards the russian borders. and i think

that could be perhaps the concern, which is the russian government did not exactly expect a course in addition to the so called democratic values that you are referring to. there was also very rapid expansion of military infrastructure, which is not disputed by any of the size. now it's public record the, you know, it be seen in the american budget and their public statements of american officials . don't you think that it was this, the expansion of military infrastructure that was far more threatening for the russian government than an abstract democratic values that here if i do not challenge, of course, to concerns that the russian side had about its own security on sense. i would probably refer to the history and they probably go back to 2007 and in 2007 when a president put in made a very interesting speech at the main executive conference. that was probably not well understood or was taken by the west. and i think you all start that then that

is the reason why we have to be careful. and i urge that of course, that we have to be careful in, in the development of these is how would i say messages coming from the west about a possible membership of free grain to nathan. it's not just the messages. i mean, i understand you're that i kind of leave it, i can't judge and i cannot confirm that. i mean, of course, so they had me several of the policy about the military infrastructure developing and, but i don't think that that would end up with some kind of war declared by ukraine towards asha. it was simply a, probably a kind of the preparation, which of course nobody wanted to happen. but the issue here is, and what has happened has happened. but we have to return that process. and we have to being is the ability to our region. and we have to find the solution to the conflict because it is not to the benefits of the people. these people are a,

i mean they have been growing together. let's talk about how it could be brought back to the negotiating table. because in that, the seemingly prophetic statement that you made on the eve of the russian military operation, you called for non periodic consistent and peaceful policies to resolve the tensions rather than arbitrating the issues. and i'm really interested in these non periodic. what did you mean by that? i don't recall what i said in what context i mentioned. but when i say non periodic, if i did, and then probably a it should not be confined even that in a certain time period. and it should be lasting and it should be a continuing case. so that is probably the reason why i may have referred to that kind of work. but the issue here is that we have to be careful about not building new the writing walls or dividing lines in europe. it is in the heart of europe.

and if that continues, and if the conflict develops into a more serious a confrontation, which is actually over the case. i mean, i know that in russia officially, it does not accept it as a war, but the turkey has it, right. it has declared that it is actually a situation a whole because we wanted to implement the articles of want to a treaty elemental convention based on the concept of war and the perception from turkeys point of view us and the admission or community operation. this started by russia was ukraine was the beginning of february. now, i'm sure you heard the russians complaining before the, the peace process itself has been abused by ukraine and it's western beckers when they signed certain agreements in order to get respite from military fighting, rather than with any intention to execute them in good faith. do you agree with

that? having observed that process and if so, do you think that would influence russians readiness for future talks? it is a fact that the miss process has failed. and the i can't make any judgment about who has been responsible for the failure of the miss process. but if the miss process and its subsequent, the implementation was successful, then it would probably not be in a position like that. but once that the miss process has failed and once that has been perceived as a kind of effect perception by the russian side, then it probably should try to find the remedy it to revisit and to rehabilitate them is crisis. and the solution should not be a kind of a military solution. we need dialogue and we need a continuous attempts for diplomatic solutions to context and your own country.

turkey has probably made the most for it because it has actually tried practically tried to bring the russian that the grants together for preliminary talks and it's tumble. last spring we seem to be fairly successful on the surface, but nonetheless failed. what do you think was missing in the, in the symbol talks? i think the, the trust and confidence between the 2 countries has disappeared. and it, although there was a very successful meeting in a stumble, delegations that probably they close to and understanding and the delegations who have got together and who met each other. they're not the final parties who took the decisions when they went back to their capitals. i think the, the decision making process, it was influenced by other personalities. you're being extremely diplomatic here, i see all your previous experience in that one answer. but let me be a little bit more precise with the facts here. because according to president,

putin of, if we can trust him, after the stumble, talk to the ukranian side submitted in written form. it's condition for peace, which included the natural nuclear free and non block status or ukraine. and its refusal from trying to reclaim crimea by force in exchange for international security guarantees. a few days later it walked away from them. but do you think you could still form the basis for continuous talks? i think it was a good beginning and the it, it kind of a proposal reach good to start the whole negotiations and be to continue for constructive and positive results. but the fact that it has failed. unfortunately, a couple of days later, it brought us to this a current situation today. a probably there had been some factors that i can not judge and i cannot understand who have influenced this process. but as you had mentioned, that all those premises we've been offered by the gains that at the outset seems to

