inside, so you don't have a clear winner or loser and you reached a point where, you know, the cultures decide that they have enough and they'd like to sit for negotiations. probably this is the most likely seen are, but there is also the possibility and this is probably the most worrisome, but one of the 2 sides because both sides of the moment are preparing for what we understand offensive and save of what all this 2 sides gathers genes the are perhaps monday, other thoughts west predict, either by using more lethal weapons or a lodging, the conflict for the intellectual or so. well, let's talk about that because we are recording this conversation on wednesday and they began with the news from the russian minister of defense about one of us warships in the atlantic, successfully testing a hypersonic missile with that 1000 kilometer range. and we've also heard over the

last couple of days, some news from germany about nato countries. expanding the i list of armaments and weapons that they want to send to ukraine than becoming ever more sophisticated. what do you make of all that showmanship of g thing? there is a chance of that. those weapons being used on by that i mean, specifically the russian hypersonic missiles on these as far as i on the stones. oh weapons. all this. i mean, if you're talking, thank you since the start of the war, it's just you know, that ukraine as entreaty used western babes thanks tried. and as far as hypersonic missiles are concerned, you know, if the below this conventional bizarre, know, necessarily different for all the types of nissan strides. and so, i mean, it will, it will not necessarily be a huge escalation was, i mean,

in terms of escalation is weapons that are more lethal, try didn't term. so for bailiff, particularly that the worrisome um ah, factor here is the possibility of fuel unconventional. which, you know, i'm speaking about unconventional weapons. i mean, i, hypersonic missiles is, is it as unconventional as it gets? and i agree with you that there is no point military point or strategic point for ration to use it against ukraine. but to use it against some of the countries that supply ukraine with weapons and advisors, that then attack russian military personnel that makes perfect sense. i'm in business war. after all, do you think moscow was trying to send any signal to the west? and if so, how do you think that thing be read? well, russia has tried to deter intervention by nato, since og, historical to conflict. and i should also say that this has as large in the

successful what the as been pretty slides to do is to say, hey, you counts for the sun reference to ukraine or we are going with that q. and this will be a very, i sure will, did a very dangerous escalation on the part of russia. it's the, exactly the same sort of argument that a germany used and we're one right to united states was at the time supplying weapons. the all dogs and the germany launched on unrestricted summary warfare in order to stop the supplies. so this, this, like b would be with be probably us a step too far because so far, you can really are given this is still a war between 2 sides. well, and depending how you define the sides of it with the russians, it's definitely not the warning between russia and ukraine and the russian seed as a war against nita. and they made definite to see that as an existential issue. by

the way, the west also doesn't really hide its intentions to solve the quote unquote the russian question and to fight until the very end, whatever it means. so, if i'm in the war is really of such proportion, if it's an exit sensual in nature and involves the survival of russia as a state. do you think that would be such an illogical move for russia to at least came that using those weapons against those who sponsor this conflict? no. when we were saying the exist, does it mean? but the rational uses, the war, rochelle says, is to exist. and a single answer here is, no, i'll russia will continue to exist on, even if it, you know, i made using the war with, with a late to rashaw, essentially using the 3030. it's no controls, ukraine and also the crimea up but generosity exist without that. of course. i mean look brief. refills on the solid

people falls and 40 grandchild garage would still be there. now what would be of fact, however, would be irrational estate, this as a great ball world, the 1st track and it is for vis objective the thought. believe the war is taking place in. ah, this would be, by the way, this is a very important objective. it is indeed all you know and draw cheese to read this like this. i've been so for great bowers, great powers are not buying in, in their sleep, off seek of old age of they are usually because it on the battlefield. so the question is, it has the time come for, for russia. now you mentioned the issue of great powers and you wrote that a great book on the grand strategists of great power. i wonder if that's the definition of what it means to be a great power in disdain. h, as in any way changed, let's say, from the 20th century. i don't think so. i mean, it's still, it's still based on free criteria,

essentially as they tries to kill all 3 of the criteria in order to get great power and stay a great power and describe your criteria are seeing the power behavior recognition . so we've actually, you know, the, to be a great ball where you're large resources and buried resources of intentional population in terms of, well, it's very forest. and in terms of technology, at the very least are also you have to behave like a great ball, which is you have to have larger and father, we interests, you know, joy, media, they both with oak. so great are, is usually involved in several regions at the same time or in the dark international, just in case of the us, then you'll have to take part in the international management all the system. and finally, it will be a great ball. you have to be treated as one as an equal number of the club by the other. great out. this is probably what the speak here because it's pretty much

