ah hello, welcome to worlds apart. in the years since the ukrainian conflict entered, that's kinetic stage international relations have changed more than in the decades prior to the most surprising shifts occurred among countries not directly involved in this war. and deciding what stands to take. they have to carefully wave that interest and resources, i guess longer. geopolitical and your economic trends on almost all came up with their own version of neutrality, isn't trial into becoming a bi worth for sovereignty. well, to discuss it are now joined by pasco, latasha, associate professor for neutrality studies of care with or university facilities.

great to talk to you. thank you very much for your time. thank you very much for having me. now i have to say that i'm a big fan of your youtube channel. i think it's a very rare source of january analysis, which is such a very to disease. and i want to started by asking about this because political science is called science, because at least initially there was a presumption that it's done for the sake of finding objective trance and basing policy solutions in actual rather than preferred or concocted the reality. when did a change, when did it become so divorced from what is actually happening on the ground? well, it never really did. it was a misnomer from the start. political science is considered part of social sciences . and social sciences is fundamentally misnamed. it's a stupid name to begin with natural sciences or real sciences because they're able to create hypotheses and then test them through experiments. now,

social scientists at some point to people who do, who do politics and so on, got very envious of the, of the certainty that these people in the natural sciences are able to create. so what they did is they try to borrow these methods used to mean their own analysis, which has it's, i mean that's fair and square. that's ok. but one thing social sciences can never do, never is experiments. we cannot run history again. we cannot go back and look at what would have happened, had hitler been killed or something like that. we cannot run the experiments. so we are, we are living with this flaw and all the political sciences and international relations especially, hence, has a propensity towards bias. so we, we, we interpret things that would be way more honest to call it a social philosophy. and within that we have methods to, to come to conclusions. and i really think that was all that with all the limitations, i think your point is well taken. but i think throughout the whole history of

diplomacy and international relations, there was an understanding that 1st of all, there are certain trans according to which countries in an international system develops sense. second, it was considered necessary to understand you are animals and parent hymns and red lines. and it was considered part of a way of doing due diligence because you know, it allowed countries to minimize their own policy costs. it allowed to minimize unnecessary escalation. and i think you made a point in one of your articles that, for example, in the case of ukraine and russia's security sensibilities in that region that was deliberately ignored. i wonder why wasn't asked of ignorance out of ignorance, or was it a deliberate stance? i, i don't know. so this is my, one of my big questions there. so we see 2 things in when we look at the past, on the one hand, we have wars of choice that counties wanted to fight because they had some

strategic object objectives. and i see elements of that in the current situation when we basically have a proxy war, ukraine is a proxy will hold a lot, much larger will, between, between nato and, and russia that's going on. and we have, we have forces on both sides, which would like to fight that. but on the other hand, we also have moments in history. when we see how ideology eats brain, right, the ideology takes over the crusades, were a dumb idea. the whole 30 years war in europe was it was a really horribly dumb idea when people kill each other for ideological reasons. and what we're seeing at the moment, at least in the west, because i perceive russia and china as inherently realist. but in the west, we're seeing this dominance of id and the ideology that portrays the world in a very certain way. and if you followed that, that laurie said in the ideal way, are they a very flattering way that is of it really accorded with, with the actual history at least the way it was recorded?

no. so in my, i don't know whether the people in power in the west actually believe some of the stupidity they alter because they're unable to actually compare with their own actions. or if they actually know that they are, that they are faking it on a but use that in order to fight a war that they want to fight with russia because this war in ukraine was utterly presentable. every realist in the west, from noam chomsky to, to henry kissinger, every one said this plot of land has to be neutral. it's a no brainer. everybody understood it and still we have these war which leads me to the question. all these people ideal, ideologically driven, or if they're just that, the faction that wanted it, i'm having it, and we are the propagandized masses at the moment, all over the place in russia, and in and into west your old before. and you just said it. now that the, the warning ukraine could have been avoided if the west and ukraine hadn't misinterpreted russia's demand for security guarantees. and i remember when those

