such as nato or w, h o, what can be used for good will eventually be used for bad because of ultimate power corruption. and what we're dealing with right now is, is definitely one of those things where the world stages just filled with we dumb people. and you, you see that people are, are citing through cream and they're telling their own people and actually with impunity. and frankly, i think it's shameful. and so in other words, international organization i don't think will serve the interest of anyone. we've got to start breaking down at a, at a country level, the use of a i, and make sure that there is a, you know, there's some way of controlling it, which i'm just not sure you can to a, to be. and they say are, but i'm very concerned with the future because if we're this close to world war 3, without it, and the ultimate goal is for a i to win, then what are we going to, what's gonna happen? we start unleashing this in different environments around the world. we know that a guy is already like a painting picture as even winning awards. so now the field is beginning to expand into that of journalism. i mean, who stands to win and lose in

a development like that. hello, a i entering journalism. plenty of thoughts. the most most of them is, are the ones that we know like china and america, they're bound to take advantage of all of these. maybe just use them to the element frontage. i love this being though, right now between china. now as the ancient greek dramatist, east coast remark more than 2 and a half millennia ago, fruits is always the 1st casualty of war. next step down of charge. this political science, as nichol, i petrol, co op, the opposite ration is when it comes to the ukraine conflict and stay with us. the .

the hello and welcome to was a part of the father of greek tragedy escalates a remark. more than 2 and a half millennium go choose is always the 1st casual field for the case of the cranium of war. for this unprecedented levels of censorship and deliberate distortions. charles had been banished even before the interstate cause. so it has began, but may the tooth on, on the ring reality it would pay the way to peace both to discuss it. i'm now and join, but nichol, i petrol, professor of political science at the university of rhode island and also all the tragedy of your pray. what's classical and greek tragedy can teach us about conflict resolution. professor petra is great to talk to and thank you very much in

advance for this rather unusual. i'm pretty intriguing. look at the ukranian conflict. well, thank you. i look forward to discussing it. now i've given you a focus on the greek to g, g. d is a left me, uh, quote, one more of them. uh, they saw, sophocles course started, that old man makes mistakes, but it wouldn't, ma'am you, when he knows that his course of action is wrong, repairs the evil, the only crime, according to sophocles, is pride isn't uh, what's your book is all about. that the, this construct essentially rose out of hubris, a few bits of the political leads, which by the way, some greeks considered as one of the biggest fans. yes. but not just this tragedy and not just this war. all wars arise out of hubris, which at the beginning of and as i say, the middle to the end of the 20th century. we have

a number of realist political thinkers, international relations spirits. people like comes morgenthau and ronald neighbor who highlighted this as a common human flaw. and encouraged statesman of their era, the cold war to look beyond it and to compare their predicament during the cold war to the predicament of their predecessors, including all the way back to the greeks and persians. and i think it would be very good for all of us to look back to that example. and remember that the, the lessons that they tried to provide to us, which professor richard natalie about. well, i relied on a lot and coming up with this concept and applying it refers to as the tragic

vision of politics. what i appreciate in your book is uh, not only a reference as to ancient literature, but also your, your political directness. you're essentially saying that your queen was conflicted even before the russian military incursion began. rich, which is an obvious thing, but it's a pretty well statement to making the in this day and age. how far back do you trays the origins of this war? well, in later in political debates, i argue it can be traced roughly a 150 years back. of course, if you read ukrainian nationalist historians, it goes all the way back to the origins, of course, and the conflict which i see. i get a lot of historical analogies and biblical analogies to chain and able,

and romulus and remus and jacob and esau, this conflict of 2 brothers. and um, so this theme recurs in ukrainian nationalist, historical writings, and the problem the injustice that they do that they highlight is that the wrong brother, the got the benefits and it should have been them. it shouldn't be to you, which was the mother of russian cities and therefore, should have dominated over the great european land mass and must be, should have been the provincial back water. but the process of culture as far as i understand your space is it's not just a historical grievance, it's actually a lead to reality because as you state in your book, the conflict within the ukraine stems from the states reluctance to recognize the so called all the ukraine, the fact that this 3rd of its population considering themselves russians in terms

