my show is called direction, but again, it's not, we don't want to watch it because it might just change the way you think the, [000:00:00;00] the, the welcome to was a part of being able to see the next step that others may have with your fundamentally different from your own was, was considered a benchmark of psychological maturity, which is evidence to lacking in contemporary for in the stairs with the worst and earlier assumptions that economic development would do. wave of your political

differences now proven the 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 studies center of the east china normal university and senior fellow or bishop hi association of american studies. dr. you is great to talk to you. thank you very much for your time. thank you for having me here. now let me start with an issue that is very close to my heart on my home. this is a conflict in your brain. and uh you are here in your article that these vast and b, or is of the russian chinese, a lions greatly exaggerated the beijing is taking a distinctly neutral position. but do you think the chinese of the americans define neutrality in similar terms as well? uh no, i think the west uh, sees as a sort of like a,

a lines making, at least, you know, and so elements over there. but this has the, my opinion that this final russian strategically relationship is by large. a normal relationship is normal because is the result of the 2 extreme relationship that the child has, the dates of union and the roster has gone. so i've gone through uh from the the, the honeymoon, the allies of the 1950s to the end of may. ready of 30 years. ready during the months of the cold war, so it's a russian, china, i've gone through that to extreme and, and the normalization you've done to me my was a turning point. the 2 large countries trying to on normal relationship in which both are independent, large powers and actually independent civilizations. what i like about your framing

over an argument is that they are clearly show that this kind of a framework allows for genuine cooperation for finding areas of mutual benefit, but also least space for genuine disagreements. and for example, in the case of ukraine, china understands the rest of the security and sensibilities, but it clearly is not approving all for our rushes, shows and warm of action and rush, he's not asking for its approval if the rest, his own responsibility versus own decision but again, i want to bring as uh, back to that to the americans, because uh they feature a prominently the ukranian conflict. and for them is either you are with us or your against us. and i wonder if the china is neutrality, the way of seen in china, and the way you would describe it in your articles would be inevitably proceed as, as defined by the american. yes, uh the,

the united states and the west of particular the us policies. they do not accept anything in the middle. so as you frame it is a be with us, oregon as this as being less than policy towards international politics and major power problems ever since the end of the cold war. if you recall back to 20 some years ago, i actually visit the exact 20 years ago when the united states start taking bait about seeing baby rack on the pretext of weapons of mass destruction, which is the fate of the present boost policy, is to be with us ok so, but if the world to still remember or the west, still remember a large power twice, you paid a different approach the what, the french, the germans, the russians and chinese, they disagree with the us and the british policy or the english speaking countries

policy and they want to take a neutral stance. we're not convinced, but they were told to be with us or against us. so this is the continuation of the offer. i would say the us policy. so with regard to the kind of the chinese metering position, i would say it's not kind of like goodness, like like a pure. ready front of the china does have its own view above the rights of law or would contribute to this. but chinese position is impartial, is try to uh, see how much the conflict can be stopped. uh, the escalated and the civilian casualty be but you know, avoid it as much as possible, which is good for both parties. of course, it's not just you stop fighting, but chinese are looking for a loan last the stay a be in the continues, you know, security framework in your which is good for your,

for the word to. but the adults, are you a, i'm sure you're with a grid with me that uh beyond this particular conflict between russian military forces and western aid, it uh, ukrainian forces. there is a largest 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's going to be more balanced or perhaps even more democratic. would you say that in that bigger struggle china is also a neutral to i would not use the neutrality for that kind of, i think a china of to large exchange a line was oh, do you agree with russia even before the deal, queen prizes that to work me to be. ready or a democratic,

which is different from the democracy if only for such a domestic system in a way that good there, there is a trans towards more of a multi polar system. if people want to use it, well, some people like a rigid horse of us a, you know, cause a foreign relations, isn't the non clarity world of, but that is, is not necessary. agreed by some old, many in the united states. i think of the, this, the future work order is, uh, you know, unclear, actually, even before the launch of the buses, special military operation, ukraine. there was a debate which last for several years about the weather, the so called the lead already international order is failing or has failed and whole cost it so. so to the west of the academia and the policy circles at the base

