to, to achieve this agreement, i think the discipline will have the normal in park just the diction this or being an issue, but also all the re, yes, this is a success for, for china foreign policy. also, we'll give moral codes utility many, some doubt from chinese chinese initiative becomes much more currently more. it was before. hi ross, this is alex, i'm a boy co is up next on the world's apart. will be here again, a total bill. ah

one welcome to well to part 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 to 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 a senior fellow at the russian study center at the east china normal university and senior fellow 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, this is a conflict in ukraine as you are here in your article. but these vast and fears of the russian chinese alliance, i greatly exaggerated the beijing is taking a distinctly neutral position. but do you think the chinese americans define neutrality in similar terms? well, no, i think the west sees as sort of like a lines making, at least, you know, and so elements over there. but it has been my opinion. ready that the spinal russian strategic relationship is binary, large, a normal relationship. it is normal because it is the result of

the 2 extreme relationship that the china's dance of union. russia has gone have gone through from the the honeymoon eyes of. ready 900 fifties to the enemies of 30 years. ready during the much of the cold war. so russia in china have 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 framework allows for genuine corporation for finding areas of mutual benefit, but also leave space for genuine disagreements. for example, in the case of ukraine, china understands russia, the security sensibility with it clearly is not the proving of russia chosen

warm of action. and russia is not asking for its approval, its rushes own responsibility, rushes on decision, but again 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's neutrality, the way it's been in china and the way you would describe it in your article, would be inevitably perceived as, as defined by them. can see anything in the middle. so as you frame it is a, be with us, or guess that this has 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, actually this is the exact one years ago when the united states started in bait about in the iraq on the pre packs of weapons of mass destruction,

which is the fake the present boost policy is to be with us or gets the but if the world still remember or the west, still remember a large powers try to take a different approach. they what the french, the germans, the russians and chinese, they disagree with us. and the british policy, or the english speaking countries policy, and they want to take a neutral stance, were not convinced, but they were told to be with us or against us. so this is the continuation of, of, i would say the u. s. policy with regard to the current, the chinese middle position, i would say it's not kind of like like a pure neutrality. china does have its own view about right or wrong would contribute to this, but chinese position is impartial. it's try to see how much the country

can be stops, de escalate it, and the civilian casualty be, you know, avoided as much as possible, which is good for both parties. of course, it's not just to stop fighting, but chinese are looking for a long lasting stable and it continues, you know, security framework in europe, which is good for europe, for the world too. but the doctor, you, i, you would agree with me that beyond this particular conflict between russian military forces and 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 are 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 are too large exchange ally. ready with or do you agree with russia even before the green crisis that we're going to be. ready more on democratic oh, which is different from the democracy if only for certain domestic system in a way that there is a trend towards more of a multi polar system. if people want to use it, or some people like a ritual horse of us, a counsel for relations isn't none, polarity world. but that is, is not necessary agreed by some or many in the united states. i think of the this to future work 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 costed so. so the western academia and policy circles debated for several years about the decline of the west was a major development was something new at the but we are, you aren't charged to the waters right now. before we go deeper in discussing a historical and 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, particularly about china, but not only on china that if china developed, if it becomes stronger economically, it would be more like the united states and what i think the americans meant by

that is that it would be subservient to the united states that it would accept the american way of life. american rules, the american so called leadership, what have you, chinese, not the only country that have gone through that. look at church, you look at russia, look and brazil that many no 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, mary, to believe that the employee because the countries will get reach her for some reason they will change the national falsehood to, to be in the image of the americans. this is very profound question. ready i think, ah, there's a totally different take of the rice of china between on the west in

general, and the u. s. 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 argue the rice of china and curiosity. there are 2 schools of thought. one is china cups argument that china according to some, if not many, with a class like the foremost of the union because it's not a good system. and the other argument, or the other extreme is if china, china threads 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. but 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 isn't the confucius 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, your band and 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 basic race. look at this side, race, look at the rate of incarceration. i mean, then merican society is not what it used to be. why do we even have to aspire to be like them? i mean it's not an appealing picture. oh,

i think you pointed to another side of the debate, that is what caused all of those problems inside the west in general, like the rice of potter. listen, even before the russian use of force this time. and the rice of da. ready trump old the far right, extremely forces. and these sort of things to what extent it relates to the rest of china. you can blame lots of things on others, but there are limits how far you can solve your own problem. and i think one of the major problem is the liberal, international order, which actually promotes the global capitalism or globalized capitalism, to look for the market to cheap labor and profitability. but the end of the book depriving western or american, you know, real jobs. so this is the capitalism in the working. so the real problem lies,

you know, how to reduce the wealth that deeper cabins who actually we like internal redistribution max is, has a lot to do with a current problem in the united states. you mentioned the capitalist system, which, you know, it's almost an anathema and the west to criticize it. but it's so intrinsically unfair. and this even, i mean, anyone who can look at fewer 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 the americans on know, demanding more from their system that they are eager? it's your, the fad, this vitriol about russia, about china, about the wrong, about other nations. there are, they're actually the we will, but they do not actually look and ask more from that all leaders. oh,