of the cultural identity um ukrainian in terms of that civic identity. and i think this is actually a crucial point to a emphasize that these people consider the ukraine as that own country who stop. why do you think the state refuse to reciprocate by fool accepting that identity? so regardless of the language, they speak with the books they read because early on out there and in the years that roughly decade i would say i'm more following ukrainian independence. they made the wrong choice. well, they made a nationalist choice rather than a civic choice. at the time of the ideas of federalism in ukraine, we go back all the way to the late 19th century. it was recognized that there was

a great diversity in the territory of ukraine. and that federalism would offer an optimal solution which have been tried all around the world, basically exchanging freedom of a local culture in exchange for civic loyalty. and that that was a perfectly good formula for patriotism. however, over this time, there was a counter veiling argument made by ukrainian nationalist, many of whom drew their inspiration from ancestors would emigrated to the west after world war 2. and it seems that they retain a sense of entitlement to be able to define what is the true

ukraine even against those who are living in the country at the time. and they brought this sense of entitlement. and to some extent, i would say vengeance in their hearts for why they've been done as they see it during world war 2 to their, to their, to their parents and grandparents. and as a result, to try to construct the ukraine, which was more thoroughly and truly new credit, purely ukrainian, which is really a nationalistic you crew. well, um, so just as soon as it is uh, pretty then a fallback statement. uh, suggesting that uh, some people living within the country are fever her than others in cultural or, you know, bloodline terms but, and your projects. we said in your book about, um, you know, parking this with then uh, ukrainian, that leaves. but i wonder if uh,

uh, it's just as dire tunnel vision, the own government says, or do you think perhaps they, they were also helped by ukraine's western allies. because the ministry, tragic is we have no characters to consort, are found the plains of castilla 2 for the own, usually less than noble aims. inevitably, and again, i don't see this particular conflict as different from any other civil war. most civil wars, i would say all civil wars have an external component because they're always neighbors or other forces that we derive benefits from either the weakening of the country that is undergoing this catastrophe or from a replacement of the old a lead with a new will lead more sympathetic to them. and ukraine, which kind of been and the end is to some extent,

i still hope is destined to be at the crossroads of europe. it has to recognize itself as a cross roads as a bridge, but instead, so far has, has articulated in its i'm on its elite. so i would again argue a sense that we are a ballpark against the east. so an extension of the west pushing back of the eastern part of, of europe, which i do consider again in russia to be part of, of the eastern europe. i would also say going back to a bit, you earlier point about nationalism. i have a very specific and i hope, precise definition of nationalism, which is indeed it is a form to tell a tearing as i see nothing. nothing since the end of the 19th century. that in noble is nationalism nationalism has been transformed in by the

1920s, already and certainly by the light in 30, the 1940s into an instrument of totalitarianism. and it becomes today the only truly effective and resonant instrument of national totalitarian. now you're measuring their cream, being at the cross roles between east and west on the. 6 uh, some of our viewers may know that your claims name is literally translated as being on an edge or, or cry. and i, i personally think that sort of underlines the borderline character of, with historic and political development. i've heard some analysts suggest that, you know, those countries that happened to be in between big council, big civilizations, essentially destined to lean one way or another rather than trying to sort of cultivate the national identity from within and pick and choose from various corners. what they want to utilize, do you agree with this piece? is there anything your client has? no other choice than um, you know,

joining one side against the other or could it fully develop something, you know, indigenous if a country is to have a reason to exist? it does so by doing exactly what you said by picking and choosing what is indigenous to it and distinguishing that new amalgam from what is being offered to the people across the border. so i disagree with that basis because i think ukraine does exist, should exist, and it is precisely the best option i suspect for its future is to find that amalgam of the cultures that are within it and turn it into something unique and flourishing. that that would define it

in distinction but not conflict but, but simply the difference between itself and its neighbors. what, well professor pets are. we have to take a very short break right now, but we'll be back in just a few moments. they tune the the

welcome back towards the parts with nikolai attached to a professor of political science at the university of rhode island, an officer of the tribe, beauty of your prey, with classical greek tragedy can teach us about the conflict resolution. professor petro, before the break, we were talking about your plans as a special need to find its own unique national identity, its own national southcourt. and um, many russian thinkers, including, i'm sure you're for the present live, you know, put an argue that the choice that the ukrainian leadership has made so far pretty cautiously is to you know, try those authentic uh, limited facility that existed within the ukraine population against the the soviets or later against the russians and utilize it into a political mechanism of sort of unifying the country, a problem with them and attracting west and financing. i can understand cynical