. it's for several years about the, the decline of the west. i think the, the warranty will create actually was a major development was something new at the but we are, you are in charge of the war 1st right now before we go deeper. uh, in discussing historical and political matters, i want to ask you, and i'm not sure it's been a political question because uh, you know, there has well been an assumption in the united states that, particularly about china. but not only about china, the china developed to, if it becomes stronger economically, it would be more like the united states. and what i think the americans meant by that is that they would be subservient to, to the united states. that they would accept the american way of live, the american rules, the americans still cope leadership. what have you, i'm trying to is not the only country that have gone through that. look at church, you look at the rational looking for a single that many north western countries have gone through some sort of western eyes ation, without changing the 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 south would to, to be in the age of the americans. this is very a profound question. i think good there's, there's a totally different take of the rice of china uh, between uh, you know, the western general and the us, particularly, i think is a growing trends in the united states to see trying us rise as a threat. but the trying to survive has never gone ever since the, in the cold war, people suck argue with the rice of china. and i'm sure as to be, there are 2 schools of thought. one is trying to collect gifts argument to try know, according to some of you forgot to many, oh,

will the class like this almost over unit because it's not a good system. and the other argument, or the other extreme, is if the china, china is wrapped in the cost of the china does not collapse china most wrapped in 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 seldom. you know, i mean, there are things that black and white in nature, but the western approach to anything internal, personal, interpersonal, or interstate relationship is one of the black and white that realities. there are many, many shades of, of the different colors, different states, and other chinese you lost the approach to the issue is the, you know, if we're different we can work together. this is the confucius notion that the

unity of the differences. ready harmony of the differences, the west approaches majority of the same is the us. we are the same. you are like us, your bundle, you know, your cultural, social and religious economics heritage in order to be like awesome, you know, why should i ask, what is in store attractive about the american way of life? i mean, look at the visit to race. look at this suicide race, look into raise something for incarceration. i mean, the american society is not would have used to be why do we even have to aspire to be like them? i mean, there's nothing appealing picture. oh, i see. i see you pointed to another side of the debate, that is what it costs. all those problems inside the west in general, like the rice of population even before the russian hill. so for us this time and, and the rice of done. ready trump, on the far right, extreme list forces and the sort of things to what extent as it relates to the rice

of china. you can blame lots of things on others, but there are limits how far you can solve your own problem is i think one of the major problem is the for international older which actually promotes the capital, this localized capital. this need to look for the markets of cheap labor and profitability for the end of the book, depriving western america and you know, a real jobs. so this is the, the, the, the capitalism in the world. so there's real problem lies in how to redistribute the wealth, busy per capita is actually received from this globalization. so the, the internal re distribution mechanism has a lot to do with occurrence a problem in the united states. you mentioned the capitalist system, which uh, you know, it's almost an anathema in the west to criticize it,

but it's still intrinsically unfair. and this, even, i mean, anyone who can look at your fingers, it's impossible to deny that it's a in, in the crunch shape or form. it's the highly detrimental to the american themselves . now i know you have an expertise in american studies. how do you explain to yourself the mary comes to know, demanding more from their system that they are encouraged to be fad. this the victrola about thruster, about china, about the wrong, about all the nations that yeah. how there actually is a will. but uh, they do not actually look and ask more from that leaders. it's a very, very good question and the thank you that you don't mind by personal opinion. these i think of china actually until. ready a certain extent, russell to, you know, both russia and china became useful junior, became the friends of the west at the end of the cold works, even before the end of the soviet union of the world. actually

a calling to present a roman region. and george w bush was a new international older, already several years before the end of the soviet union, which is the large b a i believe it's a personal, some such an access of the, a soviet leaders. so the, at the end of the cold were the international, the actually you heads up occupied a very vintage position. and both russian time i actually tried to, to such a degree of emulates adoptive certain aspects of was what happened later. it was totally different. i mean, present actually it was let them use were pro west and he tried to use the drawing . they told me, uh, trying to, uh, try to, i mean like, learn from the west. maybe trying to become a den, to good students, the west and become such a i would say

