a usa policy at the school that did you, do you put up a list of all, but each with ah, ah, with me. hello and welcome to was apart. as shakespeare contended for centuries ago, war makes was 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 a what is turkey is game? well, to discuss that i'm now joined by you know, to, because a member of the turkish parliament and the countries form ambassador to re breton. and there's ever john, it's a great pleasure to talk to you. thank you very much for your time. thank you for inviting me. now. i mentioned the war in ukraine in my introduction and we are going to monitor the 10 month anniversary of it 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 voice of a actually, i think that kind of a military operation. and we simply thought that it would be dangerous for the

whole region. because since the disintegration of the former soviet union, turkey has developed it with those relations, both the dresser and ukraine, and both countries are neighbors at the black sea by the sea side of course. but of course, so if those 2 countries start to some benefit monetization or how to conflict, that would of course create the serious danger for the whole region. that was the reason why we wanted to urge that it wouldn't happen. and we also explained that he did not recognize the developments in the 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? note that is not what i meant actually. so certainly, every country has its own definition of its own security concerns and 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 the 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 abstract democratic values that here if i do not challenge, of course, to concerns that the russian side had about its own security concerns. i would probably refer to the history and they probably go to 2007, and in 2007 when a president puts in, made a very interesting speech at the mean executive conference. that was probably not well understood or was taken by the west, and i think it all started. 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 today. so it's not just the messages. i mean, i understand your that i kind of leave it, i can to judge and i cannot confirm that. i mean, of course. so they have used 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 russia. 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 stability to our region. and we have to find the solution to the conflict because it is not to the benefit 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 call 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 there in a certain time period and it should be lasting and it should be a continuing k. so that is probably the reason why i may have referred to that kind of a word. but the issue here is that we have to be careful about not building new the writing rules or dividing lines in europe. it is in the heart of europe. and if that continues, and if that 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 for because we wanted to implement the articles of want to a treaty. they don't want to convention based on the concept of war and the

perception from turkeys point of view us aggression 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 peace process itself has been abused by ukraine and it's western beckers. when, 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's, it's a fact that the miss process has failed. and then 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 wants that it has been perceived as a kind of a threat perception by the russian side. then it probably should try to find the remedy to revisit and to rehabilitate them is crisis. and the solution should not be a kind of a military is 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 the close to an 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 symbol talks, the ukrainian side submitted in written form is condition for peace, which included the neutral 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 bus at kind of a proposal,

reach good to start the whole negotiation. standby to continue for constructive and positive result, 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 base that at the outset seem 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 turkey 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 live in?

i think a simpler case because you most love is a kind of a nato action. and turkey has not been participating in the military operations provider just for that moment. yes, but they did not provide fighters. it troops 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 decide or for i'll to erupt in union and also by nato operations. only for the communicating 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 the area 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 i'm 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 deny 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 that 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. it probably is the same because russia also interrupted the dialogue and sees to seek for some benefit the magic solution to the company for the confrontation that it had it ukraine. most countries should have used does not mean style. and it should aim also to find a peaceful resolution to the conflicts. i think from this point of view, both countries have committed the same stake a cause we have to take

a very short break right now, but we will be back in just a few moments. thank you. why in ah, ah. ah

ah ah ah ah welcome back to wells apart, smith, you now chevy coast a member of the turkish parliament and the country's forman bassinger it to you as ever john and braid britain, mister chevy because it's clear that you are very strong advocates of diplomacy and

we shouldn't be, but do you believe that that ever comes a point when diplomacy simply exhaust itself one more forceful measures to defend countries, existential interests are required. we have a saying a, which is a kind of a legacy that we have received from us. i took out the took, as you know, was of course, immediately commended and went off to woods or d e sentences. the motto is that he used last it unless your national interests are vehemently challenged. war is not there. that's what he has said. and i think it that simply implies that that authentic also sees roar is a very, very last resort. 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 fair amount to arms for a certain period is necessary. but it has to stop in and 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 bleaching to the piece itself. and if they had determined to do that, and then the site will not be a very long period, it will probably end up with the peace treaty. but as you had mentioned that having so many developments that a russian apartment, for example,

has passed certain resolutions, recognizing the annexation of certain areas of easton ukraine to russia. all these have to be serious and 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, both countries and what people have to re establish trust and confidence against one another. do you think it's just the between ukraine and 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 president putting in 2007 at the me 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 that explicitly a gave andrew has read lines. it was probably the former, so edited the red line for president put an end to russia. and that could of course, be 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 russia. or we would never allow russia to perceive certain tech perception coming from the west, but isn't put in and today actually minister level in his speech. also mentioned that 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 saying 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 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 one does leave russia with no choice, no other than doing what it did?