be a good beginning. you among others to refer to the russian military operation as a, as an aggression and a times you called it unprovoked and justified. but took itself has never been shy of extraterritorial operations for the sake of its own security. be in syria in iraq, or as a member of nato in yugoslavia. i wonder if you see any strategical moral difference between what the russians are doing in the ukraine and what the turks were doing or are still doing in syria or did you get logged in? i think a simpler case because you was a kind of a nato action and turkey has not been participating in the military operations, a provider just for that. me. yes, but they did not provide fighters it troops and that's a major difference. they didn't provide the humans, but they provided the weapons they, they may have provided the weapons,

but they're also providing, for example, the white up the ukraine. so it is a kind of a different situation, but i don't want to make the distinction here is that the worst case is something different. because toki participated in the u. s. a nation in decides or for i'll to europe in union and also by nato operations only for the meditating purposes. whereas in comparison between a what has happened in ukraine and the turkish armed forces, taking certain operations in syria, are entirely incompatible because turkey was reacting to a kind of a terrorist activity, which was actually intruding into the touch territory. and turkey wanted to stop this terrorist activities origin, a thing from p k, k. and also from syria from the y p g. what is it? i don't think that there has been any kind of military or terrorist attack into the russian territory from ukraine. so that is the reason why i may have used the

unprovoked and i'm justified. well they, there have been some terrorist activities by ukrainian nationalists on the russian territory. but apart from that, i'm sure you're aware the syrian government strongly objected to any turkish operation on the syrian sovereign syrians summer. and he ought to be getting into the same sort of argument of one man's freedom fighter and other men's terrorists. i mean, if, if you recognize your country security concerns as the gentleman, why would you do my denied my country in seeing if security concerns as legitimate, especially given that russia has taken plenty of matters to negotiate with the west . what it deems us threatening, i think both countries failed to continue. the dialogue and turkey interrupted the dialogue with the mosque was in 2012 and the military operations came only in 2016 . but if the dial continued had to continue, then there could have been a solution without any kind of military operation. and probably it is the same

because russia also interrupted the dialogue and sees to seek for something to fit the magic solution to the company for the confrontation that it had it ukraine, most countries should have used did not mean style oak. and they should aim also to find the peaceful resolution to the conflicts. i think from this point of view, both countries have committed the same stake. oh mister teramy, cuz we have to take a very short break right now, but we will be back in just a few moments. thank you. ah, we a

welcome back to was a partner with you now. chevy coast, a member of the turkish parliament and the country's former ambassador to you are deborah john and braid britain. mister kevin, because it's clear that you are very strong advocates of diplomacy and we should be . but do you believe that that ever comes a point when diplomacy simply exhausts itself, one more forceful measures to defend countries, existential interests are required. we have a saying, which is a kind of a legacy that we have received from. i took out the took, as you know, was of course the military commander and went off to woods or the sentences of the mottos that he used was a, unless your national interests are valiantly challenged. war is

not there. it's what he has said. and i think it that simply implies that that i think it also sees war, is it very, very last diesel. now, one thing that i think differentiates any of the turkish operations and syria from the russian operation in your brain, is the fact that the map in practical terms has already changed. regardless whether or not the international community recognizes the accession of 4 former eastern ukrainian regions into russia on all, you know, that's, that's already the, the facts on the ground. so to say, what do you think is the best outcome for ukraine in the current circumstances? so some people are talking about sci fi, but sci fi is not permanent. it is a temporary situation that sees for perhaps, or for rental arms, for a certain period is necessary, but it has to stop in ultimate aim,

of establishing peace. peace is the ultimate key word here, and they both sides should sit at the table, not for continuation of p stokes, but reaching to the piece itself. and if they had determined to do that, and then as the site will not be a long period, it will probably end up with the p c t. but as you had mentioned, that having so many developments that the russian apartment, for example, has passed certain resolutions, the annexation of certain areas of east and ukraine to russia. all these have to be serious to negotiate that. i don't think that it will change over time. i overnight. i don't think that it will happen overnight. it will probably need several 7 years. but in order to achieve that, to both countries and people have to re establish trust and confidence against one another. do you think it's just between ukraine, russia?