a staples successful model. so the rice of trying low cost from hunters psychological of really issues. ready for the west to handle or to explain because you cannot explain to, to, to, to the west and the nurse that the rice of china, which is a lesson around west and even the white, liberal. okay, can be successful. so a must be a no savings. things from us, so this is the kind of a property between, but it's there a symmetrical perception between united states and china. i think the, you speaking validation images, we have to take a very short break right now, but we will be back, i promise, we will get back to this conversation in just a few moments back in

the so what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have, it's crazy from foundation, let it be an arms race is often very dramatic. the only personally i'm going to resist, i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very unclear, to get a time time to sit down and talk the the welcome back. to all the parts with you being

a senior fellow at the russian study center of the east china normal university and senior fellow edition high association of american studies. just to you just before i had called you all before the break, you were talking about the fact that this the necessity to make. 8 something dangerous out of china and perhaps to some extent out, the russian, all the countries rises up uh from the fact that china has been able to, you know, diligently learn the american lesson and to apply it the best way to quit, to its own soil. and lift millions people are of people out of poverty. richard continues to do not only in china, but also and many other countries. what would 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 this uh, escaping uh,

uni polarity, they could, you know, use that and then they just position and, you know, go along with the slow. why do you think they're trying to buy a history rather than trying to harvest that it's, um, it's a big issue. i think good. the conception of history is very different in, in the united states. and there are lots of good scholars, scholars like a uh you know, uh, slash politicians, uh, strategies like george canon, erie kissinger or even uh, you know, i mean your summer of. ready chicago, uh they, they, they do scholars, they see that is a historical trend. i would say, realist and they treated, to the international politics are very different from the current. so unfortunately,

the really start most of the marginalized. let me give you one kind of like a example uh back to uh the clinton times and i believe 1997 when natal expenses started. george came and published article in your time and saying that the, the was the west of the, the fatal mistake of the faithful mistake to let me quote, expending late whole. would it be the most fateful error of american policy in the entire post cold war era? or george ken, this view was even more because you leave the twins that the mission believe in joins you know, prosperity and doing clarity and, and profit i mean is. so this is the kind of like a long term view of history. was even more and also to get back to you a question about the do you see over the street? i talked about at the end of the cold war,

both russia and china with friends of the west ending united states. even after the substance where you live was called president bush 1st, immediately after the a september attack. it was president clinton. hey, this number to, to call you to provide support. it was trying his present, jones. i mean, so even i bet the point when are you nice? you start to re focus on major power politics, which was george a george bush strategy is campaign. rhetoric was september 11th. you realize that but it was rush. it was trying to try to help you guys, by the way, but the most up to the point because i think it's actually a fundamental issue because i think both rushing china and a bolster reading about at least 2 countries that have managed to develop a kind of relationship that doesn't confine each other a 1000 and put the, you know,

strict preconditions on that relationship you either with me or you against me and you know, trying to get it can have its own views on uh, rushes action and ukraine, rustic and habits only use on china's actions or whatever, but they can respect each other enough on the human and national level not to reach and not to give each other lectures. the united states is different. it sees no, uh here. i mean, no, no other culture the, you know, worthy of the same respect as the united states. and the question, my question to you would be here. i know you believe in principal neutrality, but the americans, uh, how many picks up a fight with russia. i think uh now picking up the 5 is china as well, and the pressure on china accelerates not only in terms of uh, discussed functions, but also how military health, what type one would have, you know,

that many provocation do you think that kind of principle neutrality would serve china well in the face of ever more, not just the storage of but ever more rest if united states, can you actually picture a bully by being principled in such a way? um, these are 2 from trying these perspectives. the ukraine conflict and the plywood issue are different issues. your client is one of the at least between to see radically independent states which means the sovereignty issue. but a tie was use as being regarded by not only the chinese but also. ready the united states to as an issue of trying when china issues, there's only one kind of the us official policy despite a much as being a scale back these days. so. so the chinese thinks of this, these are different. but the china seas, that's a, you know, the, the, the pilots will become far more challenging the conflict,