where the ross is treated as an equal by the united states or not. now, i think your definition of great powers is pretty much concurrent with how it's described it within the, the russian political circles. it's primarily for the russians about their ability to project various forms of power beyond the border, cultural, social, financial, and military and august. the russian power is constrained in some of those rails. but when it comes to, for example, security and military, and i mean, russia has been increasingly present in some of the middle eastern countries in africa. it's the number one provider weapons to africa and also provide military services to a number of african countries. much to the chagrin of the united states. i wonder if you see any connection between the russia emerging confidence in those affairs

and the western decision to stop to start weaponized your brain very fast. which came, well, at least this is something that the russian cited as a, as a reason for that military campaign in the ukraine. as far as, as i see, this is ultimately not so much a conflict over security. all, obviously, i mean there, this, the argument is being made ultimately, you know, you voting security is that, is that just it the only legitimate reason to go to war. either your under attack or you know, your ela is under attack, and this is why you're taking security measures. but in fact, every one he's saying this, and if you're looking got, you know, what's ukraine and what's russian are saying they are both making this argument right? oh, i would say, however, particularly because you know, great, all, we're sorry, evolve. this is for more of conflict over power and status involving the united states and russia. it's so question of all russia asserted

a sphere of influence in the former soviet space market constant year abroad. and ukraine, easy sunshine in order to obtain this, you know, these things doesn't want to allow us to happen. and offices, you know, at the bottom of what, what is going on, of course, very supply and demand, right? so there is an interest on the art off of form. they don't use space to supply ukraine with disruptions. buggers, old. so a nationalist ideology and dog identity is in your grade that wants to assert itself and requires us to or miss robinson. now in your analysis i you called the lighting and put in at risk averse loss minimizer. and as much as i actually agree with this characterization at the seemingly most illogical way of on minimizing the risk for us or would be just to sit still try to reach some backdoor agreements with the americans to avoid public humiliation. but,

and to deal with that, it's resentment and it's criticism all fine. and nader encroachment in some other rather than military way. why do you think the kremlin took the decision? it took which, whatever you think about it could not have been an easy one. not only because of its international repercussions, but also because of the domestic sensibilities. most of us have relatives and ukraine. well, this is a story. this is a point that, you know, you church, historians are going to salivate over. so this is definitely going to lead falls and books fright. why did draw all sparks start to warn you. great. but as far as i'm concerned, i believe, and you know, this plays in to what we have said before with any visor as probably the last chance rush or has. busy all not losing your claim to the west or ukraine was

army day by day it was becoming stronger and in fact we see. but you know the results. ready battlefield is this have been got to close at 40. you know that what i've left with different all got it was i. and so the idea your was if roger allowed to continue to allow this, this process to go on back. no, you great would have been without becoming denser ball. great. what i've tried the baby completely into the western orbit. can brush it all. this will happen. so read the last chance for voice. well, this is a very interesting point that we have to return to after spring break. thank you. mm. or

ah ah ah ah welcome back to wells appointments to door assistant professor at the department

of international relations and bill counts university professor and they had just before the break you mentioned. and you also made a point in some of your articles that the reason why russia intervened in ukraine is because it wants to have its sphere of influence there. i wonder if it's really the case, because if we are, i'm in milledgeville and honest about the political analysis of your grant. it's been under western political domination for many years prior to the start of our russian military campaign. wasn't it more about not allowing the west to turn his project in ukraine from a political one into a military one, in which case it would not be about ukraine. it would be about the west and nate on its military infrastructure moving ever closer to the russian capitol. yes, the question here is why you're necessarily want to close the technology to annihilate the state of kilometers away. this is not, you know, the time. so,

you know, they're all yet it's time. so if you're where you have to send in the back garage as being an attack against itself because it needs to defend itself. they do, he's not crazy. so this is not so much a question of we are going, but that was, it was general. well, actually expand our influence in ukraine. so the question your is where your grade was going to go? was it going to go to the european union? was it going to go into the eurasian project economic project, but you know, is supposed to rival, the, you isn't going to go into nato. is it going to going from the collective of security, treat your organization? so this is the problem your and of course of each says, but wasn't really an agreement with this organization or potential idea of that was

