a neutral position, but do you think the chinese and the americans define neutrality in similar terms? uh, 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 this has the, my opinion that the sign of 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 russia has gone. so i've gone through from the the, the honeymoon allies of the 1950s to the estimates of 30 years. ready during the months of the cold war, so russia in china, i've gone through that to extreme ends. and the normalization events you'll be 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 of 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's clearly, it's not approving all rushes, the 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 in the way you would describe it in your articles would be inevitably proceed as, as defined by the americans. 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 visit the exact 20 years ago when the united states start taking bait about teen baby rack. on the pretext of weapons of mass destruction, which 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 to 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 awful. 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 goodness, like, like a pure, a new product. the china does have its own view above the rights of law or would contribute to this. but trying to use 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 to 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 books are you a, i'm sure you're with a grid with me that uh beyond this particular conflict between russian military forces on 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 of china up to. ready are the exchange a line. ready is oh, do you agree with russia even before the deal, queen prizes that the work need to be. ready or the democratic, which is different from the democracy if only for such a domestic system in a way that good there, there is a trend 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 russian special military operation, ukraine. there was a debate which last for several years about the weather,

the so called to the board international order is fairly low, 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 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, 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, the american 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 russia 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 into your audience this, mary, to believe that simply because the countries will get richer for some reason they will change the national south, would you to be in the age of the americans? this is very a fun 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 particular, i think is a growing trends in the united states to see trying us rise as a threat. but that's the kind of threat has never gone ever since the,

in the cold war, people started 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 these, not to many, oh will the class like to find most of what you need because it's not a good system. and the other argument, or the other extreme, is if china, china is right in the cost of the china does not collapse, china must read 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 states of, of different colors, different states, and other chinese philosophy 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 the humidity 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 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 that? um, 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 the advice of populism 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 as 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 an 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 depriving western american in. ready a real jobs, so this is the, the, that the capitalism in the working. so there's real problem lies the, the how to redistribute the wealth, busy for a capital, actually receive 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 crime shape or form. it's highly detrimental to the american themselves. now, i know you have an expertise in american studies. how do you explain to yourself that the mary comes on? know, demanding more from their system that they are encourage 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. i know, but thank you that you don't mind my personal opinion of these. i think

a china actually on to a certain extent, russia to, you know, both russia and china became useful. you 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 calling to present 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 that 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, a occupied a very of vintage position. and both russian time, i'll actually try to, to such a degree of emulates adoptive certain aspects of what's, what happens later, it was totally different. i mean, president clinton actually 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 with them to good students, the west and become such a i would say a staples successful model. so the rice, i'm trying low cost from how does 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 less than one west and even white. none of the barrel. 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 a very symmetrical perception between united states and china. i think i also try to tell you a speaking body signatures. we have to take a very short break right now, but we will be back, i promise. we will be back to this conversation in just

a few moments. taking the hungry has been a member of the european union of the nato since 1999 during the 1st post soviet wave of nato's eastwood expansion. none of the sailors cuz of estimate and august sense is dylan. i felt that i see like that right now as a country, it's a to me. so me that me at if so we get back. i saw zach, but i did do my extra voice. i'm pretty sure the name. yeah. it's the most in the beach, but i see what i see us by us by choice, some of which east,

on the way in the early ninety's hungry was a country with a west view of russia to day started of disagreements left over from the soviet union and the why if you know, and you some of my new or something, but i don't know what i see if you look at somebody in the compare the police report more than those. what i see is great, and i did as a, it's a police degree though as much, but the garage of business services must do. i just need to get them with key at the washington state, the bruce, the computer says to phone up, send 2

professional men city and to keep the list of all but huge. but they use the welcome back to all the parts. if 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. but so before the break you were talking about the fact that this, this substitute to make. 8 something dangerous out of china and perhaps to some extent out, the russian, other countries rises up uh from the fact that china has been able to,

