problem is number of representing alternative for germany. mr. second grade to talk to you. thank you very much for being available. my pleasure. good afternoon to you . now, let me start with a personal question, because alternative for germany, you will in russia, is often portrayed as the party. oh, i don't know how to put it diplomatically, somewhat crude crude than not particularly enlightened walters. and yet, judging from your condemning background, you have an advanced degree in law. you taught in oxford and the london school of economics. you wrote a book on emmanuel con with such as scholarly and intellectual background. why did you off for this particular part in? well, let me make 2 points 1st. it's great. yes i did study not just know about philosophy and politics at oxford university and i've written books on emmanuel can't legal reasoning and the european court of justice. these are scholarly books and they are

not overtly political. now, there is a common misconception that if you've received a decent education, you will inevitably turn into a good politically correct, liberal, internationalist, and perfectionist. that is not my view. i think the purpose of education is to make you critical, including self critical and enlightened. and it should enable you to question received wisdoms and prevalent opinions. and that's what i've been doing all along . now to my 2nd point, the a f d. there is a young party and, and what you've tried to put father or well, possibly diplomatically. and i think there are 2 things to bear in mind. we are

young party, which means we have lots of editor politicians. it is correct to say that some of my colleagues had perhaps not always chosen the most nuanced and diplomatic way of putting it. however, in matters of politics, you also sometimes have to be political to express uncomfortable truths. and then secondly, you can imagine we are party that is questioning practically every aspect of the political consensus in west germany in particular since the war. there is a relentless campaign being waged against us by the publicly own den financed media says there is currently a really legless propaganda campaign against russia and president putin force by the same media, germany. speaking about the matters of politics, i know that in the european parliament you are a member of the identity and democracy group as well as

a participant of the conference on the future of europe. how do you see the relationship between identity and democracy and do they have any place in the future of europe? well, 2 questions, really, you're asking here, the relationship is a close one. we know of very few democratic countries that they don't have a strong sense of identity, usually that a sense of national identity or their i exception switzerland is a very good example. although you could say they have a sense of national identity based on a political emancipation struggle against imperial passed around them. so it's switzerland has an identity which is multinational, and the same to some extent could be said about the united states. however, in europe, democracy has generally involved in the case in the, in the context of nation states. now to the 2nd part of your question,

well then the answer is fairly clear. both democracy and identity, especially national identity in western europe under threat mrs. funder line, the president of the european commission has announced that she wants to bring dozens of millions of non european people to europe in the next 10 to 50 years. in my view, national identity cannot survive such a massive influx of people that have no cultural routes or in europe. and if i may, a 3rd point and i've done the calculations on that roughly at present, one 3rd of germany's population is partly for in origin. if present friends of immigration continue even then to diminish level it is the job of birth

rate remains as low as it stays. germany will cease to be a good majority german country by something like 2035. and miss about, can i ask somebody here for a 2nd because i'm sure you know what the people on the other side of the political spectrum would say. they would see your comments as xena phobic. but having read what you have a sad about migration, i think you're making more of a sudden, social, an institutional argument that it takes, you know, a certain percentage of people rooted in society, rooted in its culture, rooted in its ways of lives. to preserve that way of life and to develop it and to move it forward. why do you think? and i mean, the field of cell sociology so well developed across europe. i mean there is a department, the facility in any major university. why is it not taken as a practical consideration?

why is it always discussed within the framework of ethnicity or skin color? where's you know, traditions they do have certain and very practical value for ensuring stable and comfortable lives. well, you've put my point very clearly. i need deliberate on it. i think a society can be stabilized by very great rapid changes also in the sphere of immigration. now why isn't this perfectly sensible view, which was common place in europe until about 30 years ago. nowadays, ostracized is some kind of al tries that of those xenophobic view. the reason for this seems to be quite clear because the kind of liberal agenda we see in the west now is not really reason based, but it's kind of crazy. i religious creed and they are trying to crowd out

all sorts of realistic, practical objections. so that vision of creating a kind of city on the hill on ok can ask about one other thing that has much more direct relevance to where i am when russia and where my relatives are in the ukraine. i'm talking about the war in europe, and i think here again, another very important to replace the tradition was if not broken, then totally rejected. and i'm talking about this and notion of the european balance of power or balance of security. because europe, as we all know, has, has had many wars, but one of the results of that war is a certain diplomatic and international relations culture. dot is rooted in the balance of interest in the power balance of power. and for a long time, it was respected. and you know, one could argue that the long piece that i mentioned in the beginning was also