very good question. i now thank you. are there ill? my personal opinion is i think a china actually and. ready to a certain extent, russia, to, you know, both russia and china became all of you sold, 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 sort of actions of the or so with leaders are. so the, in the cold were, are the liberal international order actually had occupied a very advantage position. and both russian, china actually try to, to certain degree or emulate, adapt to certain aspects of was. but what happened a 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 the whole 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 in china cause tremendous psychological or 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 weston, non weston, even a white, non 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 very symmetrical perception between united states and china. i think i also tell you, speaking about the same interest, 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 that you ah for a welcome back to wells of parts. if you being a senior fellow at the russian study center at the china normal university and senior fellow at 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 the rush and other countries arises us from the fact that china has been able to, you know, diligently learn the american lesson and to apply the best way to its own soil and lift 1000000 people of people out of poverty. we should continue to do and 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 they're still the most powerful country in the world. and rather than trying to fight against history and sort of, you know, holding to these escaping unit clarity, they could, you know, use that advantageous position, you know, go along with the flow. why do you think they're trying to by history rather than

trying to harness it? it's so it's a big issue. i think of the conception of history is very different in the united states. and there are lots of good scholars on scholars like a slash politicians are strategies like george canon garrick kissinger or even a mere timer of. ready chicago, the scholars, they see that is a historical trend. i was a realist and they treated to the, to the clinton times and i believe 1997 when they told expenses started to see in the entire post cold war. but george, i believe the clinton of the mystery belief enjoying in all prosperity and clarity,

and frankly, dominance. so this is the kind of long term view of history was going on. and also to get back to your question about, do you feel for history, both russia, china, will friends of the west are to re focus on mid away. but you right, let's not in that one because i think it's actually a fundamental issue because i think both rushing china and they've also written about these 2 countries that have managed to develop a kind of relationship that doesn't confine each other. it doesn't put the, you know, st. pick conditions on that relationship. you either with me or you against me. mean, you know, china can, can have its own use are rushes action in ukraine. russia can have its own use on china's actions wherever, but they can respect each other and now on the human a national level not to preach and not to give each other lectures. united states is different. if the no, i hear, i mean, and no other country,

they're in a 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 are having picked up a fight with russia, i think are now picking up the fight with china as well. and the pressure on china accelerates not only in terms of discuss sanctions, but also how military help or taiwan, what have you, you know, then many provocations. 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? um, these are 2 from a chinese perspective, the ukraine conflict and the pie one issue or different issues. your credit is one of, at least between 2 sir radically independent states. oh,

which means the sovereignty issue. but a taiwanese has been regarded by not only the chinese but also. ready the united states to this issue of trying one china issues is only one of the u. s. official policy is by how much it's been a scale back these days so. so the chinese thinks of this, these are different, but the china sees that are, you know, the taiwanese will become far more challenging the country. the prospect for country is rising. maybe even more difficult now to scale back to step back. so i think the danger is, is rising, but i think of, you know, the, the u. s. i try 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 is precisely the issue to the rising

tension from united states to force china to 2 sides 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. oh, you know the 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 vintage 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 to fight with the what's the point. so the chinese really want to

reinforce this, a position of, you know, to school that neutrality, regardless of taiwan, is also you and that has been century, a long chinese position. you know, this contemplative, distancing at the principle of non action to wait. we all know about that and we appreciate it greatly. and i think in this world where, you know, rush action, how many millions of deaths and refugees that again, having said that, i know the chinese believe that very thing, bill that authorized military 8 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 either in your jurisdiction or on on board. i start again,

my question is the same. do you think that americans will allow china to keep that position of distance neutrality? my own pointing, all of this is just my personal view is i think a certain our institution. so individuals serve in terms civil, military vision in a nice is, are driving the situation towards more conflict, you or even the show down with the china, which is essentially try to squeeze the strategic space for china and russia to but, or the reason why the chinese you 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 russian relation to the west in, in your was, comes, it is a conflict. but if you look at how russia in china and settle their border problem,

there are security problem at a more or 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 loves some higher, you know, cooperate organization. these are the same issue of the post. so with the space how to handle that, there are 2 radically different examples. the chinese peaceful, a push for peace resolution. i think he has his 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 seemed to ignore. and the chinese rushes develop, the framework a mechanism for both sides to adjust their national interest in on

a pragmatic basis. so this is the example trying to want to drive to. of course, if the china's proposal is 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 us. again, the alternative to top is not to talk and war people will die and a stack in the front. why? this is very much like 19616. this is the, the term i coined the 1960 moment in a recent article. and i think this is a, a 20 point, and china actually is not alone or many other countries. i probably believe indian would come up with some, absolutely dr. and dr. you, we have to live in there because our time is up. thank you very much for being with and thank you for watching coffee here again. well, the part, ah mm

mm mm ah, at this hour, american and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm iraq, to free its people. and to defend the world from gray, with

food and medicines, and supplies, and freedom with a new defense with who is on the u. s. one shows of the country's leader, jim green, my history being our main child. but for the rear leg, this is for 3rd consecutive fragments of the shell went right through the car right here and right through this seat. as you can see, the blood is still there.