part of me can understand the sort of a political, unless that's the key or utility of that. but in terms of the military and defense tradition wasn't, that's reckless. what other country would tolerate that whole style stayed on his borders, especially when it's on by the deform. and now my system does the country one of the confusing aspects for analysts. so this conflict is that russia, for, to nearly 30 years did tolerate that. so the question in the minds of western analysts is what changed now? and this is indeed a difficult question to answer. but i think perhaps the answer lies in the sense of the cup of power as has the, has been over bill and

a couple of events of last year. even proceeding the offer i to re negotiate essentially a nato strategy, which nato rejected at the end of the 20 last year. i mean, 2020. what go on. yeah. i, i thought, or even more suggestive in indicative of what i under estimate it along with most western atlas, the degree of, of the anger of the russian elite against the western. but as a professor bradshaw, isn't it understandable that most school would uh, waived or tried to delay the difficult decisions? because you mentioned this, the french for side of one that you might imagine came in a know, you know, we consider ukrainians, you know, not necessarily our brothers, but most of us have relatives there. so for any russian leader to watch any military operation, there would be a very, very, very difficult choice,

both on international grounds and particularly domestic grounds. but i think the crumbling line has been put predicts police. and the, the reason they did it was because the west and tom supplied the weaponized ation the militarization of ukraine throughout 2021. do you believe the kremlin narrative there? the way i would say is positive is that a matter of what i believe is what the individual actors believe and their inability to listen to the other side is what makes conflict. half of. and so i'm sure that the kremlin believes what it believes. and in nato, nato capitals, they believe of exactly the opposite and in their own righteousness and their inability to see beyond that on both sides leads to the i have to put it this way, the victimization of ukraine. uh, as a matter of fact, i was thinking the other day how on the one hand um the west

is willing to sacrifice ukraine so long as it does not join in the lines with russia and russian people exactly the same way. roger cannot tolerate the ukraine, that is alliance with the west. so the only thing that both sides outside of ukraine have in common is that they're willing to see the destruction of your brain . and that's why you brain has to get out of the situation for itself. it needs to rely on its own internal forces and internal, which means reaching out and establishing domestic unity, which is unfortunately not, not the policy of the current ukrainian government, not the policy of the current or previous ukrainian governments. but this is something that your book suggest. i know you see greek tragedy as a kind of therapy that aspires to restore social harmony. 8

but are you sure that this restoration of social harmony has ever been part of the piece of grant in ball? is that because i think as we have just discuss the they've been a mean for the opposite. what can possibly inspire them to change course to work for the own good. well, there is a significant mythology in ukraine. i know. i think the storage has recently spoken out against the crating and him, the national him. uh, but uh it actually talks about how we are all brothers in uh, of, of the same cause that route. uh, and there's a lot of, uh, unifying mythology. i talk about subordinate, which is that console they have a day of subordinate in ukraine, which is a celebrated every year. these the good policies, these,

these correct policies drive for national unity. the problem is they have been misinterpreted under nationalism. to mean this part is good, and national unity will require the destruction of what is the unhealthy in ukraine . and then it becomes simply a matter of targeting and persecuting and eliminating the people who are, who don't match your stereotype. and that is not, will never succeed. that just has never succeeded in human history. and it will not be, cannot succeed in you, craig, you mentioned the rise all slot, the nationalist or fluoride movement. then, you know, russians put it in terms of been, that's a thread which uh, selling the was believe is a huge exaggeration. but why do we actually look and compare the knots experiments with what's going on in the ukraine today?

i sometimes feel that you know what hitler and people are wrong can, did this, you know, sound when that portion of the collective, unconscious that you know, they were approaching in an experimental manner. but uh, manual being ukranian leaders, a very cautious about repeating some of the knots of practices or misleading the own people. let alone inviting a far, far right, militias from all over the world to gain military hands on experience of fighting. now you can uh discard all of that as a russian propaganda the gnostic part. but what about the parking potential of those uh militants. uh, when they come back to the united states, when they come back to britain, don't they represent a certain danger to, to your own people? yes. but again, i don't think of it strictly in terms of naziism because naziism was not even tip goal for

