a tank the usaa was breaking to survive. russia had to be sacrificed, uses w b like davis. mr. boyd from us was the look of some recorded capital of miss ramos, whole of knowing that the cold war had begun with . welcome to well, depart. being part of europe, if not geographically done culturally, has been a century long aspiration for the countries and its periphery, especially russia and turkey. they emulated european customs and tastes tried to

borrow its best practices, but always fell short all over snobs. why their enlightened european neighbors does these idealization of europe have anything to do with the war in your crane? well, to discuss that i'm now joined by a series, 1st class professor of international politics and economics at the university of east london. profess if was because it's great to talk to you. thank you very much for your time. thank you so much. nice to meet you. thank you. i'm not many people remember now, but the latter stage of the crisis in your brain began in 2013 with this whole argument around the cranium association with the e. u seemingly and economic issue. at that time, it was mostly about ukraine associating itself with europe rather than the collective west. more generally, do you think there was ever or if there is still

a distinction between the european and western? i don't know if a, that's a philosophical question, i think is more of a kind of a practical question or the west begins with europe in the collective imaginary, i mean, in history or in the western civilization. i mean, in europe, in, in, in, in american american curriculum, you'll see on the western civilization a course called western civilization. that begins with n sion greek philosophy, ensign greek letters moving to rome and then center. when you look within the lights ment, philosophy and the french revolution, and then we know the series of the light men and then on the dynamism, switching to the united states and the dawn of the british empire for rec, from from then we have a system of european empires,

sprint spreading all over the world, a system that collapses in the 1st world war. we have a kind of an interim period, vain to war pier than then. i'm. after the 2nd world war, the united states, i assumes high galani and over europe. now, days a big debate here, which i don't know if um, if, if it's, it's well known or known in, in, in eastern europe, russia, china and elsewhere, which i examined with my team here long ago in fox. how the u. s. established high game when you over europe, it wasn't easy. we had in the forty's for exam barely for this during the war, while the russians were fighting the germans to kick, you know the germans out of ukraine effectively. it was a big debate within the american executive. there were 3 main tendencies, see main views. one was represented by the,

by franklin franklin delano roosevelt was a present for the united states. and his theme, who saw that we can rule in the new world order via the united nations in the un security council. so if something goes wrong, can the war would, can have robust for robust the peacekeeping operations. and you know what, we are the majority within the year and security cause so we can isolate russia and to fit it. that was one view. that was one view. then we have kina, which you know, it happens the they have the majority of off of historians and analysts believe that there was keenan's view that prevailed out of containment in the famous long valley rogue from moscow wire to washington d. c. which keenan, keenan was an officer balancer, came on fog because he knew russian russia very well. he thought the soviet system is weak internally. and with a little bit of post for boss,

we can make it collapse also what will make the system collapses by, by, by using germany and japan from each end of your asia harassing the soviet system. plus it's in pedo contradicts us and that system will collaborate and one day, right? but i was too fast of if, if i remember my history lessons correctly even, you know, in so many times there were one could argue legitimate ideological differences between russia and the west. and it was no longer the case after the collapse of the soviet union. i think russia really wanted to get into western graces, and even during this, only a time since sickly. before that, i think the russians have long had a sack and very positive. i view all of your, of not so much of there was the definition of europe and we have a long associated in the european continent. france, germany with progressive knowledge. you know ours,

ours communicated with the french for so far as, and we always, you know, as a high morning society g, and i think the same goes for turkey. by the way, do you think your has ever be in what the non european idealized there's of europe, have i imagine it to be in europe and russia, philosophy and the european light, and have very many, very many things in commerce. actually, russia is part of europe or intellectually, politically, politically, where there was even in being to war period when stalin was accused of isolating russia with his 5 year plans and so on. and that is a very good book actually never recently would called a red globalization. styling never wanted to exclude does exclude russia from western trade or from western economist. but because of the,

of the internal problems, economic problems of the west, with the collapse of, of, of the credit system in 19 dig 1929 crash and so on. the west itself became isolationist and protectionist. their eyes are fast as managing so therefore russia was excluded by definition there from the european her into war settlements, whatever. and then we had the 2nd world war. and so what i'm trying to explain is to point, and we'll come to your question this about 19 nerd. so 20132014 ukraine. and the maiden thing. the strategy pursued by the united states, how united states embedded itself in europe after the 2nd world war was not because via keenan's theory of offshore balancing. he was not through the united nations security concept by was through a to 7 as sort of the nature some plan which was that united states