security guarantees was put, were put on the table and openly discuss back in 2021, especially during the last in person meeting within biden. and putin and geneva, russia had a sizable contingent on the cranes border, at least $80000.00 troops. and that strikes me as a pretty direct expression. oftentimes they, you know, like, there's not much room for misinterpretation here. why do you thing the west that didn't take the rush and signaled the way it was sent? at least. so it was a huge mistake in december 2021. not to come to an agreement with ross show this would. i mean this, this, this treaty said russia sent to nato, unto washington, didn't mention to work neutrality, but it's exactly what they demanded and mine to probation was to, didn't put the word in there in all the not too far. so i just wanted to, i think, one to lansing, but i think it would be a crucial an know to make

a considering your feel study. russia was asked what didn't ask when you're trying to. but neutrality at that point of time was in means of protecting statist cwa, it wasn't about the expansion of russia interest. it was simply preserving peace and status for if it looked at that that the tragedy of ukraine is that for the entire time that ukraine had on utility clause in its constitution up until 2014. as long as this was credible, there was no problem and as soon as it looked as if the ukraine could actually eventually become an a to member, that's the moment when crimea happened in 2014, then the calls went away and then everything went sour and south from there. so that was bad. and your initial question on the why the west didn't take it serious . i didn't believe russia wouldn't. it would invade. because in my view, this is so hurtful to russia because these people in ukraine are your brothers and sisters. and this is a civil war, basically, a late, a late civil war. so i didn't believe it will happen. and mister putin and like the russian leadership continuously said, we are not intending to fight

a war. that's why i interpreted the troops as a way of saber rattling without wanting to do it because i believed the speech that was coming. this is such an important point. i think that is totally a miss than the west that for russia, it's a very, very difficult war. and not only in terms of material supplies or, you know, financial pressure, but for ethical and brother lee and you know, reasons and i agree with you that, that nobody saw that russia would initiate that operation. but, you know, sometimes i think if the west actually counted on the fact that russia can pushed into the corner precisely on that premise that it would never, ever dare to tag the ukrainians, even in the ukrainian leadership is totally hijacked. and the ukranian territory is totally hijacked by the antony. don't you think that put in ultimately as a commander in chief and asking by the way for the endorsement of this policy,

but didn't say have to do something to our fulfill his duties as the commander in chief of russian. well, it is obviously, it is obviously now the, the conclusion that he took, i just thought the hurt or the, the fear of like how much it would hurt. what would actually not allow this to happen. look, the people who understood russia very well in the past, george kennan, and the one of the person to interviewed 1st on my channel ambassador jack matlock, to last years ambassador to the soviet union. right before everything fell apart. these people said, if we push nato to the boldest, and if we're trying to integrate all of these countries, there will be a war and india and they were right now. does that? does that justify the rushes actions? no, it doesn't. because we, we do have a fundamental problem, but the fundamental problem is much bigger than russia, which is that countries, especially great powers, take the right to self defend in other countries. it's the that is the original

season of international relations ever after the 2nd world war. for myself, defense, i go and fight abroad, or russia commit that, that to. but the west has committed that like dozens of times since to lot. since the end of the 2nd world. i was laughing at rushes actions to that of the west. and you even said that russia is i think ruthlessly using out the west plane book. but then a flying from the other side of the world, you know, like we are sending our old soldiers and we are suffering both in terms of our own economy. in terms of our society, we are making our personal contribution in 1st of all, fighting, not only for our security, but also for our self or then this is something that i want to ask you about. because i is also in to me, a lot of people from around the world. and i see this up serge in not just sovereignty, but national self, who it's all around the world in indian china, in latin america in africa. and i think this rise the collective emergence of self

collective self, which is ultimately as odd to be the western concept of itself. because there was only believe that only its way is legitimate and all the other countries having their own manifest destiny thing to be, you know, i, to magically a western animus is that, is this war only for security, or is it for something bigger than that? it will, it will, it has already influenced international relations tremendously. right. and the way that all the count pres, behave and, and that the changes that we're seeing with saudi arabia with iran coming to, to, to new york courts and with rochelle. so having a new relationship with china and so on. these are tremendous changes. but i wouldn't go as far as to say that this was probably the intent from the beginning. this is more, this is certainly an effect. but you know, especially when will start and, and, and while i was, and they usually go very different from the way that people start to plan. now i want to ask a specifically about the native because you know,

