well no, i think the west sees as sort of like a lions 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 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 19 fifties 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. ready and the normalization 90 when i was a turning point, the 2 large countries turn to on normal be addition 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, security sensibilities. but it clearly is not the 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 today 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 way it's been 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 assess or anything in the middle. so as you frame it is a be with us or against us is, 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, i actually this is exact one years ago when the nice to start in bait all 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 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 a 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. i 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 is not just to start fighting, but chinese are looking for a long lasting, able in the continues, you know,

security framework in europe, which is good for europe for the war 2. but the doctor, you, i'm sure you would agree with me that beyond this particular conflict between russian military forces and western aided ukrainian forces, there is a larger struggle going on. and it's a struggle for 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 is 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 2. ready large exchange ally. ready with or do you agree with russia even before the green crisis that the war need to be. ready more um,

democratic oh, which is different from the democracy if 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 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 war order is, uh, you know, 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. i 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 our 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 are china that if china and develop safe and become stronger 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 live, 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 and brazil then 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, mary, to believe that simply because the countries will get richer for some reason they will change the national falsehood to, to be in the image of the americans. this is very ill. profound question, i think ah, there's a totally different take of the rice of china between the western general and the u. s. particularly, i think is a growing trends in the united states to see china's rise as a threat, but the china threat has never gone. and ever since the, in the cold war, people 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 foremost of the union because it's not a good system. and 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're different we can work together. this isn't that the confucius notion that the unity of the differences. ready harmony of the differences, the western approaches, the unity of the sameness. i just, we are the same. you are like ours, your band and your cultural social and religious economic heritage in order to be like as and you know, why should i ask, what is it so attractive about the american way of life? i mean, look at the ability to raise, look at this suicide rate, look at the rate for incarceration. i mean, the american society is not what it used to be. why do we even have to for her to be like them? i mean, it's not an appealing picture. oh i, 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. ready donald trump

. ready on the far right extremely his 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 of globalized capitalism to look for the market to cheap labor and profitability. but the end of the book depriving western or american. ready real jobs, so this is the, the, that the capital isn't working. so the real problem lies, you know, how to read, distribute the wealth. that people are cabins who actually we see from this globalization. so it, internal redistribution, max is, has a lot to do with occurrence a problem in the united states. you mentioned the capital assistant, which,

you know, it's almost an anathema in the west to criticize it. but it's so intrinsically unfair. and this, 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 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 the leaders. oh, very good question. i know the 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 useful union became the friends of the west at the

end of the cold war, even before the end of the soviet union, ah, the world actually, according 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 good leaders are so the, at 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, emulate adapt to certain aspects of was. and 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 of 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 or real issues. ready for the west to handle or to explain because you cannot explain to, to, to, to the west in or is that the rice of china, which is an lesson 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 in between, but it's very symmetrical perception between united states and china. i think i also tell you, speaking about a 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. thank you. 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 we will bring to the iraqi food and medicines and supplies and freedom with what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy confrontation, let it be an arms race is on, often very dramatic development. only personally,

i'm going to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very critical time time to sit down and talk in louisa. come to russian state for never. i've studied us on the most landscape with 55 when. okay, so 92000 speedy. when else with we will van in the european union, the kremlin media machine, the state on russia today and split ortiz spoke neck, given our video agency, roughly all bands on youtube said

with mm hm. mm. welcome back to wowza parts. if you've been a senior fellow at the russian study center, i think if china normal university and senior fellow at the shanghai association of american studies doctor you just before i caught you all right, before the break, you were talking about the fact that this, the necessity to make a, something dangerous out of china and perhaps to some extent out of russia and other countries arises up 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 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 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, uni polarity, they could, you know, use that, haven't they just position and, you know, go along with the slow. why do you think they're trying to buy history rather than trying to harness it it's it's a big issue. i think. ready the conception of history is very different in the united states, and there are lots of good scholars,

scholars like oh, slash politicians, strategies like george canon replacing ger. oh even. you know, amir timer of university chicago, they are scholars. they see that is a historical trend. i was a realist and they treated the international politics so very different from the current. so unfortunately, the really are most of the marginalized. let me give you one kind of like an example back to the clinton times and i believe 997. when natal expenses started, george came and published article in new york time and saying that the, the west middle april mistake as a fatal mistake to a new quote, to expanding lethal would be the most faithful arrow of american policy in the

entire post cold war era but george, can this view was ignored because i believe the clinton at the mystery belief enjoins in all prosperity and clarity and rapid timeliness. so this is the kind of long term view of history was ignored. and also to get back to a question about the easiest history i talk about at the end of the cold war, both russia and china were friends of the west indian i 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 pledge support it was trying to present jones. i mean, so even i bet the point when you nicely start to re focus on major power politics,

which was george george bush strategy campaign rhetoric. but september 11th derailed that, but it was russia, it was trying to try to help united by the way. but let's not give up when, because i think it's actually a fundamental issue because i think both russia and 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 preconditions on that relationship, you're either with me or you're against me, you know, trying to get it can have its own news on rushes action. the 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,

no, no other country is 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 the pressure on china accelerates not only in terms of discuss functions, but also how military help or taiwan would have, 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 principled in such a way? these are to form chinese prospective, the ukraine conflict and the taiwan issue are different issues you'll create is one of, at least between 2 theoretically independent states are which

means the sovereignty issue. but a taiwanese has been regarded by not only the chinese, but also. ready the united states to an issue of china, one, china issues is only one china, the u. s. official policy is by how much it's been a scale back these days so. so the chinese thinks that these, these are different. but the china sees that are, you know, the, the taiwanese will become far more challenging the country that the prospect for country is rising. and in this 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 full size do not. you know, the u. s. i tried to reinterpret taiwan issue one way or another. but the question 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 side 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 is 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. the continue fight with a, 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, i am like that and that has been dangerous a long chinese position. you know, this can template in distance thing at the principle of non action weight. we all know about that and we appreciate it greatly anything in this world where you know, rush action has cost many millions of data 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 a veil of that time because the very same bill that authorized military aid for ukraine. you know that authorized military aid for taiwan 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 back yard, but rather either 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. ready this is a, just my personal view is i think, a certain institution. so individuals served in terms of civil miller transition into an i. c. s. are driving the situation towards more conflict to oh, even the show down with the china, which is essentially try to squeeze the strategic space of china and russia to. but 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, is a conflict. but if you look at how russia and china and settle their border problem, there are security problem 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 ignore. 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 bye 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 with di and a stack the front why? this is very much like 19616. this is the the term i coined the, the 1960 moment in a recent 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 i'll tell you, we have to leave it 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, oh, a

willing into a so booty toward you know, cranium, tv, audio, surety, network id. she ship a dock lean report of control in particular boards. so if she'll be at the mobile door by likely system will only be me, other than that did not sing lots of lucy. leah with falconer jones. actually, jim's out arkell room. there's a crazy, that's all there is to model the my subway, but just story ish, john sally here elise get us. but jerry ship that he has a daughter to take him over to them. i need a price quote for that for a while. i'm on the beach or up where you actually did with global,

i'm saying years about how she took on my job is to pull out the enough room for a few quick to take a picture, go double play. you have j clothes voted on up with a with hello and welcome to cross stock where all things are considered a funeral about their costs are a sci fi or some kind of negotiated settlement of the grain conflict. some nato leaders of warns lensky will have to make some difficult decisions. however, the west have little interest in russia's plan to restore the peace. that plan is in plain view, the.