a result of that. but this tradition seems to be fully rejected in the case of ukraine, because no russia, security interest i even taken into consideration and haven't been taken for quite some time. and secondly, the europeans have fully put all their, you know, security sensibilities in the american basket. why would it happen to europe that has been tried and tested by war so many for so for such a long time? well, the sad fact is that the launch, the last great european wall is now what is it's nearly a, it was happened a few years ago. my mother experienced it as a child, and the last thing she would ever want is not a war. and her ration for the most part is prepared to do all this to avoid. but most europeans much can go now. and we've seen significant changes in new patient

system where history are often starts in the post war era. so much is forgotten. i think that is one reason. secondly, i think you are slightly misrepresenting the tradition of realism in european thinking. i great, it's very tradition, but because you are dominated intellectually, for several centuries, practically, or other traditions of liberal of international relations also originate in europe. so if you take a manual and he was the 1st to introduce the notion of the league of nations, this is a more ideal regarding tradition in european international relations thinking. so the realist tradition is why important one? absolutely right. it's been forgotten. i think the reason this part be that europe

is a much diminished continent. the europeans don't lead anywhere any longer. and if you are in a position of impotence, well, some people do is they want to be at least the last, the greatest moral superpower on the world in the world. and i think that's part of what is motivating europe here. it's certainly motivating john. well, i think, you know, i'm and studying psychology on the side. i have a great interest in depth psychology of carl young. and that he has actually explored the trends in the collective unconscious quite extensively. he wrote a lot about the knots, a phenomenon as, as a suppression of who you truly are. and you know, when i, when i see these people that are also referring to only concerns with the future, only concerns with that illusions. and not being informed by the past, by their own history. it comes across as

a form of self only nation. and that form of self an elimination. we know it from psychology, always produces hatred, then not just hatred of somebody else. it's usually also self hatred that dan is projected on to other nations. do you think it has anything to do with the current demonization of russia? perhaps other countries like china, where you run death is slightly mono co cause or what you're saying. and of course, but there are, there is element readers need. sure it is a characterization of religions makes a very similar points. i myself made the point that impotence maybe at the source of it diminished position of power. i think in the case of russia, there's another element. russia is little understood in western europe. the final point is said west germany in particular,

has been integrated into western structures for 7070 by years now. whether it went of a great amount to propaganda and a integration into western systems and thinking through education. if you look at east germany, i come from west germany, but in east germany, i think there is a much greater skepticism towards the received western liberal narrative. so it's hardly an east west to buy the euro, of course, and to present matters complicated and from russia's position. not necessarily the favorable way, because only 30 years ago, 35 years ago the soviet union dominate eastern europe. so i think the prevalent set set of concerns in eastern europe is security concerns. ok. well mr. back,

we have to take a very short break right now for the sake of our editorial security, but we will be back in just a few moments. stay tuned. ah ah at the end of the 18th century, great britain began to conquer and colonize australia. from the very beginning of the british penetration to the continent, natives were subjected to severe violence and deliberate extra patient. according to modern historians, in the 1st 140 years, there were at least 270 massacres of local depot. any resistance to the british was

answered with doubled cruelty. hundreds of natives were killed for the murder of one settler. indigenous australians were not considered complete people. no wild beast of the forest was ever hunted down with such unsparing perseverance as they are. men, women, and children are shot whenever they can be met with squatter. henry myrick wrote in a letter to his family in england, in 1846. australia's past is rightly described as blood soaked and races. if at the beginning of colonization, there were one and a half 1000000 indigenous people living on the continent, then by the beginning of the 20th century, their number had decreased till 100000 people. despite the indisputable historical facts, the problem of full recognition of the crimes of white australians against the aborigines has not been resolved so far. ah,

ah ah, welcome back to wilson parents with going our back european parliament member representing alternative for germany and mr. ben before the break, we discussed on this multifaceted and very complicated that she had that, that some germans have towards russia. and i've heard the say in one of the other interviews that many of your colleagues at the european parliament as filled with hatred. not only for russia, but for the kind of conservative traditionalism that russia represents. do you think these people who are filled with hatred, do they even understand what russia tries to leave out in the world? what it tries to base it's and identity on where you have to realize that the european parliament you have about one on one and

a half minutes. so i often have to be, i had to use shorter traditional conservatism with such a shorter. i see the other factors that play, of course, in russia, i think certain basic issues such as decent standard of living, ask you a very important the government has been very concerned about security, basic comforts to the population. that's one aspect. and the other a point is in your, i think historically education has suffered. so for many europeans then tend to reject ebc class to something like $960.00. so the, his history starts with the sexual and cultural revolution of the $960.00 s. and then reject anything that went on before. so i think that is part of the problem.