a couple of years ago, there was a lot of to talk whether nature threatens or doesn't threaten nater. and you wrote that it's pretty much irrelevant. was that what's important is that perception of friend, but given the recent statement by european leaders like angling article friends all along that mince get agreements were never man to be see, sorry, agreements. they were only meant as an opportunity to give the ukraine time to regroup. and rearm, can you really blame russia for feeling very insecure about nato's intentions? i mean, the way it's interpreted in russia right now is that, look, we were no paranoia call along these people planned to attack us or just threaten us from the territory of our neighbor. i agree with you. i mean, do you don't need to be a genius, 2 to 2 half strategic empathy. look at whom are these missiles point to

that? i mean, nato to cold will cease to, to beat nato didn't. and to me, cells always pointed to moscow. that's absolutely clear. and then nato didn't, didn't expand to the atlantic, nate to expand the 2 to the east. and i'd like the also, when you look at the rhetoric that comes from eastern european countries, which maybe for legitimate reasons, are afraid of the russians. that's, that's possible. but that they also feel threatened. that's the tragedy of international relations. everybody feels threatened by everybody and everybody feels like a victim. and if you feel like a victim you feel justified to defend yourself, right. so i understand that russians feel threatened, and they all, i mean there's, there's all of these publications just 2 days ago in foreign policy again, oh, we should prepare for the colonizing russia for breaking up ra, shine 20 successor states. that's the only humane way of continuing with the entire regions, like i, you people crazy anti right that they do right. that. and then they wonder why russia perceived them as a threat. well, i mean that, unfortunately,

i'm sure they're not watching your channel or reading any history books because there are a number of, you know, western leaders that attempted to do that in the past. and it never bode well for down. but let's take a very short break right now, and we can come back to this discussion in a couple of minutes. they can't, ah, how it's done. lord stream wanted to were destroyed by great britain is a tremendous opportunity to once for all remove dependence on russian energy. the whoa in ukraine is all the mistakes were made. and i have been elected as a leader of my party, angel prime minister,

in part to fix them with the face, the highest taxation. sit still. this year alone, we have provided 2300000000 pounds of military support. and we will do the same again next year. a new title because as the weight with a, with welcome back to worlds apart with bus co, let's ha, associate,

professor for an atrocity studies of kill it, or university professional. and how just before they break, i cut you short them, you had the, i'm sure, an interesting point to express. well, the point is like people in russia and ukraine would, and most of them were old enough. remember that they were living in a completely different country. they were living in this, u. s. s. aren't and use us. are broke apart into 15 success of states, people who, who went through that would naturally lake b. b. like think that maybe something could happen again. so i understand, i really understand that a lot of people in russia are legitimately afraid of what's going to happen to their country. now professor latania tissue in japan and i think japanese history is very crucial for understanding rushes deep mistrust of western intentions. because japan was the only country there was subjected to an attack by and nuclear weapons for no apparent tactical reasons. and the weight was interpreted in both the soviet and the russian historiography is that it was an act of disproportionate,

cruel black and blatant intimidation. just for, for the sake of nicking a geopolitical point, do you think the current are western and particular american leadership? when it's current political culture with the fact that they still haven't recognized the bombing of japan as, as it is a historic mistake. and do you think they still capable of doing something like that to make that point? yes, although i must say that she rose shima, nagasaki, we're not that huge. a point. there were, they were bigger as a point towards the soviet union than against japan because he rushman arkansas keyword incineration of these 2 cities. but during that, at the, the entire previous month, several cities were incinerated. you know, more people died in the fire bomb rates of tokyo than died than during hiroshima, right at one in one single night. so the $9045.00 was a huge exercise of the united states terrorizing civilian populations illegally illegally. this was clearly illegal. this is

a war crime. it just the way that japanese committed war crimes in china just the way that war crumbs have happened in europe. it was a war crime, it was never present it. and by a totally different kind of weapons, i mean it's not that there isn't, am i big difference for the, for the victims, but in terms of the effect it produces a public effect. nuclear weapons is not comparable to anything else. it was late since i studied that period. i must say the nuclear. the fact that the nuclear weapon was dropped on japan was a good excuse for the dogs in tokyo, who wanted to surrender to actually surrender it. helped those who wanted to surrender because there was an option of continue doing, continuing fighting. and we have this problem. so it was a horrible thing and they were, it shouldn't have happened. but if you're asking me yes, i think the we are capable of doing something stupid like that again, and i hope never a hope. it won't happen. now let's talk about the international and impact of the