a cognate parties in eastern europe and even fascism. there were subtle differences . busy all along the way, even in the 1930, the 19 forties and to draw an analogy of any current political move up to a nazi movement is simplicity. let me clarify my point. i don't try to draw direct analogies. but as you see a historical patterns or which word problems tend to repeat themselves. that makes me look, for example of the bolshevik movement. you know, the russians would have me mentioning bolshevism in the same sentence, but not soon, but it was a very limited, very radical group that too cold of the entire country and change of history for, for many decades. and it started with some national or, or, or internationalists ideas, but as quickly revolved into outright violence and depressions and purging is what have you. and it seems that we have sort of the same uh, dynamic, perhaps of

a different proportions, but the same dynamic being used here don't you're thankful. yes. and, but in, as, as a, as an academic could to does think about these historical patterns and connections . i like to put it in terms of the phrase of a lesser known, but more significant, historically tendency toward integral nationalism. and so i came, come back to my fund to mental conclusion that nationalism is the evil and nationalism in facts all of us and will continue to do so inevitably, so long as we have nation states, but prioritize our national interest or national identity and our differences with others now i'm not saying that we should just get rid of everything and hold hands in kissing hawk, because that's not going to happen. but,

and it is very possible to live in a world of nation states and recognize its flaws. and to keep those flaws ever before us as warning signals as to what can happen when we exaggerate the importance of a national identity. i gotcha. now you're also going back to a greek tragedy as a practical way of uh, dissolving tensions or, you know, addressing facilities among nations. you mentioned that it's actually, it has a pretty, um, sort of practical uh, layout for how it could be practiced. it consists of 3 points of knoll assist, recognizing tragedy, recognizing your in role in what happened, catharsis, purging, the soul of toxic emotions like vengeance or hatred, that sort of thing. the way for more pro social feelings like compassion and finally dialogue which you define as a form of self transformation,

which allows for a new form of the relationship to take place. i see in this day and age i am in the same age, everything is turned upside down be the most me can hold for a. this point is, is dialogue. you know, you bring the parties to negotiating table. we've kind of premier, you cannot require them to sort of, you know, go through a guitar says, or even, you know, take hold of that own. it takes stokum that own actions. do you think any dialogue would be effective without like a notices and guitar says 1st, know. so that sequence has to occur and dialogue occurs not because to people sit down and say they want to talk. but when they actually feel the need to do so, and the need for that comes from the recognition that, oh my gosh, is partly my fault notices then, since it's partly my fault,

how could i contribute to the ceiling? that's the catharsis. replacing the rage and hate with emptiness. and then in the emptiness, pity and compassion can come in. and finally, out of that penny and compassion came calm, dialogue which enables you to truly see the other person as yourself and to recognize your needs in the needs of others. and the humanity of, of your out of me reaches, i guess the final but also very cool. so uh, question here, because i think the russian culture is distinct when it comes to respecting your, i mean, because if you're historical, look at uh, how much russians have taken from either, you know, adversaries be this with the charge that touch her. it won't be collected west after the cold war. we've always sought to practically approach our enemies and you know, a way or whatever good practice is that they can offer it. and i think that's also,

you know, partially a consequence of mature state and sort of experiential history. when you know that history is long down and ukraine as conflicted and young as it is as a, as a state of florida itself. something like that. kind of the more to treat that name is with respect. does it know how to do it without humanizing at least one's fellow citizens? what prospect is there for the state to do this? there's not you. you have to develop a constituency which wants to support the existence of that civic culture. the both the individual call to the, the, the cultural components of it. hard for the whole, but also the civic identity, the political construct of it. and you know,

as recently as 2020 or 21, i quoted president victor yoshika who said, well, your credit is still cause the nation because it hasn't accomplish that until it does, it will remain that there is no sense in fooling yourself. i sometimes hear from critics write me and say, oh, this is not the war. on the other hand, this has already. we're now beyond that because the war has united us war never unites, never, not united for a very brief moment. and then as soon as that moment is over, everybody's out each other's throats again, unless they can focus on the issues that divided them in the 1st place. and that's why it will be no, there is no accidental solution. do you praise problems in all resides with them and, and the healing on piece. not just in your green, but i think in europe as

a whole world again, when you're praying, the hills. and so professor puncher, we have to leave it there. but it's been a fascinating conversation. thank you very much for that. so thank you. my pleasure . i'm thank you for watching close to sir. again unable to parse the the, the.