before the attacks on the rock. so for example, the and this by the way, the 1st one, this is the in 919091. when of course the coalition of the united states as a by president george bush's father, george w bush's father. his defense secretary then who, of course, ends up being vice president with bush junior as well when he comes to power. and laser. dick cheney actually advocated the use potential use nuclear weapons against the iraqi posts. it's never really gone away. so i think now it's been articulated a high extent because of the circumstances where call it desperation, call and rhetoric. one of the might be, the fact is that if one is in a situation where one needs to potentially as ways to save, you know,

jangle a few notes in what this is, what's happening. i understand that the, the said these references to nuclear tribes. they can be very distressing for some people, but there wasn't believe during the cold war. and that fear is actually very instrumental in politics because it's keep the politicians thinking, ground the, you know, this is something that limits ambition. and you make the point in your writing that there was a desire for quote, unquote victory over russia has become a succession. and a fixation without the full understanding of what that victory may actually mean in practical terms. as far as you can deduct from the speeches of politicians or from strategic documents. if the west would have its ideal way, what would it mean with regards to russian to get to that question, let me just put it like this. your listeners may be familiar with an old massive store and he's no longer with us. he died actually no longer. his name is eric

homespun, and he was a very fine student and pupil of that complex negotiation between east and west and also the coal wolf course save us very much in the tradition of the danesh english appraisal about, you know, the cold war. but also the 20th century, and in fact, the 19th century he's, he's very famous putting together this list of works, trying to understand these very, to miles davis last 150 years or so. and in a full and correspond we make this very striking remark. but forget that the end of the soviet union was essentially the end of a stable system, a control system from trysts and the west of course, amount of lot of our stock. so, and that was of course, writing at that point when the soviet union that cease to exist, the object of this kind of thing and, and i,

i'm sad to say that it's reached the point where the fixation on the obsession was dealing with russia is such that they and this is this kind of defeat obsessional, they want to defeat russia. and it's, you know, as much as one can understand where people have stakes in this, it's very dangerous prospect to trying to talk about all the seats and things like that. because that may raise the stakes and other areas, but it also raises the prospect about what happens in russia. and i think that that is also very problematic with simple levels. the fact of the matter is that, you know, people are coming to this in good faith and i know it's very hard to come to good faith and in terms of one battle and whatnot that there's so many people from various countries investing in attacking russia. now that it becomes difficult to ness, you know, the idea is not to seek, you know, a consensus and understanding about peace between your brand and russia. but the

idea is essentially, we've got brush on the run and this is what we're going to do. and this is where things become very james, but professor you said a moment ago that it's hard to sort of approach war in a good faith. but i'm in the military science is a science. and i mean, the least in russia and i hope in the west, it's approached from a strategic and tactical point of view. you have to consider your goals, you have to consider your means. you have to consider possible consequences. i mean, and there is a long list of literature by american writers and how you actually operate war, how you try to achieve the results. and i sometimes get a get a sense that the american decision makers are what the decision makers don't even bother about you. know 2nd order consequences, let alone something that may come. i don't know, 5 or 10 years down the line. do you share that impression? well, the, the few things you mentioned one of them is the science. well,

i'm afraid to say as yes, true that had spin elevator, this notion of military doctrine to science, but suddenly it, instead of to me, it more resembles a kind of a fallible artful, you know, when it comes to military adoption. and what i mean by that is that you just need to look at the writings of the trash and general stuff. so the old german stuff before, so before germany was unified, this defense unification. and there was a famous 1st marshal as famous general or a helmet one month to her actually said that. so you can of course, always plan you know, as find typically as you want to say scientifically, you didn't quite use those words. but he said you can plan for every scenario wanted the best. you can plan for any plans for us as rigorously as you want 10 scenarios, but on battle and in circumstances the lessons happens. the same thing in terms of strategy here will be speaking. the issue is to be wise enough to anticipate that

there has to be leg group. that's the court. and the, the issue here is yes. so, you know, i think it's, you know, if you look at every historical strategy in history, these are usually strategies of all dictates. so the documents, when you talk about referring documents, they already data or to have the musty smell of the library of the archives. they don't apply for the circumstances that i need a consensus, a new, but then the very least that one has to consider. he can analyze an opponent and the rush at this point of time. is it at its strongest point militarily? economically i was the claim socially than it has ever be. and if the goal is to, let's say, we can rush out, or as we've been hearing lately, change the regime in russia. why would the west wage for so long and then allow russia to accumulate that strength? and the 2nd question to that does, there was actually have the resources,

