well, to discuss it, i'm now joined by you being the senior fellow at the russian studies center of the east china normally university senior fellow, or based on high 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 ukraine and you are here in your article that these vast and a few years of the russian chinese, a lions greatly exaggerated the beijing is taking a distinct tweet, neutral position. but do you think the chinese and the americans define neutrality in similar terms as well? uh, no, i think the west uh seas as a sort of like a allies making, at least you know, its so elements over there. but it has the my opinion. ready 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 days of junior and the roster has gone. so i've gone through from the the, the honeymoon allies of the 1950s to the enemies of 30 years. ready or. ready the much of the cold war. so it's a russian, china, i've gone through that to extreme and, and the normalization you month to be my was a turning point. the 2 large countries trying to on mobile will be addition ship 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 of sensibilities, but it clearly is not approving. all rushes shows and warm of action and rush is not asking for its approval. if the rest, his own responsibility rest his own decision. but again, i want to bring as uh, back to that to the americans, because uh they feature or permanently in the ukrainian conflict. and for them it's either you are with us or your against us. and i wonder if the china is neutrality, the way of seen in china in 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 a frame, it is a be with us,

oregon as this as being less than policy towards international politics and major power policy ever since the end of the cold war. if you recall back to 20 some years ago, i actually visited exact 20 years ago when the united states start taking bait about teen baby rack. on the pretext of weapons of mass destruction. ready is the fate of the present. this 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 the chinese they disagree with the us and the british policy, or the english speaking countries policy. and they want to take a new interest and 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 with regard to the kind of the chinese metering position. i would say it's not kind of like that, like a pure, a new product. the china does have its own view above the rights of low would contribute to this, but chinese position is impartial, is try to see how much the conflict can be stopped, de escalate it, 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 lot of last these a be in the continues, you know, security framework in your, which is good for your, for the word to. but the books 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 a that uh, ukrainian forces. there is the 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 solar 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. ready large exchange a line. ready is oh, do you agree with russia even before the. ready queen prizes that the work need to be. ready more um, 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, kinds of foreign relations is 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 russian 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 decline of the west. i think the, the war you will create actually was

a major development was something new at the but we are, you aren't charged to the waters right now before we go deeper. uh, in discussing historical and political matters, i want to ask you, and i'm not sure it's been a political question because, you know, there has long been an assumption in the united states. the particular about china . but not only about china, the china develops the if it becomes stronger economically, it wouldn't 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. ben merrick, of so called 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 then many northwestern countries have gone through some sort of western eyes ation, without changing the intrinsic, political, social, and cultural nature. i'm, 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 due to being the age of the americans. a this is very a profound question. i think the there's, there's a totally different take of the rice of china uh, between uh, you know, the western general and the us particular, i think is a growing trends in the united states to see trying us rise as a threat. but that the trying to survive has never gone ever since the, in the cold war peoplesoft argue with the rice of china. and sure is to be there are 2 schools of thought. one is trying to come this argument to try know, according to some of you forgot to many, oh, will the class like to find most of what you need because it's not a good system of the other arguments or the other extreme is if china,

the china sweats in the cost of the china does not collapse, china must wrap and 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, 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 realities. there are many, many shades of, or 4 different colors, different states, and other chinese. you'll also be 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, because you might be of the same is because we are the same. you are like us,

you are bundling your cultural, social, and religious economics heritage in order to be like us and you know, watch with our hospital. what is in store attractive about the american way of life? i mean, look at the basic you race, look at this suicide race, look at the raise something for incarceration. i mean, the american society is north 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, the debate. that is what it costs all those problems inside the west in general like device to population even before the russian hill. so for us this time and, and the rice of done. ready trump. ready the far right extreme list forces and the 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. is i think

one of the major problem is the for international older which actually promotes the legal capital, this localized capital. this need to look for the markets of cheap labor and profitability by the end of the book depriving western american in. ready a real jobs, so this is the, the, the, the capitalism in the world. so there's real problem lies the, the how to redistribute the wealth, busy per capita is actually received from this globalization. so the internal re, distribution mechanism has a lot to do with occurrence a problem in the united states. you mentioned the capital a 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 uh, in,

in the crunch shape or form. it's highly detrimental to the american themselves. now i know you have an expertise in american studies. how do you explain to yourself the mary comes on, know, demanding more from their system that they are eager. it's you or the fad? this the victrola about russia, 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 the leaders. it's a very, very good question and but thank you that you don't mind my personal opinion of these. i think of china actually until. ready a certain extent, russia to, you know, both russia and china became old as useful. junior became the friends of the west at the end of the cold works even before the a, the, the end of the soviet union of the world actually 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. i could be the personal, some southern access will be a soviet leaders. so the, at the end of the cold were the international. there actually has a occupied a very advantage of position and both russian time i'll actually try to, to such a degree of emulates adoptive certain aspects of what's. but what happens later was was totally different. i mean, president peterson actually was let them use were pro west and he tried to use the drawing. they told uh, trying to, uh, try to, i mean like, learn from the west. maybe trying to become with them to good students, the west and become such a i would say a staples successful or model. so the rice, i'm trying low cost to have this 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 non west and even white. none of the barrel up it can be successful. so a must be a no staving things from us. so this is the kind of a property between, but it's very symmetrical perception between united states and china. i think the, you speaking body signatures, we have to, uh, 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. thank you and the

the boss can do i, but just keep them in the system with key at the washington state, the bruce, the computer says to phone up, send 2 professional and city and to keep the list of all of a huge but they use the