you know, diligently learn the american lesson and to apply the best way to quit, to its own soil as lift millions people are of people out of poverty which it 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 these, the escaping unit clarity. they could, you know, use that and then they just position and the, 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 on a scholars like a,

you know, the old slash politicians, the strategist like george cannon, era, kissinger or even uh, you know, i mean your summer of. ready chicago, uh they, they, they discovers they see that is the, uh, historical trend. uh, i would say, realist, uh and, and they treated the international politics so very different from the current. so unfortunately, the really are most of you marginalized. let me give you one kind of like an example uh back to uh the clinton times and i believe 1997 when natal expenses already. george came and published article in new york time and saying that the, the was the west is a fatal mistake of the faithful mistake to let me quote, to expending rachel,

would it be the most fateful error of american policy in the entire post cold war era or george candace view was even more because you leave the twins that the mystery believe in joins you know, prosperity and it's doing clarity and, and profit i mean is. so this is the kind of like a long term view of the history was even more. and also to get back to you a question about the issue of history. 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 september, eli was called president bush 1st, immediately after the a september attack. it was president clinton in this number to, to call you to provide support. it was trying his present, jones. i mean, even i that the point when you nice, you start to re focus on major power politics,

which was george a george bush strategy is campaign rhetoric. but september 11th. you real with that. but it was rush, it was trying to try to help you guys, by the way, but the, the one, because i think it's actually a fundamental issue because i think both russia and china and a both the 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 the relationship you either with me or you're against me. you know, trying to get, can have its own views on uh, rushes action and ukraine, brushing 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. for united states is different, it sees no, uh here, i mean,

and no, no other country or 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 now picking up the fight with china as well. and the pressure on china accelerates not only in terms of uh, discussed 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 boy by being principled in such a way? um, these are 2 from tony's perspective. the ukraine conflict and the pilot 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 seas that the, you know, the, the, the pipelines will become far more challenge. ready the conflict that the prospect full country is is, is rising. and this very difficulties is maybe given 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 know the us. i 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 and the bursary of new york and 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 coffee. it's about the european security system and above the world system. so it goes fine with 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. of course,

the alternative is not to talk now to have peace arrangement, to come to decide what's the point. so the times really, once we reinforce this, a position offer, you know, a principle that neutrality, regardless of pi, 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 be appreciated briefly and i thing in this world where, you know, rush action has, has caused the many millions of, uh, desks 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 that 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, a certain institution. 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 or for try not and the 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 relations with the west in, in your, what, what was kind of is a conflict. but if you look at how russia and china and stifled their older problem, they're secure the 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 agency, the actually have been totally different. a mode of confidence building you go. she uses di loss so high uh you know, put helpers, organization. these are the same issue on the post. so with the space how to handle that, there are 2 radically different examples. the chinese piece, 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 rush has developed the framework mechanism for both sides of the just their national interest in the, on the product america bases. so this is the example of china want to drive to, let's close. uh, the trying 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 russia and even to your pins to someone must start with this. again, your problem to top is not to talk and the more people 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 wrong. many other countries,

i probably believe the india would come up with something i've said, and dr. 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, [000:00:00;00] a known in vietnam american law, the vietnam war. last,

it's almost 2 decades and dragged in numerous countries. not any time we have now. and then you don't see a number. what is all on the empty? hundreds of thousands of american troops was sent to the country to back the south vietnamese on me. i got to say no, not that not, but american soldiers murdered resistors mercilessly burned down entire villages and spread dangerous chemicals and lee. by all right, did the americans ever fully acknowledge what they did and on the vietnamese veterans ready to forgive? yeah, yeah, yeah. that's

a ways to go. yeah. the the another to attempt in africa. this timing. see, i really own as high ranking military officials arrested. the closing against the re elected governments using peaceful protests to lease a violent at the phone accidents from these as from speaking c, evaluation of french on the use citizens from the african country, which has been great spot political to. i'm all i made last week's military, the single dollar cash, prop origin tina refusing to segment via the debt repayment. you think the dollar was done and there was no strategy to be doing revised the economy. and the company's off to

the