it's own capabilities, military military capabilities, strategic capabilities, political capabilities, to take on the country, the size of russia. well, 1st and foremost, i don't think, and this is the general consensus shot, you know, very sadly, when i say, i mean, broadly in the west and complex, the strategic community is that there is a perception that russia is actually not that strong. and then rush raise in typing week. i mean that's, that's the name of the general. surely know, all the, you know, and put in is very good at signaling. he, he showed them what russia possesses in terms of hypersonic, hypersonic weapons and what have you. sure. i mean, people who are in the no, no, it's the general public that may be led astray by people who make decisions. they actually know about that. and my understanding of history generally, you know, there was this that in the context of the 1st one was example, it was sets rather well,

those who started to write about that afterwards. that's the example the british army were led by you know, you know, they were led by donkeys, the lions, bring that by donkeys. so, you know, in terms of strategic sense, i think you to understand your audience to understand this, the thing, it's important to realize that the general approach and this is the media cycle here. whether, whether the thing privately and i'll just not being the, what they're doing here in terms of signals you mention. but let me witness during sickening that the singling is the opposite. it's the mirror opposite it's rush is weakened. russia does not have enough in terms of its weaponry, it does not have targeted weapon range running out of it. it's using now indiscriminately weapons that it has from service era. so that's, that's the context. it's happening. yes. so beyond that context, and i think this is the thing, and i think that gets back to the question that you mentioned, which is very important. what is the ultimate goal?

the also go is a weak and russia, and that raises all sorts of deep problems, of course one. but of course i'm sure you would agree with me. one cannot, we can rush by pretending that it's weak. i mean, if you actually want to win over a powerful adversary, you need to be fully aware of the strengths and weaknesses. okay, you mentioned something about a country that is, of course, very powerful. i'm gonna say the largest on the planet, a straddling duration landmass. of course, from europe, a to the borders with japan. i mean there's no question about that. it's not, it's not that it can be taken that has to be taken seriously. but i think this is one of the reasons why it troubles me a lot. is that a lot of the tactical and strategic approach to this is not realizing the fact that one russia is not going to russia has genuine considerations in the context of the ukraine like street. yes. whatever. one describes in the context of aggression the

reality also remains that there were serious issues that linked to the conflict. originally, these have been ignored. nato once expansion and they to wants to be globalized. and it's role, which is extraordinary and very dangerous to this. this is a fascinating point that we have to explore in more detail. so let's take a very short break right now. i think we will be back in just a few moments fiction. ah, for ah, in 1834 france invaded algeria and straight away the french started inhabiting it,

strengthen their position. the colonists, known as da no wires, took the best land from day one, the local population was put into an unequal position and was brutally exploited. these goss mazda is content, the people of algeria began their long fight for independence. in 1954, the banner of freedom was raised by the national liberation front. a guerrilla war against the occupants broke out. the french tried to suppress the rebellion using cruel measures. full villages were wiped out acts of georgia and executions of civil people, including pregnant women, children and old people took place more than 2000000 people were put into concentration camps. however, these punitive measures didn't help the algerian patriots managed to induce france to start fees. negotiations. in 1962 evian records were signed,

voting algeria in the past, towards independence. but this was achieved at a colossal price. algeria by rights is considered to be a country of martyrs. according to the calculations of historians, the french colonists are responsible for the deaths of one and a half 1000000 algerians. ah, you fucker, that's what issues just a good as a rule sheets do become so. tory come from you with bush bush, which muley bush along with a strip of denial for your motive. a 2 echo just skiffs. yeah. i wasn't going to stand up for the 11 minute often. you?

yes. well thank you for for luth leading was visual. no one actually spoke up, did it when you are fulfills, usually she shifts with ah, to quit to mister c with genius bush and will you do with them? it's no, it's not a router, but as little food you can use this money still to with arctic. can i those numbers of national with flow on it along with the lucy laser.

ah ah welcome back to wells appointment benoit complex senior lecture in the school of global urban and social studies at r m. i t university in melbourne, professor come tomorrow before the break. we touched upon the prevailing attitudes . i'm a western elite and it is my perception that when it comes to russia, they roughly fall within the 2 camps. both want rushes capitulation, but one camp is mindful all i am concerned about limiting the costs of achieving that goal to themselves while the other camp represented by for example,

your secretary of state, anthony blink. and believe that this is something that has to be accomplished at any cost. so the distinction between the dogs and the the hawks is not really about what they are aiming at, but rather about the cost of that policy. or am i right here, or you perhaps see a 3rd council 5, somewhat saner and decision makers many years ago in the context of your questions . so just to give the background that even throughout said throughout the ninety's, when there was this kind of sort of the you fauria. but sort of the sense that things had changed. that the co who had as an ad and there was not a sense of worrying about things in the world. what had altered they were very sharper monster observations made by various individuals throughout smith. some of them, for example,