of the conflict in ukraine. and i want to start my question with quoting polish prime minister imitation was what i, that's good. well said, the other day that russia victory in ukraine would amount to the end of the west golden age. as if that golden age was supposed to be eternal. putting aside russia, do you think other countries, especially on the western countries, have much sympathy or desire for the western golden age to continue? well, every country has an interest in their own, in their own well being. right. and we've seen that 500 years of european dominance or anglo european dominance of, of both the world basically. right. i mean, we white people and i include, of course, all of russia we, we basically raped the rest of the website and different ways that we didn't have the colonial colonial college and so on. no, but the way russia expanded itself was absolutely different from the way the west

did it. we didn't, we don't have the white man's burden. i mean, we have a totally different concept of, you know, integrating societies and it's still pretty visible in russia. there's these, there, there, ethnic and national relations, especially during the soviet times by the way, the russians were, the least politically endowed, the national group or within the soviet union. but anyway, let's, let's, let's put that aside because i'm struck by this notion of the golden age because it sounds like extremely racist to me and openly in the fall. because the golden age for the west, you know, the way international system is structured man, significant and miss balances and much less precious conditions for many other countries. and most of those countries, one the international system to be, if not fair, then at least a balance that you know, they, they want to get the fair share. they want to get their fair and you do you thing in a western please for this eternal privilege, resonate with them?

well, no, and that's why actually south america, africa, and most of south east asia and, and asia in general is not going along. and doesn't, doesn't swallow the west the narrative. i'm not entirely sure how much they believe the, the russian narrative neither, but they got don't go along and this kind of like golden age stuff that's, that's exactly the thing that then outrageous people outside of the bubble. and this doesn't help, this doesn't help to create followers, right? this is actually an interesting point. you just made that you're not sure how much they are buying their western and russian narrative. and this conflict strikes me as one of the 1st conflicts where narrative don't even matter because the countries seem to be of their own wine. they're doing their own calculations, you know, and they're looking at their own reality picture in order to decide where to position themselves isn't a new development the about brought the,

brought in by this conflict, the be, the influence of propaganda seems to be diminishing. well, the inference of propaganda is strongest inside these, these bubbles right inside the west, probably in. so i don't know, rush, i haven't been there, but probably they have to and probably like also inside china, you know, in did the propaganda target to work your own? because if you want to go to war, you really need to motivate people to take up arms and run to walks to bullets. so you need to build a very strong argument at the west. this building at the moment, a very strong argument to basically hate on russia and break all the links, including the banding of your, of your network in the whole of europe. this is mind boggling to me. you know, it wasn't hard to hear. i'm in the classical writing a check of i'm in there. what don't have to do with that but, and expelling a russian a sportsman and sports women. you know, all of this is supposed to break the links to the people so that we cannot feel compassion for each other anymore. and this is absolutely horrible. and we need to fight that dynamic. and we need to integrate the ukrainians. we need to integrate

the russians. we need to build trust again because that's going to be the basis of any kind of peace that's going to come after this. well, if you're truly interested in peers, do you think that's actually one of the western intentions? because i think another distinct feature of this conflict is that, unlike in any other piece, is not even paid lip service. i mean, there are no calls for negotiations. in fact, they're outright cause for continuing this war. do you think there is any sort of deliberate association that's when the continuation of this war and the western political agenda to preserve or you know what it is, is it's strategic interest, which is dominance. now look, every country, once peace but only its peace. the west also wants peace, but only a peace at its own definition. and roy was when i did nothing, well, come on and the printer listed about like, if you got the whole, well, you got peace. you see, i mean the, that's the whole point. you try to use weapons to bring the piece that you desire.