most of our decision makers in europe now operate in a strictly a historical manner. they sometimes draw historical parallels, but they are in full. now you mentioned their rushes. a government can focus on the standards of living and european positions on the country. often talk about in spirit and aspirational and inspirational values, but ensuring basic safety. ensuring basic services is not just the value in, since you 2 of the government and maybe just my russian vice. but i want to part of the problem here is indeed the, to the conflict between governmental duties and governmental aspirations. and the again, the total rejection of the europeans of the former, because if we can analyze the recent decisions, including the abandoning of all trade with russia, it looks like the living standards of european citizens are not the 1st priority.

absolutely. i think for the last 25 years living standards for at least half the population in most of europe has not improved. it's as simple as that. now they are declining as a result of the inflation, which is at least partly a result of the corolla, lockdown class, the events in ukraine, and the kind of inspirational and aspirational value catalogue that our politicians are constantly invoking. these ideas are very far removed from the concerns of most people. so yes, in that respect. yeah, absolutely right. most european governments are failing. there are people and possibly that's also why then at the core of the ukrainian crisis, because i think the government of russia for years have been stating that they have

a duty to protect their interest secured inches. it's not just an aspiration of val, it's something that we have to act upon. we have our military and for that precise reason, but all we heard in response was this some aspirational values of some european politicians and the ukrainians. now, i wonder if this congress, if this dilemma between you know, hard duties and aspirational valleys, if it could have been resolved in and out, and are constantly given your understanding, what's been happening in your brain not have from february of last year, but a couple of decades prior to that, i think you've given me a broad time horizon that makes answering the question easier. because i think that be very little. i mean, the attitude of russia immediately in the immediate coast war pursued to was west of your own country taken or has been remarkably generous. it very few countries have treated germany as well as russia has. in

the last 33 to 34 years of russia agreed to read a vacation without the body practically anything would return that. i didn't want to say that this is not the way russia treat inch as germany. this is a historic tradition of resolving conflict for russia. it was the same case with napoleonic wars, russia, welcoming friends back into the family of european countries, not taking any contribution. and it's a consistent than philosophical approach that the russian state has taken over and centuries. not just over down the list. and i gave you the one example that i knew about best. so what there was if you want me to put it in both general tubs. there was a very, a distinct approach to seek clemson relations with west west of europe. and thus be largely, well,

not wholly rebuffed. so there was very little that russia got in return. so if you constantly make concessions, if you constantly baker shows and very little comes in return. well then at some stage you bade change your approach. and i think what we have to realize is that europe, together with and driven on by the united states, did move closer to russia in russia, accepted a great deal of east east, but expansion. so the europeans thought, and the americans science you, they could just march ever forward. and they are now surprised that russia doesn't agree. now the europeans, i think, are genuinely surprised. the americans, i think, have a more rational attitude they regarded, bore as a kind of a power game, the european south distracted by their own idealists thinking, well,

i guess it's easy to be ideal as to when times are good. and i've heard many experts say that the e u. u. s. partnership was always on american terms, but at least you had the benefit of foreign direct investment and relatively fair trade. but it's no longer the case. i think the terms of your partnership, it's changing very rapidly and you're bound to give much more and receive much, much less there. i mean, the american policy towards europe is pretty hawkish and if not predator at this point of time, given the industrial capacities that are being transferred to the united states. now how long do you think it will take until the european voters, not the european politicians, but the european voters will fill the pinch and will demand something. something different from their leaders? well, you've chosen very harsh words, hawkish and credit rare. i like to defend the united states in this regard. they