on banded about at, at the time was a potential neutralization or great, you know, make, make your grade beloved or belgium a but this didn't, didn't come about all there is the result was ultimately this, this conflicts. now, you know, one of the, you know, international political analysts will actually around london and put in speeches and or his articles on the issue. and he's been pretty clear, i think, in most of his writing, that he didn't want the ukraine to be part of russia. he insisted that ukraine needed to remain an independent state. and from a russian perspective, it wasn't good idea because it actually allowed russia as vested interest in ukraine, somewhere to intense early integrity. it would create a buffer zone, defend it in the west, and from that was the best security guarantee for your grant. now that this is a thing of the past and some parts of your brain already incorporate that interaction. what do you think that division line that boundary is going to be and

that's it. it's, it's got, this is really the problem. and this is going to be, you know, the double in the flood, the liquor sheesh, right? so the devil is always seem to be belts. all right? so who gets what? ultimately it's be fine. so what is going to happen really 30 bucks, i would say despite you know that many declaration, so folks, you know, you great, st. bratia leaders. it will, it sealed, spill all them of me on that. they've all, for negotiations. nothing is really subtle yet. oh, so it will, it will pretty much be decided by whoever ends up in about the position at the end of this will still it, it's for any and mediation or authentic negotiation to proceed all sides, including converts actors or behind the theme actors. they all need to make the

calculation that. 8 continue hostilities and more detrimental to their interest, dan piece, and i think i can figure out what would be a russian and ukranian constraints because they're fighting on the battlefield. they're losing people, they're losing resources. but what about the americans and they european allies, they don't seem to be losing as much what could possibly inspire them to be more in favor of peace. oh, essentially. all right, the know both saw it and you know, here we are talking here about you. cree blah said the will be sure. social creek, which is the nato. you american allies in asia are off and on the other side, your horizon. and so the problem, the year is but built side still believe that victory is boston. as long as they will pertain this b, b, they are willing to spend resources in order to catch to low on on was bill it is

supposed to little girl a. what is needed in order for priestess happen is for these thoughts. oh, give up on the prospect of victory. so victory is simply too expensive that is out of reach. and therefore if this goes this business of thought back to order some, some useful stuff. and those simpler, we all know that but for yes. but so, you know, and this also shows the magnitude of the state. oh, because it's, you start, you know, all the resources that are required so far i'll be off. it's interesting that the, you mentioned. 6 that all sides, i still going for victory, but the russians have never actually defined clearly that military objectives. so it's, it's very difficult to say what they would regard as victory or from most, this perspective it's already achieved the why the number of goals and so to sort

of put them in stone with the acquisition of those regions. do you think the status quo as of now would be satisfactory for all sides? given that it's very unlikely that most google backtrack on any of the recent moves . oh, probably not. oh no, we're you. great. you great has all a set on you know, maximilian goal so every in shall carry theory bloss, grime, eon needs to be all the way they, they both it was liberated. and as far as russia has been, sir, we know that, you know, the mini mo, the man there he is for is for the dumbass value of all this new territories. but, you know, have been added to the dom, us. but the thing is, even if this was considered to date brush on this, we're going to release that this i rises, political objectives, which are to, you know, force ukraine into essentially it's orbit. and this is not likely to

happen here yet. only way you know this with, you know, the war with and in a way that would satisfy rational would be either with few grain, simply capitulating and this were, was probably the objective at, you know, the beginning of the force. the lift is, you know, complete occupation of pro russian government gets a government that gives up on the dom bostic government that keeps up on joining nato, a government that lead the march of joins the russian project or failing best or you grand, but it is so dramatically weakens off the coffee, but it will then pull both march challenge in the future. so for instance, an ability to got ukraine away from the black sea through se, occupying goddess and bet would be a ukraine. but we'll be glad, equally, weaker economically, politically. and it will be a question or flash on finishing their job at some later point. i have

a problem with this kind of analysis and which i hear a lot in western media primarily because i think as these and put in is at risk of hers a loss minimizer. and he's pretty sure, with man, understanding that there, as a russian sentiment in ukraine is extremely strong. there. they've never been much appetite in moscow for, you know, western ukraine, you know, deletion other lines like that. so why would the russia ever want to get that soft involved into those lance when it faced even under joseph style and under the soviet tool, there was many separatist and insurgent issues there. so don't you think that most would much rather be satisfied with the west taking the rest of ukraine on their own wing and you know, paying for their reconstruction and taking care of the people? well, a forcible division of the state is also on the table. this is also,

