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 mar 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 issue the 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? not the war itself, but if we actually predicted 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 to 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 start to some benefit to aggression 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 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 perceptions. but the issue here is that the development of the 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 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 sides. 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 abstract democratic values that 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 to 2007 and in

2007 when a president puts in, made a very interesting speech at the main executive conference that was probably not well understood or was taken by the west. and the, i think it 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 a development of these is, how would i say message is coming from the west about a possible membership of free grain today. so 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 also they had me several reports 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 sasha. 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 big 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 none 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 work. but the issue here is that we have to be careful about not building

new, i think 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 of or 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 a community operation. this started by russia was ukraine. was the beginning because 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 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 to miss process. but if them is process and it's subsequent, the implementation was successful, then it would probably not be in a position like that. but once that the missed process has failed and wants that it has been perceived as a kind of attract perception by the russian side. then probably the should try to find a remedy to revisit and to rehabilitate them is crisis. and the solution should not

be a kind of humility, a solution. we need dialogue and we need a continuous attempts for a diplomatic solution to accomplish that. 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 in a stumble 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 the stumble, delegations that probably they close to and understanding it, 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 present, put in a 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 non block status for ukraine. and it's refusal from trying to reclaim crimea by force in exchange for international security guarantees. a few days later it 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 which could start the whole negotiations and which would continue for the constructive and positive result. but the fact that it has failed. unfortunately, a couple of days later, it brought us to this current situation today. a probably there have been some

factors that i cannot judge and i cannot understand who have influenced this process. but as you had mentioned that all those premises we could offer it by that being said at the outset seem to be a good beginning. you among others to refer to the russian military operation as an aggression. and at 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 ukraine and what the turks were doing or are still doing in theory or did in the yugoslavian. i think a similar case because yugoslavia is a kind of a nato action and turkey has not been participating in the military operations. they provided us for that moment. yes. but they did not provide fighters

troops and that's a major difference. they didn't provide the humans, but they provided the weapons, 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 case is something different because turkey participate in the u. s. a nation in decide or for i'll to europe in union and also by nato operations for him indicating purposes where it is and the 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 or anything from p k, k. and also from the area from the y p g. whereas 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 have been some, a terrorist activities by ukrainian nationalists on the russian territory. but apart from that, i'm sure you're aware of the syrian government strongly objected to any turkish operation on the syrian sovereign syrians summer. and i'm getting into the same sort of argument of one man's freedom fighter and other men's terrorist. i mean, if it, if you recognize your country's security concerns as the jet them, and why would you deny my country in seeing if security concerns as legitimate, especially given that russia has taken plenty of measures to negotiate with the west. what it deems us threatening. i think more countries failed to continue the dialogue and turkey interrupted the database. the mosque was in 2012 and the

military operations came on in 2016. but if the dial continued had to continue, then there could have been a solution without any kind of a military operation. it probably is the same because russia also interrupted the dialogue and cease to seek for some benefit diplomatic solution to the company for the confrontation that it had it ukraine. a both companies should have used diplomatic means dialogue and it should aim also to find a peaceful resolution to i think from this point of view, both countries has committed the same stake. well, mr. terry, cause we have to take a very short break right now, but we will be back in just a few moments stating, ah ah,

ah, ah, oh, is your media a reflection of reality? in the world transformed what will make you feel safe for isolation for community? are you going the right way, or are you being led to some with what is true worth is great. in the world corrupted, you need to descend a join us in the depths will remain in the

shallows. ah welcome back to worlds of parts with you now. chevy casa member of the turkish parliament, and the country's former ambassador to our zarbara, john and great britain, mister chevy, because it's clear that you are very strong advocates of diplomacy, and it shouldn't 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, oh, which is a kind of a legacy that we have received from us. i took, i took, as you know, was of course a military commander and went off to woods or the sentences of the mottoes that he

used was a, unless your national interests are valiantly challenged. war is not. that'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 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 ukrainian regions into russia or not. 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? 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 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 long period, it will probably end up with the peace treaty. but as you had mentioned that having so many developments that a month, for example, has passed certain resolutions. it's amazing. the annexation of certain areas of east and ukraine to russia. all these have to be a 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 both 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 it to me, executive conference, probably a peasant put in at that time and made a very interesting a remark about the a 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 soviet territory, that was the deadline for president put in to russia. and that could of course, be taken seriously, but by the west. and it could 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 guarantee its own security. and probably it would be unacceptable for the ukrainians because they also say that of course, they are 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 there is 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 that 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 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 perspective. this has been neglected, that it was a kind of perception and a growing set perception for russia, if that there 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 a central balconies 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 continuous service, western entities. but i do 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, a, but i don't think so, because i have been involved in this process as a draft of the nato russia. and to the very sincere to lavish, i mean together with them best to give up from walter. i'd sell it frequently to moscow at that time. and they even had meetings with a the that distinguish statesman, mr. premier, off of a janice alana. and it was a very open, innovative fit and of a candid conversation that you always had. and finally came to an understanding that the nato russia founding ad was the proper vehicle 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 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 solution, steve just referred to you on 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 9 to 90. 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 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 read 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 1989 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. and certainly it came to an end of the and the 1991 when the soviet union disintegrated. but the dissolution of warsaw pact was a very interesting development. and then they to react to that by establishing the not that lengthy corporation council. by in writing, the former was that countries as partners, as 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 a new by david would give a kind of it equal chance to all the partners who the members of the not that equal chance of course, made to always side 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 to 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 sold that it was a, it had to be treated differently by nature. and that was, it is not be for security reasons, given the size, a scale of one, just a reason why the form to nato russia council. that's the reason why i need to rush a finding act was saying. 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 all its privileges, own display, right? now on the ukrainian battlefield, i very much if 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 and turkey have a very complicated history between the 2 of them coming from one war, 2 piece 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 can i have been managing the very complicated relationship very, you know, it's, it's kind of relationship that's laid into the, with lots of potential disagreements and yet it's, it seems to be a 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 didn't that 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 to 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 are 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 european union, vito not

a feel to be obliged to comply with the european union as sanctions but as far as the united nations sanctions that concern, 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 the that's the reason why it took, it does not want to see an unstable environment. and particularly a war situation just in the not of it's a joke 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. to find some and it's a compromise between the 2 countries. so negotiate the grain deal for example. and then we will also continue to invest out efforts for the not to 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 people 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 mm. ah, lou needs to come to russian state will never tied us on the northland scheme

with within the 55 when. okay, so mine is good bargain speed. anyone else with will ban in the european union? the kremlin? yup. machines the state on russia for date and switch r t spoke mckibben, our video agency, roughly all band to on youtube with me. so we witnessing the end of globalization as we have known it for about the last half century. it would certainly seem so the west ability to shape the world and its own image also

appears to be on the way. as a result, should we expect noon regional and block globalization i did with, as the reports emerge on upcoming a u sanctions targeting russian media, the committee to protect journalist explains who it deems worthy of safe bargain or not. and the former c e o of a crypto currency exchange which collapsed, leaving over a 1000000 creditors has been arrested in the bahamas a day before he was set to testify before the u. s. congress is rural. it made it's highly probable. its troops accidentally killed a teenage palestinian during a weekend rate.