the prospect full country is, is, is rising. and this is very difficult. these is maybe even more difficult. now, if you scale back to step back. so i think the danger is, is rising, but i think i, it looks like both sides do not. you know, there's the us side try to reinterpret title one issue one way or another. but the question is, how much time it can maintain this new priority? let's use the word neutrality. i would say this is precisely that the issue, the rising tension from the united states to force china to choose sides and precise at this moment. chinese believe it is time at one year anniversary of new york and conflict to promote the peace to propose the chinese version of the piece . uh, you know, 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 prose, and it's not just about your pre coffee. it's about the european security system and above the world system. so it has time and 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 as cost alternative ways not to talk now to have peace arrangement, to continue to fight. what's the point? so the times we won't be reinforced is a position offer, you know, a principle that neutrality, regardless of pi, what is the then that has been essentially, is long chinese position. you know, this contemplative distance thing, the principle of non action to wait. we all know about that and we appreciate and

briefly, and i thing in this world where you know, uh, rush action, how has cost the many millions of uh, depths and refugees. this is a have highly valuable and very balancing approach. again, i'm having said that, i know the chinese bully is that tom is on your side. what are you sure that the americans will allow you to avail of that time? because the very thing, bill, the authorized military a for ukraine, you know, that authorized military a for taiwan as well. i'm showing you can a, i know that there is 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 the own back yard, but rather i don't is your insured as diction on our borders. so again, my question is the same, do you think the americans will allow china to keep that position of this goes to trial, which is my own point. so you know, this is just my personal view is i think

a certain institution. so individuals there in terms of similar transition into an ice, these 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 or for try not in the rush of to. but the reason why the chinese you push for the piece piece of resolution is not just i do listing it as practical purposes. let me give you a couple of quick reasons. if you think russian relation to the west in, in your, what, what was kind of is a conflict. but if you look at how russia and china and settled their older problem, their security problem at a more or less the same time when they will start to expand in the west. it was released as with the eastern partners, including china, all the, those central agents,

they've actually been totally different. a mode of confidence building negotiations by last so high uh, you know, publish organizations. these are the same issue on the post, the saw with the space. how to handle that. there are 2 radically different examples. the chinese peaceful, you know, a push for peace resolution actually has its own examples involving russia. so if you say russia is the, the blame for everything. but russian has settled this religion with china in the east, and this is something that's the worst thing that you can hold. and the chinese rushes develop the framework mechanism for the size of the, just their national interest in the, on the pragmatic basis. so this is the example of china want to drive to of course, if the time this proposal is largely you can reject or you can or by the nice, but it's not reject by, by a complaint by your crane, by

a bustle and even to your pins to someone must start with is again, your problem to talk is not to talk and what people will die and inspect it to the front of life. this is very much like 19616. this is really the term i coined the, the 1960 moment in the recent article. and i think this is a, a tiny point and trying to actually is not the wrong. many other countries, i probably believe the indian would come up with something outside the inductor. it does show you, we have to leave it there because our time is up. thank you very much for being with us today. thank you very much. and thank you for watching you hope to hear again from the world a part of the the,

the, the known in vietnam, american war, the vietnam war. last, it's almost 2 decades and dragged in numerous countries. not any time right now. and then you don't really know what it all and emptied. hundreds of thousands of american troops was sent to the country to bank the south vietnamese on me. i got that not meant to supply american soldiers limited resistors. most of us like the down entire villages and spread dangerous chemicals and even lee by all right,

did the americans ever fully acknowledge what they did on the vietnamese veterans ready to forgive? yeah, yeah. yeah. that's, that's a ways to look forward to talking to you all that technology should work for people. a robot must obey the orders given by human beings except we're so shorter is that conflict with the 1st law show you alignment of the patient. we should be very careful about visual intelligence at the point, obviously is to place a truck rather than to the various jobs. i mean with the artificial intelligence we have so many of the theme in the