i bare with oh, hi one, welcome to well to part of being able to see and accept that others may have or will you fundamentally different from your own was once considered a benchmark, a psychological maturity which is evident, be lacking in contemporary foreign affairs with the western earlier assumption that economic development would do way with geopolitical difference is now proven wrong . is

a clash of great powers. inevitable will to discuss that i'm now joined by you being senior fellow at the russian studies center at the east china normal university and senior fellow based on high association of american studies. dr. you, it's great to talk to you. thank you very much for your time. thank you for having me here. now let me start with an issue that is very close to my heart and my hope this is a conflict in your creation. but do you think the chinese americans define neutrality in similar terms? well, no. i think the west sees as sort of like a lions making a least you know, and so elements over there. but it has been my opinion. ready that the spinal russian strategic relationship is by large, a normal relationship. it is normal because is the result of

the 2 extreme relationship that the china's dance of union. russia has gone, have gone through from the the, the honeymoon allies of the 1950s to the enemies of 30 years. ready during the much of the cold war. so russia in china, i've gone through that to extreme and, and the normalization. 1989 was a turning point. the 2 large countries turn to on normal business ship in which both are independent, large powers, and actually independent civilizations. what i like about your framing of an argument is that you clearly show that this kind of rain work allows for genuine corporation for finding areas of mutual benefit, but also leave space for genuine disagreements on. for example, in the case of ukraine, china understands russia. security,

some ability with it clearly is not a proving of russia chosen warm of action. and russia is not asking for its approval if russia's own responsibility, russia's own decision. but again, i want to bring us back to the, to the americans because they featured prominently in the ukrainian conflict. and for them it's either you or whether or you are against us. and i wonder if china is neutrality, the wave scene in china, and the way you would describe it in your article would be inevitably proceed as defined by the americans. yes. or the, the united states and the west a particular, the u. s. policies they do not accept or anything in the middle. so as you frame it is of be with us or against us is as been less than policy towards international politics major power policy. ever since the end of the cold war. if you recall back

to 20 some years ago, i actually this is exact 20 years ago when the nice is starting bait or about in baby rack. on the pretext of weapons of mass destruction, which is the fake. are the present boost policy is to be with us august, but i if the world to still remember or the west still remember force powers try to take a different approach or they were the french, the germans, the russians, and the chinese. they disagree with the u. s, and the british policy, or the english speaking countries policy and they want to take a neutral stance. they were not convinced, but they were told to be with us or against us. so this is the continuation of awful. i would say the u. s. policy, so with regard to the current, the chinese middling position, i would say it's not kind of like like

a pure neutrality. china does have its own view about right or wrong or what contribute to this. but chinese position is impartial, is try to see how much the comfrey can be stopped, or d escalated and the civilian casualties be avoided as much as possible, which is good for both parties. of course, it's not just to start fighting, but chinese are looking for a long lasting able and it continues, you know, security framework in europe, which is good for europe for the world too. but the doctor, you, i'm sure you would agree with me that beyond this particular conflict between a rush and military forces on a western aided ukrainian forces, there is a largest struggle going on. and it's a struggle with the future of the international system for the future. design of

the international system and whether it continues to be so unipolar with the united states, calling all the shots or regardless of the possible consequences, or whether it's going to be more balanced or perhaps even more democratic. would you say that in that bigger struggle, chinese also neutral and i would not use a neutrality for that kind of i think a china of to large exchange ally. ready with or do you agree with russia even before the green crisis that the work need to be. ready more on democratic oh, which is different from the democracy only for certain domestic system in a way that there is a trend towards a more of a multi polar system. you, people want to use it, or some people like a ritual horse of us, a counsel for relations is non polarity world. but that is,

is not necessary agreed by some or many in the united states. i think of the this to future war order is a unclear, actually even before the launch of the russian special military operation crane. that there was a debate which last for several years about whether the so called to lead or international order is failing or has failed and who cost it so. so the western academia and policy circles debated for several years about the decline of the west . i think the, the war ukraine actually was a major development towards something new at the but we are, you aren't charged to the waters right now. before we go deeper in discussing a story on political matters. i want to ask you, i'm not sure it's

a political question because i, you know, there has long been an assumption in the united states that particular about china . but not only about china that is china, develop safe and become stronger and economically it would be more like the united states. and what i think the americans meant by that is that it would be 30 to the united states that it would accept the american way of life. the american rules, the american so called leadership, what have you can is not the only country that have gone through that. look at church, look at russia, look in brazil. there are many known western countries have gone through some sort of westernization without changing that intrinsic, political, social, and cultural nature. and i wonder how do you explain to yourself and to your audience this america believe that simply because the countries will get reach her for some reason they will change their national falco,

you to be in the image of the americans. this is very profound question. i think, ah, there's, there's a totally different take of the rice of, of the west in general. and the us particular, i think, is a growing trend in the united states to see china's rise as a threat. but the china threat has never gone ever since the, in the cold war. people start argue the rice of china and curiosity. there are 2 schools of thought. one is trying to collapse argument that china according to some, if not many, with a class like the for most of the, you know, because it's not a good system for the other argument. or the other extreme is if china, china reads constantly, china does not collapse, china must read others. so these are 2 extreme views of china,

which has been going on for several decades. but the problem is, in the real world, there are seldom phenomena or things that black and white in nature, where the western approach to anything. internal, personal, interpersonal, or interstate relationship, is one of black and white realities. there are many, many shades of different colors, different states, and other chinese philosophy approach to the issue is, are, you know, if we are different we can work together. this is the confuses notion that the unity of the differences. ready or harmony of the differences, the western approaches, the human body of the sameness. i don't just, we are the same. you are like us, you're abandoned your cultural, social, and religious economic heritage in order to be like us and you know, why should i ask, what is it so attractive about the american way of life?