are just being rational from the point of view. i think it's a european reaction that's very naive and food in the fall to the europeans, primarily, who allow themselves to be put in that position. the united states is just doing was in the interest to be fair, but you are in another respect, i think, after the war, during the cold war, the united states required compliance in military and foreign policy matters. but they, in turn, could guarantee high living stats that come to an end. the alliance with the united states. western integration is becoming increasingly expensive for your many europeans as yet to minority awakening to it. but hardly any of our politicians are. so there is a dichotomy, how long it will take. i cannot tell you,

by the way, can i ask her? this is something that is absolutely puzzling to many of us in russia, and particularly those who live in saint petersburg, which is a city with huge german heritage and various strong cultural ties with germany. and this is also a city where many of the gas projects originated. for example, the north stream pipelines were built up from the, from that side of the baltic cost and given all the explosions and the recent and statements, for example, from hungry. i'm hungry, prime minister, or been saying that he doesn't exclude a possible repeat of such incidents. i just wonder, do you think the europeans would ever want to know what actually happened to, you know, that own energy infrastructure and they, i mean, i understand their fear of russia, but i'm the fearful that something like that could happen in europe in this day. and age with the law, the clear questions i can give you answers though european governments don't want

to know. the european people for the most part, have a suspicion. what happened? and of course they, they couldn't care less or what. there is an oppressive climate which makes it very difficult to call a spade a spade because our government has systematically avoided a serious investigation of who carried out the attacks that intimidated they do not wish it. they don't, well, they know that they don't wish it to be widely. i know i have heard of that, but that russia has experience a number of terrorists attacked by ukrainian militants yesterday. and i think it's pretty clear that if the war will come, ever closer to russia, russia will respond. do you think people in europe understand that? you know, that the time for illusions is over. it's in there is

a real war on the ground in russia, in ukraine, and if it continues, it may come to europe as well. no, i don't understand that, probably speaking. i think some people as some kind of a mobile amorphous sphere, but the last great war happened so long ago that most people think this matter can somehow be localized if they were fully aware that this ball may escalate. and because there's an interesting paradox, let's assume the west is right. and they can really push russia there, get ukraine to push marsh out there for to be. so can you can yes, well out of the army you. yes, i'm just trying to sub summarize what some people i think he missed. they will argue, craig, such an extent, that because russia isn't sending his whole army in,

they may push russia back. i don't think that most europeans have an adequate conception, that in these circumstances, a great power like russia will respond with any means at his disposal. i'd like to be, i'd like to leave it as an ad. it is that it's clear what i mean. i guess the most europeans are aware of this. absolutely not. and so what the united states, also with china. i mean, it's, it said, you know, international politics want to one. i mean, it's the, the, the basic thing that people study in international affairs class. now, can i ask in the last, the very last question because you don't sound very optimistic. but what's your best home for the next couple of years as far as russia, europe and the whole world is concerned? yes, you're right. i know by disposition, an optimist, and the last decade has generally proved me right. but obviously we'll have to do

what we can do. so said that even at the end, tomorrow we should start at least one last 3. so i think we have to reach an understanding that you, craig, this war has to be brought to an end. i can't give you an easy solution of what this might be, but what i do know is that this is a grave danger to your and he's already backing our economy. it's no one. it's not doing anyone any good, certainly not in europe. so we have to do what we can to exit. mister back has been great pleasure talking to thank you very much for your time. thank you. and i couldn't agree more with with your last words. thank you very much. thank you for watching hope to sara again on well to part ah

with mm ah, i'm rick sanchez and i'm here to play with you. whatever you do, you do not watch my new show. seriously. why watch something that's so different. my little opinions that you won't get anywhere else work if it pleases you to have the state department, the cia weapons makers, multi $1000000000.00 corporations, choose your fax for you. go ahead. i change and whatever you do. don't watch my show stay main street because i'm probably gonna make you uncomfortable. my show is called direct impact. but again,

you probably don't want to watch it because it might just change the way in thing. with with china claims the west for escalating the crane conflict as those washington is pursuing its own geo political agenda. while undermining aging space plans. v ukrainian crisis has come to a critical juncture. we need to choose either to stop hostilities, restoring peace or to feel the fire and expand the crisis, letting the situation get out of control conflicts, sanctions and pressure cannot solve the problem. a polish state run oil company wants to see russia from halting oil deliveries and slick admitting that they wanted to break the contract with moscow. it.