i mean, are we calling a spade a spade here? because i'm sure you know that from the russian perspective, the russians see themselves in the war with the west, north, with ukraine, but with the west. that is the reason why i have referred to the speech of president putting in 2007 in the mean executive conference, probably a peasant put in at that time and made a very interesting a remark about the growing possible danger or the perception that he is vision and have a family and then explicitly a gave and drew his red lines. it was probably the former, so edited the dead line for president put an end to russia that could, of course, being taken seriously, but by the west. and it would have been a kind of a diplomatic negotiation, and it could probably end up with some kind of them will just be then the kind of

an understanding which would never say russia. or we would never allow russia to perceive certain tech perceptions coming from the west, but isn't put in an today actually minister level in his speech. also mentioned that at the vest has neglected the tech perception of russia and extend that towards the russian territory. when you look at the history in russia always needs a kind of a live instrument or a kind of a buffer zone to get in its own security. and probably it would be unacceptable for the ukrainians because they also of the same that of course they had an independent and a sovereign nation, and they have to make their own decisions. but the issue here is when we prepare the nato russia founding act in 1997. and we made it very clear that there would be no veto power for russia, for a possible extension,

a extension or a possible development of nato or other countries choice to become members of nato that wouldn't be vetoed by russia. but i can i, it because this is a very interesting argument that is mentioned that time and time again by various native american officials. if you give russia no veto power, doesn't that essentially mean no power at all? and the wooden one does leave russia with no choice, no other than doing what it did. you know, it is, it is not what i mean. what i am seeing here is that there are certain conditions about all the interpretation of this natasha founding. at 1st, it is true that russia should not feel that he has a veto power about the decisions of nato or a to know that there's not what i'm saying a what i'm saying here is it all. those developments should also be taken into consideration whether it is it's threatening the security of russia or not. and

russia probably has been always thinking that it, all these developments have been not taken into consideration from the nation perspective. hasn't been neglected. that it was a kind of perception and a growing set perception for russia if that is neglected, and if it is the understanding of russia and then there's a problem there. and that is simply because of lack of dialogue. you mentioned this word, neglect a couple of times, and i wonder if it's the correct one, if it's the accurate one, because there are many political scientists not only russia, but also in the west, who believe that the ultimate goal of the west is essentially belkin ice russia to put an end to russia as a, as a sovereign state, that they see there's a threat to and they would rather have russia broken into several parts that continue service western energies. but i do think neglect is the right words,

or was it deliberate, denial of russia, security considerations? some people may think that it was a deliberate denial, but i don't think so because i have been involved in this process as a draft of the name and i shall fall. and that either very sincere tuwana, i mean it, together with a message to give from wellcare i tell frequently to moscow at that time and even had meetings with a, the very distinguished statesman, mister premier office is in the general selina. and it was a very open, innovative fit. and of a candid conversation that the all they said, and finally came to an understanding that the nato russia finding act was the proper or the instrument with perhaps give us the opportunity to build it, come on european security architecture, and then russia and nato, that a believe to be or perceived about one another as partners. i think you neglect is

probably right from my point of view, but i wouldn't make any comment about other views because there may be several other people in different countries who may have envisaged other adventures is solutions. so you just referred to you on another experience of yours professional experience of yours because in addition to being a commentary and in the high ranking department, you're also served at nature in the early 9. tonight you said that critical moment when nature was tasked with the read finding, or it's a central task finding a new purpose for itself. and it was a time when the russia was truly infatuated with the west. that it even fantasized about joining about a lines one day. do you think and why do you think we are back to this? and i'm also to given that everything seems to be so rosie, after the cold war, i think it was a clique. the developments took place in rapidly. a you remember in 1989 when the