i mean, look at the nbc to raise, look at this, the side rates, look at the rates are going play, incarceration. i mean, the american society is not what it used to be. why do we even have to aspire to be like down? i mean, it's not an appealing picture. i think you pointed to another side of the debate. that is what the cost of those problems inside the west, in general, like the rice of populism, even before the russian use of force is time. and the rise of done. ready trump all the far right extreme, this forces and the sort of things to what extent it relates to the rise of china. you can blame lots of things on others, but there are limits how far you can solve your own problems in it. and i think one of the major problem is lever, international order, which actually promotes the global capital,

the small globalized capitalism to look for the market to cheap labor and profitability. but any little depriving weston all american, you know, real jobs. so this is the, the, the capitalism in the working. so those real problem lies in how to redistribute the wealth, the labor capitals, who actually receive from this globalization. so the internal redistribution max is, has a lot to do with the current problem in the united states. you mentioned the capital assistant way and you know, it's almost an anathema in the west to criticize it, but it's so intrinsically unfair. and it's even, i mean, anyone who can look at pure figures, it's impossible to deny that it's in the current shape or form. it's highly detrimental to the american themselves. now, i know you have an expertise in american studies. how do you explain to yourself that the americans are new,

demanding more from their system that they are eager to the fad? beach are all about russia, about china, about the run, about other nations and other axes, or we will, but they do not actually look and ask more from the leaders. oh, very good question. i know the thank you there. it might, my personal opinion is i think a china actually and. ready to a certain extent, russia, to, you know, both russia and china became old. i view so union became the friends of the west at the end of the cold war, even before the end of the so you are the world actually are calling to president ronald reagan and george w bush was a new international order already several years before the end of the soviet union, which is largely, i believe, the personal some certain actions of the are so with leaders on. so the any

called were, are the liberal international order actually has a occupied a very advantage position. and both russian china actually try to, to certain degree or emulate, adapt to certain aspects of was and what happened or later was, was totally different. i mean, president couldn't actually was let him use were pro west and he tried to even to join natal are trying to try to emulate, learn from the west. maybe china become a them to good students of the west and become such a a. i would say a stable, successful or mother. so the rice of china cause tremendous psychological on real issues. ready for the west to handle or to explain because you cannot explain to, to, to, to the west or is that the rice of china, which is an western non weston. even a white,

liberal ok can be successful. so it must be a no stealing things from us. so this is the kind of a problem between, but it's a very symmetrical perception between united states and china. i think i also tell you, speaking about the symmetry, we have to take a very short break, right? now, but we will be back, i promise, we will be back to this conversation in just a few moments. they tune ah oh, what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy confrontation, let it be an arms. race is often very dramatic. that development only personally, i'm going to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful,

very critical. i'm time to sit down and talk ah welcome back to was a part that you've been a senior fellow at the russian study center, the china normal university and senior fellow at the shanghai association of american studies. talk to you just before i cut you off before the break, you were talking about the fact that this, the necessity to make something dangerous out of china, perhaps, to some extent out of russia and other countries, rises out from the fact that china has been able to, you know, diligently learn the american lesson and to apply the best ways to its own soil and

lift millions people of people out of poverty. we should continue to do not only in china, but also in many other countries. one could argue that the united states could do the same thing. i mean, like there's still the most powerful country in the world and other than trying to fight against history and sort of, you know, holding to these is keeping a unit clarity. they could, you know, use that and then they just position and, you know, go along with the flow. why do you think they're trying to buy history rather than trying to harness that? it's so it's a big issue. i think of the conception of history is very different in the united states. and then there are lots of good scholars are. scholars like on slash politicians, strategies like george canon iraq, kissinger, or even

a mere timer of. ready chicago, they, they don't to scholars, they see that is a historical trend. i was a realist and they treated the international politics very different from the current. so unfortunately, the guys are, let me give you one kind of like an example. i'm and i believe 1997 when natal especially started george kennan published article in the new york time and saying that the west is a fatal mistake of the fatal mistake to a new quote. to expanding lethal would be the most faithful arrow of american policy in the entire post cold war. but george, can this view was going on because i believe the clinton of the mystery belief enjoys in all prosperity and clarity and rapid dominance. so