troops must remain in europe was kinnon, did not want us to ropes in europe. i thought because he thought this, well, this will make carbon in the gold desert and we'll start rearming and we're going to have a new war and things like that at ages and said, no, we need to build situation. so strength in europe against not just against russia, but mainly to keep europe apart from russia. because it h a soon saw that there is a potential of cooperation because they're in the same continent after all, economic corporation, political corporation, between germany, france, and russia. and once this continent unites economically, politically, that's the end of the u. s. supremacy in the new world order built after the 2nd will work through the united states has, has had its troops and military bases in europe to can russia in europe far away

from each other. although there has been some beneficial cooperation energy trade out with germany. there was some cooperation and trade with friends and many other european nations. but even when the american troops present here in europe, there were certain limits to how far in the united states with push. and one could argue that it all changed in ukraine because for some reason, when it came to ukraine, somewhere around 20132014. and definitely a around the early 2020, the united states decided that, you know, those red lines. no longer apply and we need to push as much as we can with militarized ukraine, with sending a trained instructors there and with making everything possible that its population becomes strongly. and i would even say virulently, anti russian. what do you think changed in the, in minds of american colace? make haste? why did they need to push that farm?

like a, we need to see the structural tendencies all for the western ers economic system here. and why what globalization means for the united states globalization for the united states means the american business classes must have a free ride to global expansion ad. so the push to nate, the expansion u. s. a u. s. increasing intervention is bargaining. so on that course is not, this is not dissociated from the american business classes pushed to global domination. let me put that this way. and at the same time the united states protects its own business classes at hope. you see, look at what they could use the inflation reduction act, but with no concern for european economy or social manila thought that's a protection is thing. and if you like the,

there were similar protectionist bills passed in the to war period, which started the 2nd world war. in my books i, i, i stress the fact that it was the united states started protectionist measures 1st in vain. the war period, not the, not the nazi germany. and so, you see, this is the structural tendency of economic system which are called capitalism. you may disagree with that, but that, that is so therefore we need to, to see the structural trends of the western economic system, especially after the recession, the massive crisis of 2007, 2009, the global financial crisis. the system didn't collapse the only way for the system, the why the system didn't collect because they had, they had the support of the banking sector, of the central bank to put the low full of the fun into the system, into the banking system. and also they did not stop the global expansion, trying also incorporate that the war in ukraine is not dissociated with china.

china is very much, very much part of it. because the warrant, ukraine disrupts chinese business, disrupt the project, the belgian road initiative, for example. you know, chinese capital penetration in eastern europe has been enormous intake is low. you know, we are killing many birds with just ones. so i think before we go to break, can i ask you all? one more question, because your analysis tends to be very practical, very rational and you know, russian political scientists, by and large subscribe to the really the school of thinking i seeing the war in ukraine through the lances of power bands. but i me, because i'm a woman that i see a lot of irrational factor, psychological factors there. and just as russia for centuries wanted to be your does perhaps, doesn't even exist. i think in the same way, ukraine's to wants to be something that it's not at the moment. and i would even

argue that the west needs a psychological boost from somebody admiring it in such a way because its own image is rather fading. what do you think about that? what's the scope of the irrational factors in this whole quagmire? there's always, i don't disagree with you, you're absolutely right to point this out. ideation of fact this in bolton does, and you called a rational the russian is always part of the rational in every movement. never strategic 12, you know, nothing can come. nothing can come. in reality, as it was planned, there's always a gap between what we planned and what comes to the realization in the n v. i d a slow fuck. those are very important, especially the building of ukraine national identity here. i think the kremlin miscalculated, miscalculate, in what sense? now what's going on in the ukraine is a, is

a building up often national identity. great for 1st thought. i have a, i've always had the impression, and i'm, i wasn't wrong with that ukraine years. and russians are more or less mingled. they have mixed identities. they're not very, you know, in ukraine. pope are historically as well as politically in everyday life. they said a lot of michelle, most everything is like if you, if you say the people between like you know, the greeks i'm recorded and the people living in western part of take you. i mean, we're sad ever the, all the other open people will share almost everything. we don't have anything, you know, but now, with a invasion that it started, the process of, you know, amalgamating a strong, national and nationally, steven, ukrainian identity not in every part of the population. don't take the role. but in, especially in central western parts of ukraine. where before we eat was far more