this is also possibility. so you might have a sort of like you had to further old republic of germany, but you have the whole credit german. you might add up with great ease degree. if i could be more like northwest versus se all to tell you the truth. but one point i think should be made very clear. this is not the. busy about rush are recreating the soviet you it's impossible to call, or political or another state as you say, that this would be, you know, prohibitively expensive. and the other big left russia is interested in this. but all that really wants is for a government that a security interest to it's all, you know, state does sweet spot. right. so ultimately what it won't is a, well is some formal foot line government. jeff, this is, by the way, i mean it's, it's not, it's not unheard of it's, it's actually what this bureau, all,

you don't necessarily control the, all of this data as much as you control. it's more a policy. so this slide believe is what is what is on is off now a professor and i have to ask you about tricky because this is something i announced in my introduction and we barely spoke about the anchor. and yet, so far it has been by far i think the only international player that has made any in the roads in terms of bringing the 2 sides together. and it was a. 9 meeting between our foreign ministers of russia, ukraine in turkey last year, which even i reached to some agreement, which nonetheless was later appended by the ukranian side. do you think it's still, it is still worthwhile for turkey to try to negotiate this? be it or it's still too early for that. oh, it's definitely worth it. alternately. it elevates 30 is position. all right.

it 1st of all it makes 30 appear as the team maker. right? and in this conflict and also as if you, you know, manage us to deliver a diplomatic supplement. well, it is success and success. so if you 2 points, i think weaker national relations are the problem here. and as far as like and see, and you're, you're, you're absolutely right. you need to involve more sides of the one size that you really meeting particular to the oldest states. you cannot just have ukraine and russia booking for each other. but at the same time, you don't have dialogue between, between the great powers and in this group us the all don't know you 30 really just to live or because at the moment therapy the american relations are fairly, that's. and then that's also something that, that russia relies on because it's been very active in trying to rely on tricky to

is the pressure of western sanction than many were inspired enterprises, including the proposal to build and gas hop in turkey. do you think it's sensible for russian to rely on turn, given even not only a long history, very allentown turn between our 2 countries history, and that it was a fool with there is the trails, but also recent history on were syrian meaning disagreements there? why do you think russia is entrusting itself to turkey? and it's very sensitive point of time if you rush by your actually looking for friends wherever you can fun but, and you cannot really be picky or choose the but you, the fact if you're looking at the houston yoga relation, this goes for the back. and so there was an increasing bratia all between russia, turkey in surgical. right. and since the governmental russia actually came out very

much in support of the government in on products. and i would say, of course there are differences, but they're also overlap big interests and some of them do concert series are in fact it is, as you know, i have bunch for marine w quite also billed us. we. busy all you know, the possibility of a syrian gate which actually would bring together are not only you know, the president, so russia, turkey, but maybe we might have been patient all the hospice. so we might have a future, a meeting between the whole team press one, press to well, professor, now we have to leave it there. thank you very much for your time today. thank you. thank you for watching. pull to sir, again on the was a part. ah ah,

ah, what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy confrontation, let it be an arms race. is an offense, very dramatic development. only personally, i'm going to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successfully very critical time. time to sit down and talk. ah ah ah. ah. not another while you while you easy while friend.

oh, yeah. boy, you know, it's a fun slide. yes. south. yeah. thrash a south with duck awesome. but you know, watch them for me at that a bullet by people not is equal yeah. pulls video from sure. let me just kim's room thoughts. can you say the why fi ella? a bill and that's my thought or change in the again, you would be watching pretty up my be a lot about it more than just not sure who i am. my name is frank flores. i can show doctor got in the movement in any age,

13 or 14 to we were violent towards those people because we believe there were this race were here 1st, and this is our country being part of that movement. i got your sense of power when i felt powerless, we got attention when i felt invisible and accepted when i talked to level life after hey, is an organization that was founded by 4 o skin, neo nazi white supremacists in the us and canada. and they found each other and they knew that they wanted to help other guys get out was 2 parts to getting out of a violent extremist. the 1st part is disengagement, which is where you leave the social group. and then the next part is de radicalization where belief systems audiology are removed. it was very impactful when someone finally came along with no fear, no judgement, you heard my story did nothing to challenge it. validate

with multiple explosions are reported in or run over nights with the country's defense ministry, stating it managed to score a drone attack on an ammunition depot. also a head on the program. today, 4 people are killed and 5 injured after ukraine uses us supplied rockets to hit a bridge in this upper rogia region that's coming in from the local authorities. turkeys president appears to promise anchorage.