like professor mir shineman who's made this point very clearly that in russia has its strategic interest that need to be respected. we even had, of course, the person, former state department official, george kennan. there is no longer with us. but he famously said he's the author of some of your view as might be to minute he was famously the all of the telegram in the 1940s that led to the adoption of containment of the soviet union. and he said in the aftermath of the, of the cold war and with the mutterings of the advance of nature, this was falling. this is very dangerous. and this added to the fact that the bush administration business bush, senior administration, of course, and many of the presided over the re and if occasion of germany and arrange of other things and negotiations with gorbachev. the promises. devil may fan these fun,

not buying as things many individuals were passive promises and assurances given to the russian delegation than soviet delegation. constantly. if you accept these propositions and it was extra name anyways, go, but trump didn't have to do what he did. but the late, of course, he did out of the good will and i think one that one of the factors that is not the way appreciative in the west is that russia actually supported the reification of, of germany. i mean, russia allow this to happen and it fell, deceived afterwards. and now it feels that if it has to protect some of the last that were formerly the soviet lance or the ukrainian lives, it can do that. i mean, if you remember after the re, invocation with crimea, specifically address the germination saying that me support or do back them. we

count on the same historic justice from your side. but obviously it's, it's not coming you make that time. this is exactly what i was getting out. the fact is that the various gestures made on the stroke rate and that sounds good. well from then ago, but trust me when, when it came to the issue, the fall of the berlin wall and not sending and tanks and so on. i mean, these kinds of things be and the issue of renal cation was extraordinary. there was a lot of opposition and even in some european quarters and but the fact of the matter is it was, it came from the kremlin. and that particular point said that this could happen and so reassurances or, you know, undertakings were given. and then what happened subsequently, was that actually, you know, president bush seen actually just made the remarks specifically, oh god, there was a throwaway line. so the archives actually have that actually have these remarks made by individuals who gave those undertakings. and then in the scheme, and that's the danger of who breaths, you know,

that old i greet being so confident in having a week in russia, the dissolution of the soviet union. that okay, we get undertakings but the circumstances have changed now. so, you know, you're absolutely right to acknowledge the historical ro here and the fact that it's, you know, and, you know, back to what you were saying with these 2 camps about, well, you know, we accept elements of the russian issue. but also there are those who one total victory, but they have been those, you know, actually suggesting that this is absolute madness and very dangerous to keep assisting along the line. and it's worth noting that many of those who do say that have been subjected to call it's a black labeling labeling you name it does. it's very hard to get a debate about this in any career and context in the strategic communities, militarily and politically and west and circles. you mentioned nathan before, and i think we need to transition to that subject. i think there is

a belief here in moscow that nathan doesn't actually want ukraine in because i think stands right now. they're already getting everything they won from your brain without having any obligations without having the need to come to the defenses. they can just use it without any consequences. and i wonder if that makes this conflict even more dangerous because of all the a symmetry between what is sad and what is being done. because russia, after all, you know, it's subscribed to a really point of view. and it doesn't look at the speeches of paula western leadership, it looks at what is being done on the ground. and if your crane is being militarized, if western infrastructure moved there without any formal association with made, it's still a threat for russia said, don't you think that this way or sort of a proxy taking over your crane is even more dangerous than that? you know, ukraine being part of nato, the trip in

a firm in line of what you are saying the treatment of ukraine is not that it reminds me of the way that the proxies, other allies in the context, for example, is united states of pakistan. the way the focused on has been treated in the us constellation of power stages. there was a pakistani general that explains also why the relationship is so tense between those 2 powers. the pakistani general in question said that we essentially america's condom and the dispose of us when they want us to reviews this. so the use sauce, prop sees of the use this notion that ukraine will be slaughtered in and of course festival, any sort of slotting in there's not going to be a sloughing and it's going to say yes, not even after, not even during this conflict. we've seen individuals from nato and the general and a european and us strategic community say, well, come on. thank you very much. we're welcome you in your i to say that this is

becoming a kind of this, this proxy war where it so testing ground, it's a means where it's been used to trying to get to russia. but it doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to go full and full ukrainian, you know, for the use of ukraine as part of needs. i mean the, i actually don't necessarily see that at all. and i think, you know, ron's been going to be the terrible tragedies that happened when allies or individuals about that. then at a certain moment a band and it's not, you know, do not look away from the fact that when it comes to set. and as you say, a real power reality is realism and so on. it may well be that ukraine times something the middle. again, that's sensors. now, you said also a moment ago that this warring spirit is fueled in part by nato is strive to become global. and on the psychological level, i think we can understand the nipple and fantasy. but i wonder if