relaxed and to sail, we're brothers and sisters. we have nothing to do violence live together. so a, you know, in every a struggle you need to sacrifice something. you cannot achieve anything without losing something. but anyway, we have to take a very short break right now. we will come back to the discussion in just a few moments they can. ah ah ah ah

ah ah ah ah welcome back to one of the fort smith was silly, supposed cussed professor of international politics and economics at the university

of it's london. now, because it was because we've been talking about all this well as the irrational and rational factors and all of that. and i know it's not very politically correct these days to quote the russian president. but he has his own vision of what is happening. and i want to run it by you without obliging you to agree with that. in fact, i invite you to disagree with, with what he said, but essentially he, the vision is that we've come to the point in history when the political domination of the west, which is also conditioned on pretty exploited. if reliance on the resources of the rest of the world that came back paradigm is no longer the stable by objective factors. and he believe the by picking up a battle with, with russia. the west is essentially trying to turn around this trend and perhaps 3 amp, the other nations, not only russia,

but other nations from pursuing that own of them to pass. that is not necessarily in line with western preferences or prescriptions. what do you think about that part of this or common commentary if you like, and on the use of the president process, is that what they referred to earlier on us globalization and it's crisis. i. it's make sense. what the president says because, and the west doesn't deny that because part of the project of globalization is that we all, i mean the, what the world is flat, which has never been and can never become flat because it's an even development. you know, that isn't even development. one part of the world grows, the other part of the world doesn't grow the same pace. doesn't have the same to chronological means to grow industry with the same pace of somebody. but the cell of globalization is that it's also

a way of are bringing all the goodness and all the transfers of humanity. everybody can own benefit from common technology, from common financial system, etc. no is no company. and even the old woman papers sheet is common business in the west and financial times unit every day that will say that new liberal globalization, because that's when somebody new liberal globalization has failed in pennsville. in pennsville, i keep in pays with a quality for exam with what is required. it is in inequality, increases is a climate change issue. and now in the west, they talk about green gate, the core logic of development assistant ability. so that means that no liberal globalization has failed. now you have one part that you said very well of the world would to includes russia, iran, mid least, parts of africa. obviously, the global south lead saying something like, what didn't want to be politically correct. well, actually not exactly south, i mean, why should we be saw?

no, no. i know. i know, i think it was. that's why i put in inverted commas side to say the less than the rest. ok. but something i did something by the identify geographically, at least devote the vulcan, the united nations that did not support the american motion with you. she, latin, american conscious african conversation companies did not support your right. don't know. well that's not dismissal. con, had produced raw materials, quantity produces, for example, there and filaments, because without the read elements and the minerals that are produced, primarily in china and in africa. and also when russia has this, the west cannot have getting the clean logical growth and sustainability. ok. many people forget thought that all of green pick up and oh, they're all of area elements in building semiconductors. in building microchips,

in creating electric, hybrid cars will green development and the to good the 5th climate change due to achieve the carbonic jason that they're west. once very much is so because if the west, the tubes thus is so we love that of be dependent anymore on oil or rush in oil and gas or bid list and oil or, and see. but in order for the west to have this to have green technological development, and it root the globalization or, and, and, and to have sustainable society, the west. they still need in a different way indifferent, a respect for russia, china, and africa, and latin america. now i want to bring us back to europe because you written that europe has never been an independent actor in global affairs. and that it always dependent on the united states, militarily and politically. and i think it can be argued that the lack of independence would be ignored when times are good. when people are enjoying

prosperity, i think that would be very likely to mistaken posterity for independence. but things are changing right now. they are turning sour in the united states, but even more thought in europe. how long do you think it will be like that this political discourse, very belligerent political discourse, hearing from the europe, capital, how long really able will be able to sustain itself until people protest not against the or for russia, but against the own living condition? you asked me to make a prediction. i would say hate his opinion. time i made the prediction. i doesn't come to i, i hate making a connection there because many european liter, judging from the speech of believe that, you know, they can try me the patients, if you heard in citizens endlessly and that people really, whatever they given i for the sake of this political agenda, let's look at germany,