now that the difficult part is always to accept a piece that is not perfect. and yeah, i do think that the way this is going like over the long run will have to be a piece that nobody is happy with. now many countries, as i mentioned in my introduction, now describe that position as neutral, but i find for my line of work that neutrality has different chase to it. and the way the chinese unit trial, it is very different from the way indian describe it, or the way it's seen in turnkey in south africa. what does neutrality even mean in this day and age? it means what countries needed to mean neutrality is one of the most flexible concepts and international relations that you can imagine, which is why it's so useful. but why it is so inherently different, difficult to grasp. so that the chances we have is that countries fill it with a meaning that is useful to them and hopefully to, to all of us. because at its core, it means i'm not taking the side of either of these completely. i'm not going to

have a military alliance, which is why i also think china is not actually in an alliance with russia. all the scholars also agree here because you don't have these nato mechanism and blah, blah, blah. you have a good friendship. yes. and there's various degrees here and i would hope that more countries blaming neutrality would help to de escalate the spiral between these 2 rivals. speaking about russia and china, i think both lost grand beijing and non describing their relationship as a, as an alliance. and even though that this comes up is not very particular popular in rush, i think it's more like an open relationship when they have mutual attraction. but they also have practical benefits of sticking together. and the flexibility of this arrangement is viewed as a, as a particular value within the contract off of the relationship. how does it compare with western insistence on alliances and unity and why do you think the concept of

neutrality is ultimately saw and palatable to the west? because as we discussed it, there was that is against the concept of nuclear neutrality, both for ukraine and as we saw for finland and sweden see neutrality is always benefiting the weaker part of a conflict more, you know, you can be neutral, but you, your neutrality, political neutrality will never be outcome neutral, it will always benefit one of both parties of a conflict and right now into conflict between russia and nato. russia has to, we is, is the weaker part. so russia is more interested in utility and to west understand that that's why they tried to crack down and everybody else as hard as they can, because they know that these neutrality will ultimately benefit russia. it's a very natural dynamic off of a triangular relationship. yeah, and it's, it's another way of imposing dominance now for many countries and correct me if i'm wrong here, but i think for many western countries, neutrality is no longer

a security concept. you know, the way they talk about it, it's couched in a very psychological language. it's either you're with us or you're against us, you have to be on the right side of history. and i wonder if you think it will remain that way, especially considering that the united states is increasingly preferring and specific allies more than its european ones. i mean both in terms of economic development, in terms of military developments, the united states is looking more engaging leah towards the pacific and the europe is sort of left to fend for itself. do you think it will do you think that will empower this? try for in a trial introducing that with make it, we can, i can, i can predict it, but at the moment in europe, neutrality is shrinking. we've lost finland. we've lost sweden, and the other counties are also very much ideologically, ideologically captured. but ideally,

neutrality is striving in the developing world of america, africa, most of asia. so there will be a change, you know, every international system creates, again, its own version of neutrality. that's then adapted to that situation. i cannot foresee at what it is, but neutrality is moving out of europe and moving into the wider world, probably around some form of non alignment. for europe, the situation ain't great, really not. i mean, we now have like very hard fronts and this is very dangerous. so i would hope that in some level, some form of de escalation, not necessarily drug abuse. collation would come along because we need to live together. you know, our continent is not good at not slipping each other's throats. we have to stop this and we keep failing over and over on our a common duration continent. absolutely. but in order for a long piece to take place, a unit to leave and left leave and allowed the golden age to effect, not only yourself, but also your. your neighbor is far and wide. professional

a t. i has been a fascinating conversation. thank you very much. for that, thank you. and thank you for watching hope to sir, again on the well to part, ah, a, with a. i would truly motivate nato. is it strategic interests and geopolitical positioning? or is it ideology and a pathological hatred of russia? i will let the viewers decide, but one thing is certain, the alliance has put its very existence on the line. you can take that to the bank .

ah ah louise, you, we see how the use militarized, and had to record base to it and into an aggressive structure even stated go. sure, said roger, i love close out the west. you think ukraine as a smokescreen pluck from the problem of the middle east globe and south? south africa, goodbye. equates the international criminal court. as, according to the country's president's who announced to move off the i see it in the west. a dozens of dead power military fighters in the street following reports of a 5th with the army and violence and the country wages for 10 days, thousands of civilians and foreign national.