if that is even possible. i mean, when we look at the america's own capabilities, right now, its ability to shower money on to other countries. is it really realistic, given that many of america's own alice look, for example, in saudi arabia. i'm going that all the way does need to have the power of the resources to become global at this point of time, regardless of russia. no, there's no, it's no, it doesn't any box. it's a bit like, you know, and i can't say i missed the man, but i have to sad to always find them very comical. but of course, the recently deposit boris johnson, the u. k. prime minister, who at this idea of global britain? well, no. it's not anymore, i did say it was at one point, but certainly not. this is the kind of ambition for need. so sort of, you know, having hubs here and then having some kind of ambition beyond its elements borders . but because ultimately, let's face it, what was it time to do?

it's ultimately the north atlantic treaty organization. but what has happened is that they've been trying to use the ukraine, russia conflict to expand its relevance. and you've got even, you know, bizarrely individuals such as the currents is trailyn prime. instancing albany of course wants to be added to the list. some are, feels important, you know, wanting to add a bit to the ukraine, russia conflict. and so what you do, you start jumping up on these particular things and not quite understanding the implications. it's the same thing with the, the all cos agreement, the security arrangement that straight to the united states and the u. k. signed declared and september. okay. we know who's running it, we know that the u. s. essentially is running the of it is essentially just, you know, the butler's trying to make sure that the drinks are served. well,

let me actually let us finish on this plan because we began with charlie rican and with us, charlie as well. these countries in a very interesting position because it is far away from all the war theaters. it is safe, it wouldn't be the safest place to be in, in, in the event of a nuclear apocalypse. and yet, on the other hand, it seems to be very eager to do the us as bidding, not only with ours, but also with other formats, even though it comes at a cost of very profitable, very lucrative corporation with china and perhaps some others as well. what is the rational they are the practical rational, not the decision makers, but for, for the people of the continent. not much reflection has been given about this issue astray has had a strange habit over the years of doing the fighting of the countries. it's, it's one of these strange things, you know, the, the british have is net police lead unit the girl because, and i like to always upset that before i written about it and sent that straight to

attend to be the good sense of the united states. so their sense and the is trained and government claims or tries to get some kind of added advantage from the united states by providing forces. but it's never really clear also and should be added the fact that with this new agreement, we don't know when i say we, i mean 9 us trailer, we don't know in terms of how what the use of the nuclear submarines what is deployment issue. and so on, it's coming to huge cost to the chinese stretching relationship and a more independent thinking approach. what would change this? it's also worth noting, just on that point, as a straight encouraged by us analysis essentially tends to sort of see the ukraine, russia conflict by looking at the way china behave since quite intriguing. so to me it's, it's quite designed some point the been trying to see the way russia behaves in ukraine to the way china might behave towards ty one. and again,

that's dangerous because that's a potential conflict. wedding to happen. where a country that has no interest in dealing with that will probably get involved because of fairly adopt auditions. well, maybe that will lead to migration of those multi millionaires somewhere closer to siberia. we would not mind that on this new professor. we have to live in there, but i agree me, i appreciate your expertise today. thank you very much for your time. so it's a pleasure being with you. i really enjoyed think you're out of think of watching the hearing again on the walter part. ah ah. we oh,

a with water is thrown in the old double in the snow pours about scheduling. this comes with the last dance here, but it would ideally, we sprung from dr hours from the end to lower. let in bt. do training a gift away in the pals, teacher skills on the edge on the brown asia door was to let him by midday abuse in a little bolcom in the crucial chest middle school. that was all senior wookey bone is not. but if could pd's to a lot of what you could a little bit, lou dvd well, they need to work with up sheet. any video picks that will be good to go with when you go to see sure he missed his piece. they need to the middle,

set them up and you can give us his net because he thought he is a post north of miss dempsy. this material. but it was fairly tossed up even though so gray unit should update those slide l b. you still open it, it doesn't help with that me. she go. she returned with a note up there normally square yet. so to handle most of his emotional specially to renew the lease is up and you took a little of doing piecemeal. mm. we're only one main thing is important for knox ism internationally speaking to that is that nations visits are allowed to do anything. all the mazda races, the reason us had gemini, is so dangerous. is it the, by the sovereignty of the country? or is business and business is good and that is the reality of what we're facing,

which is fashion with that is the last stronghold or the last handhold. gradient home solid are just outside the city wagner. true. so troops have made significant progress towards the end of the visit, the town of some of the recently taken under control by a wagner, that russian fault is headed to the thought operation against the grain truth. let me pay book to tom is china's in beijing plant. the usaa and japan often then statement on trying to use dangerous to regional and international security from what i saw until they is playing a gradient.