which is the strongest european economy and the strongest country in political time, not in military time spent in political and economic sense is the, the strongest power in europe. germany is distant their policy of far, washington over ukraine. and you see that it is 4 years and germany wanted to have since the years of the aust politic friendly relationship with, with russia, if you like it. this is bismark policy, it goes back to bismark. bismark always insisted that if we want to have the nation of western europe, although in his times was by different means. but if we want to have to dominate western europe, we need to have good relations with russia. ok, so, so 10 minute resistant. bad, the merge with germany who is resisting 2 to 2 years policy,

the more the years was pressurizing, germany, to accept us policy. in my view, in this war, primarily humiliates germany, this war. it's a humiliation of germany, germany now, if america or you know, supply b crane with whatever weapon of them, i don't know, it, it, it depends to answer your question depends how far the united states wants to go on with escalation with escalation of the war. because if the united states escalates, if they give f 16 or after defy war, you know, military, you know, jets to the ukraine, then russia will respond. and then the united says with something else and then russia will, let's kill it. so that is what i don't like. and so the question is how to be escalate? well, no,

my question is not about how to disc only because i think this one of tom is pretty clear that the americans are opting for prolong conflict. and why would they not do that because it's a relative which war for them. they're not losing soldiers, they're shipping a major strategic geopolitical goal through the means of, of that so called allies. so, i mean, it makes a certain sense, your political sense for the americans to continue fighting. i'm asking you about europe, and i've seen the interesting told the other day that i think 60 percent of the europeans believe that ukraine with the support of the west will win this conflict . but when it comes to sanctions, only 40 percent of the europeans and 35 percent of germans believe that sanctions are being effective. and to me that says that when it comes to sort of bread and butter issues, people tend to be far more pragmatic and formal. i left led astray by various to, you know, glory is ideas and narrative. so let me ask you this way. do you think the full

scope of european losses and you've written about that you believe that your will be a big loser in this culture? do you think the full scope of european losses have already been manifested? no, no, i don't think so. i think there is more to come to europe. um there be a very harsh transition period for, for europe if they want to switch completely. for example, american l, l n, g, they have, will, you know, europeans have to sort out in placement problems and during that period there be a lot of protest and to pass on the part of the european public and public opinion and into this fact i think russia should never stop talking to europe. ah, the civil society level are political level, all levels of the same time. i believe that domestically in russia, when i see that russian russian defense budget go, goes going up to go to one 3rd of the total budget. them into something i,

100155 1000000000, which is a mean which is being a school compared to what united states spends. but that increase in defense budget . it tells me that there will not be enough money to invest, to spend for schooling, for education, for social welfare, for hospitals, for pensions and things like that. so in other words, i see what my, my, my major, my major point of making here is that a lot depends not just what the europeans will be doing, but what also, what kremlin will be doing domestically to show that we care about our society here are our society, not just about winning a war. absolutely. but and then professor 1st, cuz i am just fresh from their presidential address to the problem and i was there in the audience. and it's pretty clear that, you know,

i think for week water is at least of his address. where about the russian domestic politics and the main point he was making is that we have everything here to develop. we have the resources we dont need that much to rely on on the west that we can develop our own technology. and we are going to use this moment in history and not to adapt to western sanctions, but to take rush on the whole new level of the stain, the will and self sufficient development. we one that we want to piece, we want a piece of the west. we want a piece of mutual respect with all the other nations. but from now on we are centered on itself and we ourselves are the that of the, the masters of our own destiny. i have to leave it there, but it's conversation. thank you so much. so pleasure talking to you. thank you so much. thank you and thank you for watching hope to see you again on well, the part ah with

mm. blue l look forward to talking to you all that technology should work for people. a robot must obey the orders given by human beings except where such order that conflict with the 1st law show your identification. we should be very careful about artificial intelligence and the point obviously is to great trust, rather than fear a job with artificial intelligence, real summoning with

a robot must protect its own existence with the 2nd world war. thank 2 millions of people during the conflict with the balance of power was held by the leaders of 3 nations, the united kingdom, the united states, and the ussr that die in they do. the men tried cruise up as not because hitler was weak and new and weak. any was bluffing. he was the major political figure. certainly one of the most prominent political leaders of the 20th century where they wish to report the germans of the german.