no, 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 quote that is 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 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 russian perspective has 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 worth 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 a rush, but also in the west, who believe that the ultimate goal of the west is essentially a balcony to russia. to put an end to russia as a, as a sovereign state. they see this threat to and they would rather have russia broken into several parts that continue service, western energies. but what do you think neglect is the right word, or was it deliberate, denial of russia's 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 nathan. i have found it. and that either a sincere to win, i mean together with them by so should i give out from wellcare. i tell frequently to moscow at that time and even have meetings with a the, that distinguish statesman, mr. premier off a janice alana and it was

a very open and it made a fed and of a candid conversation that you always had. and finally came to an understanding that the nato russia founding ad was the proper or the instrument, which would 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 we neglect this problem to write that 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 solution. so you just referred to your another experience of yours professional experience of yours. because in addition to being a column in terry and then the high ranking department, they are also served at nature in the early ninety's. i just said that critical moment when nature was tasked with the read to 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 the everything it seems to be. so rosie, after the cold war, i think it was a clique developments. took place in rapidly a you remember in 1089 when the war, so back disappeared. natal immediately found that the something is changing and bipolar that it is probably a softening and probably it's coming to an end. it certainly came to an end at the end of $1091.00 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 the former was that countries as

partners as and their partners are 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 it new buddy. the for the give it kind of it equal chance to all the partners who the members of the note that has equal chance a yes. but then of course, they 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 new, the independent states that also invited to the next. he didn't know if that went to corporation counsel. and then in 1994. you would, you call that the partnership for peace idea was promoted. russia always thought that 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 reasons, given the size of that scale. and was just that he's and why the, for the nato russia council. that's the reason why i need to rush a founding act was same. so it was a very pretty station situation. and it was a very privileged offer to rational i'm and it's only for russia, it was only for russian where it always privileges. own display right now on the ukrainian battlefield. i've been migrant. they fail to. i mean, it is, it hurts because if you're involved in a process, and if you think that you are doing something good for the humanity and for the p. s. stability of europe. and if you see that it is not functioning, it is failing. then, you know, well that the russia and turkey have a very complicated history between the 2 of them coming from one war to peace, to confrontation again to corporation. again, do you think there's anything that may term perhaps there west more generally can learn from the way most grand and kind of have been managing the very complicated

relationship very and you know it's, it's kind of relationship that's late in the but a lot of potential disagreements and yet it's, it's severe 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 northern flank, 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 nate those solidarity but also from turkey. so point turkeys point of view, it was a very good development and the soviet union has invested into the development of

industrial it infrastructure of turkey in 1960 for example, nobody challenge that. now we are experiencing a kind of the same thing which is not happening. and although there are sanctions which i implemented by the western countries which are mainly by the european union and turkey legitimate, that says that as we are not a member of to european 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 in 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 disintegration of the soviet union. and that's the reason why it took, it does not want to see an unstable environment. and particularly a war situation just in the north of it's jo 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 efforts for the united solution of the a whole confrontation and conflict. well, as we hear in moscow, definitely wish you success in this very difficult endeavors. that easy. it's that easy, but you 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. ah. are we witnessing the end of globalization as we have known it for about the last half century? it would certainly seem so. the west, the ability to shape the world and its own image also appears to be on the way. as a result, should we expect new regional and block globalization only 41 percent of us. it does have enough savings to cover a $1000.00 emergency. we have record numbers of americans who are on the verge of having their cars repossess more than a 137000000 americans are facing financial hardship because of medical debt. in america, we do have a welfare system in place to help people who are struggling financially, but it's a conditional system.