warsaw pact disappeared. nato immediately found that something is changing and bipolar that it is probably a softening and probably it's coming to an end. suddenly it came to an end at the end of for $991.00 when the soviet union disintegrated. but the dissolution of warsaw pact was a very interesting development and then need to react to that by establishing the not that lengthy corporation council. by inviting a, the former was up at countries as partners as and barrier partners, or do you well partners, well partners, partners, but it was a different body. the body itself was the called, the north atlantic corp counsel, and it was a kind of a new buddy the for give it kind of it equal chance to all the partners who the members of the not that has equal chance. are you better than of course natal always tried to adapt itself to the new conditions after the disintegration of the former soviet union,

for example. they post soviet geography and all the newly the independent states that also invited to the next to didn't know what that meant to corp counsel. and then in $1094.00, you would you call that the partnership for peace idea was promoted. russia always thought that a partnership for peace was an interesting idea, but it could perhaps create a kind of an unjustified equality to russia with the other countries. and i always saw that it was a, it had to be treated differently by nature. and that was not be for security reason a given the size that scale and why and just that he's and why the front, the nato russia council. that's the reason why i need to rush a finding x plus sign. so it was a very pretty station situation, and it was a very privileged offer to russia, and it's only for russia. it was wonderful russian where it all its privileges, own display right now on the ukrainian battlefield. i voted my g grant that it failed to. i mean it is, it hurts because if you are involved in

a process and if you think that you are doing something good for the humanity and for the peace estimate of europe. and if you see that it is not functioning, it is failing, then, you know, well that russia and turkey have a very complicated history between the 2 of them coming from one war, 2, peace to confrontation again to corporation. again, do you think there's anything that nature and perhaps the west more generally can learn from the way most grand and can i have been managing that very complicated relationship very, you know, it's, it's a kind of relationship that's laid into the, with lots of potential disagreements and yet it's, it's beer striving. this is not the 1st time that it is happening because when you look at the history during the cold war, turkey has always had a very peculiar relations with the soviet union as well as turkey was one of the 2

countries, which was they having a land border with the soviet union. the other one was in the non plant norway, but turkey just because of this fact and because of geography and also history. a tried to have a kind of peculiar and a very balanced approach towards the soviet union. it did not a crack nato, it did not harm natal solidarity but also from turkey. so point turkey's point of view, it was a very good development, and the soviet union has invested into the and development of industrial and infrastructure of turkey. in 1960 for example, nobody challenged that. now we are experiencing a kind of the same thing which is not happening. and although there are sanctions which are implemented by the western countries which are mainly by the european union and turkey legitimate, the says that as we are not a member of the union union veto, not a feel to be obliged to comply with the european union and sanctions,

but as far as the united nations sanctions are concerned, of course we are biding by them. but here i think a turkey is a giving some kind of an image to the whole world that it's a very important facilitator. i have mentioned that turkey has been always equidistant to ukraine and russia after the disinclination of the soviet union. and that's the reason why it took you does not want to see an unstable environment. and particularly a war situation just in the north of it's joe griffey, and this is also endangering the whole $72.00 of the black sea basin. so that's the reason why turkey is probably taking the needs as compared to any other western country. it to find some kind of a compromise between the 2 countries to negotiate the grain deal for example, and the most to continue to invest out if was for the united solution of a whole confrontation and conflict. well, as we hear in most good,

definitely here pushing success in this very difficult endeavors. that easy is that easy, but we will continue to try. it's been a fascinating conversation. thank you very much for your candor. i thank you very much and thank you for watching hope to see her again on the world's apart. ah, with me for what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy confrontation, let it be in arms. race is on very dramatic and development only personally and

getting to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successfully, very critical of time. time to sit down and talk with the headlines on alta international china hits back of the u. s. move to pull up sales of computer chips by launching a suit against washington at the world trade organization. a corruption scandal engulfing the e u. parliament claims its vote victim. the deputy chairman dismissed from her post . the european commission does seem to be overlooking the issue. israel admits its, quote, highly probable that troops accidentally killed a teenage palestinian during a weekend break in the west bank city of geneva and peru declared a state of emotion.