this is the kind of long term view of history was even more. and also to get back to your question about the use of history. i talk about at the end of the cold war, also russian china with friends of the west ending nice states. even after the september 11th, who called president bush 1st, immediately after the a september attack, it was president putin who was number to to call in to provide support. it was trying to present jones a mean. so even i bet the point when you nice, you start to re focus on major power politics, which was george george bush strategy campaign rhetoric. but september, you haven't derailed that, but it was russia, it was trying to try to help tonight by the way. but let's not have that one

because i think it's actually a fundamental issue because i think both rushing china and you've also read about this 2 countries to have managed to develop a kind of relationship that doesn't confine each other. doesn't put the, you know, strict precondition on that relationship, you're either with me or you're against me. i mean, you know, trying to can have its own news on rushes action and ukraine. russia can have its own use on china's actions wherever, but they can respect each other and now on the human and national level not to preach and not to give each other lectures to united states is different. if he's no peer, i mean, and no, no other country, you know, worthy of the same respect as the united states. and the question, my question to you would be here. i know you believe in principal neutrality, but the americans having picked up the fight with russia,

i think now picking up the fight with china as well. and depression. and china accelerates not only in terms of discuss functions, but also how military help or taiwan would have you. you know, there are many provocation. do you think that kind of principle neutrality would serve china well in the face of ever more, not just the surgeon, but ever more aggressive united states? can you actually deter a bully? by being principal in such a way? these are to form chinese perspective, the ukraine conflict and the tie. one issue or different issues you create is one of, at least between 2 theoretically independent states are which means to sovereignty issue. but i want, he said being regarded by not only the chinese, but also. ready the united states to an issue of trying one channel. you see

there's only one kind of the u. s. official policy is by a much, it's been a scale back these days so. so the chinese thinks that this, these are different. but the chances that are, you know, the taiwanese will become far more challenging the country that the prospect for country is rising. and it's very difficult to make even more difficult now, to scale back to step back. so i think the danger is, is rising, but i think loose like bull size do not know the u. s. i tried to reinterpret taiwan issue one way or another. but the question. ready is how much china can maintain this neutrality? let's use the word neutrality. i would say this is precisely that the issue, the rising tension from united states to force china to chew size and precise at this moment. chinese believe it is time at the one year anniversary of the you

can conflict to promote peace, to propose the chinese version of the piece a solution. and of course the chinese have been talking about many of those points in the past year multiple times. and this is a very comprehensive pros and it's not just about ukraine. country is about the european security system and about the world system. so it is time in china is in the vantage position or different position or unique position. unlike those who directly or indirectly participated and to to, you know, find a different approach. of course, the alternative is not to talk now to have peace arrangement, to continue fight with what's the point. so the chinese really want to reinforce this, a position of, you know, a crucible that neutrality, regardless of tie,

what it does for you. and that has been then sure is a long chinese position. you know, this contemplative, distancing at the principle of non action way. we all know about that, and we appreciate in brief me anything in this world where you know, rush action has cost the many millions of deaths and refugees. this is a highly valuable and very balancing approach. again, having said that, i know the chinese below that time is on your side, but i, you should, that the americans will allow you to avail of that time because the very same bill that authorized military aid for ukraine, you know, that authorized military 8. what i want as well, and sure you can say, i know that they're legal differences between the 2 cases. but the main participant, there is still the same, the united states that wants to cause trouble and not in their own backyard, but rather i doubt in your jurisdiction or on our border. so again,

my question is the same. do you think the americans will allow china to keep that position of distance neutrality in my own point to this is just my personal view is i think a certain institution. so individuals, so in terms of civil military vision, in the nicest, are driving the situation towards more conflict or even the show down with the china, which is essentially try to squeeze the strategic space for china and russia to. but of the reason why the trying to push for the piece piece of resolution is not just idealistic. it has practical purpose. let me give you a couple of quick reasons. if you think russia relation to the west in, in your was, comes, isn't settled there. all of them at a more,

less the same time when they will start to expand in the west was religious with the eastern partner, secret china, all the, those situations did actually have been totally different modes of confidence, building negotiations. i love shanghai, you know, cooperation organization. these are the same issue of the post. so with the space how to handle it. there are 2 radically different examples. the chinese peaceful, a push for peace resolution actually has its own examples and evolving russia. so if you say russia is the blame for everything, but russia has settled this religion with china in the east. and this is something that the world seem to even know. i and the chinese rushes develop the framework a mechanism for both sides to adjust their national interest in on the pragmatic basis. so this is the example trying to want to drive to. of course,

if the china's proposal has largely rejected, you can or body nice, but he's not reject by, by a complete by ukraine, by russia, and even the europeans to some i must start with this. again, the alternative to talk is not to talk and war. people will die in a stack the front why? this is very much like 196016. this is the, the term i coined the, the 1960 moment in a written article. and i think this is a, a turning point, and china actually is not wrong on many other countries. i probably believe indian would come up with some, absolutely dr. and ok. we have to leave it there because our time is up. thank you very much for being with us. and thank you for watching coffee here again. well, the part, ah ah,

ah ah, ah

ah, ah, ah. ah, charleston was that all the you know by josha took mom with this is elaine that'll fit your show for sure. mm almost scheduled. sure so, but our new choice is yellowish federal shock legendary when you bring it.