the welcome back to all the parts. if you being a senior fellow at the russian studies center of the east china normal university and senior fellow edition high association of american studies. just to you just before i cut you off. uh, before the break you were talking about the fact that this, the necessity to make uh, um, something dangerous out of, uh,

and then perhaps to some, had started out the russian, all the countries rises up from the fact that china has been able to, you know, diligently learn the american lesson and to apply it the best way. it's good to its own soil and lift millions people 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 the united

states, and there are lots of good scholars, scholars like a, you know, old slash politicians, the strategist like george canon re, kissinger or even uh, you know, amir summer of. ready chicago, uh they, they, they discover as they see, that is the, uh, historical trend. uh, i would say really just uh and, and they treated the international politics so very different from the current. so unfortunately, the realists are most of the marginalized. uh, let me give you one kind of like an example. uh back to uh, the clinton times, not, i believe, 1997 when natal expenses started. george came and published article in new york time and saying that because the west is a fatal mistake,

a the faithful mistake, too. let me quote, to expending lethal. would it be the most fateful error of american policy in the entire post cold war era? or george ken is viewed, was even more because if you leave the clinton administration believe in joins, you know, prosperity and doing clarity 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 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 nice states even after the september. 11th is called president bush 1st, immediately after the a september attack. it was president clinton, this number to, to call you to provide support. it was trying his present,

jones. i mean, even i, that's a 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 real with that? but it was rush. it was trying to try to help you guys by the way. but the team does one because i think it's actually a fundamental issue because i think both russian china and a both the reading about it, there's 2 countries that have managed to develop a kind of relationship that doesn't confine, and chas or a 1000 and put the you know, strict preconditions on that the relationship you either with me or you're against me and you know, trying to get it can have its own views on uh, rushes action and ukraine's rhetoric 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 preach and not to give each other lectures. united states is different, it sees no, uh here. i mean, no, no other country or the, you know, where is the 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 now picking up the fight with china as well. and the pressure on china accelerates not only in terms of uh, discuss functions, but also how military help, what taiwan would have, you know, that many provocation do you think that kind of principles, 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 deter a bully by being principled in such a way? um, these are 2 for me, tony's perspective, the ukraine conflict and the plywood issue are different issues you'll create is

one of the pieces between 2 a c or radically independent states. which means the sovereignty issue. but if i was use as being regarded by not only the chinese but also. ready the united states to as an issue of trying one china issues. there's only one kind of the us official policy despite a much as to being a scale back these days. so, so the chinese things with disabilities are different, but the china sees that the, you know, the, the pipelines will become far more challenge. ready and the conflict that the prospect full country is, is, is rising. and this very difficulties is maybe given more difficult now to scale back to step back. so i think the danger is, is rising, but i think i, it looks like both sides do not know the us. i tried to

reinterpret tile was 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 the one year anniversary of the open conflict to promote 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 conflict. it's about the european security system and above the world system. so it's 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 post the alternative ways not to talk now to have peace arrangement, to come to decide what's the point. so the times really won't be reinforced is a position offer, you know, a principle that neutrality, regardless of tie, what is the then that has been centuries long chinese position, you know, this contemplative, distancing the principle of non action of way. we all know about that. and we appreciate it 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 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 build the authorized military a for ukraine. you know, that authorized military age would tie one as well. i'm showing you can a, i know that there are legal differences between the 2 cases. but the main participant, there is still the same, the united states that wants to cause trouble and nothing to own back yard, but rather i don't in georgia to eviction or on our borders. so again, my question is the same, do you think the americans will allow china to keep that position of this does the trial which is my own point. ready this is just my personal view is i think, certain institutions, so individuals there in terms of the 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 off of china and russia to

. but the reason why the chinese to push for the piece piece of resolution is not just, i do listed it as practical purposes. let me give you a couple of quick reasons. if you think russian relation with 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, there, a 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, co operate organization. these are the same issue on the post the soul with the space, how to handle that. there are 2 radically different examples. the chinese peaceful, you know, a peaceful piece resolution actually has its own examples and evolving 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 the world seem to, even though i and the chinese rushes develop the framework mechanism for both sides of the just their national interest in, on the part of magic a basis. so this is the example of china want to drive to of course, if the trying this proposal is largely rejected. 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 this. again, your problem to pop is not to talk and the more people will die and respected to the front of life. this is very much like 19616. this is really the term i coined the, the 1960 moment in the. ready recent article, and i think this is

a turning point and trying to actually is not the role of many other countries. i probably believe the india would have come up with something outside the inductor. don't tell 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. and it was a part of the, the known in vietnam american war, the vietnam war lost it for almost 2 decades and dragged in numerous countries.

nor does he have written down that you don't see it now. why did all, i'm empty? hundreds of thousands of american troops was sent to the country to back the south vietnamese on me. i don't know about that not, but the american soldiers limited resistors, most of us like the down entire villages and spread dangerous chemicals. and li bye. all right. did the americans ever fully acknowledge what they did on the vietnamese veterans ready to forgive? yes, yes. yes. that's a ways to to yes.

the, the russian capital was again, comes on the radio and wrote a tax hit take the same building and most goes to the international business sunset, which was to drop 2 days ago. molly, picking up also announcing the intervention that going to be jazz new leadership amounts to a declaration of world economic community of west african states. that opposes function to get the confidence that the ukranian president james west as opposed to kids who sits on never enough for us to locate an investigation into how ukraine is actually spending billions of dollars of american tax paying money. the.