in order to appear in court, the end of washington to face arrangements on thursday from himself has already taken his social media to slam what he's called a fake and fabricated indictments. or you can check out our website or to they'll come for all the latest updates on our stories and more but from now that's it. season the, the welcome to wells far as being able to see the next step that others may have. or will you fundamentally different from your own was was considered

a benchmark of psychological maturity, which is evident, be lacking in contemporary for and affairs with the western earlier assumptions that economic development would do. wave of your political differences now proven 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, it's great to talk to you. thank you very much for your time. i think you who have 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 you are here in your article that these vast and be yours on 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 seas as a sort of like a allies making, at least, you know, and so elements over there. but it 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 days of junior and the roster has gone. so i've gone through uh from the the, the honeymoon 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 a 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 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 in the ukranian conflict. and for them is either you are with us or your against us. and i wonder if uh, china is neutrality. the way of seen in china in the way,

who would describe it in your articles would be inevitably perceived 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 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, actually this is 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 lot of powers try to 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 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 groups you're. ready probably the china does have its own view above the rights of law or what 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 cache with the b, but, you know, avoid it as much as possible, which is good for both parties, of course,

is not just to stop fighting, but some of these 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 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 a that, uh, ukrainian forces. there is a larger 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 solely 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. so 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 the 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 richard hards 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 bosses 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 academia and the policy circles at the base. it's for several years about 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 aren't charged to the war for 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 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 americans, sokop 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 code 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 in the us, particularly, i think there's a growing friends 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 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 these lots of many, oh will the class like to find most of the unit 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 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, they 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 that realities. there are many, many shades of, of the different colors, different states,

and other chinese to 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 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, why should i ask, what is it so attractive about the american way of life? i mean, look at the basic 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, the debate that is what it costs. all those problems inside the west, the in general, like device to 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 global capital this localized capital. this need to look for the markets of cheap labor and profitability, but the end of the book depriving western american, you know, a real jobs. so this is the, the, the, the capitalism in the world. so there's real problem lies in the how to redistribute the wealth that people are a captain. so 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 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 uh, in, in the crunch shape or form. it's highly detrimental to the american themselves. now i know you have an expertise in the american studies. how do you explain to yourself the mary comes on 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 the leaders. it's a very good question and the 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 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 song. so it's an access of the, 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. 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 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 to 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 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 the, you speaking by based imagery, 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, taking the

risk to consider as those here. as for the initial setup, both i'm not going to be on the meals with your mama. dora slash pursuing the flash. yeah,

because i moved enough. i just wonder was it was just and it was up to the much me on this problem because the symbol which is good for those who will need to be no on to something on a computer. would you do us the welcome back to all the parts. if you being a senior fellow at the russian study center of the east china normal university. i'm 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 the best ways good to its own soil as list millions people are of people out of poverty. richard continues to do not only in china, but also and many other countries. walk 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, uh, you know, uh, slash politicians, uh, strategies like george cannon, era, kissinger or even uh, you know, i mean your summer of universe chicago. uh they, they, they do scholars. they see that is a historical trend. i would say realist, uh and, and they treated to the international politics a very different from the current. so unfortunately, the realist or most of the 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 started. george came and published article in your time and saying that the,

the west is a fateful mistake of the faithful mistake to let me quote, expending little. 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 at the measuring, you 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 the history was ignored. and also to get back to you a question about the issue of 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 substance where you live was 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, so even i bet the point when you nicely 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, the one 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 pressure can have its own use on china's actions or whatever. but they can respect each other enough on the human and national level,

not to breach and not to give each other lectures. the united states is different. it sees no, uh here. i mean, 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 5 is china as well, and the pressure on china accelerates not only in terms of uh, discussed functions, but also health 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 aggressive 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 2 a c or radically independent states, which means the sovereignty issue. but a taiwanese has been regarded by not only the chinese but also. ready the united states to as an issue of trying one final issues. there's only one time of the us official policy despite a much as to being a scale back these days. so, so the chinese thinks of disabilities are different, but the china sees that the, 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,

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 of this moment. chinese believe it is time at one year anniversary 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 pros. and it's not just about your pre coffee. it's about the european security system and above the world system. so it goes 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 close. the alternative is not to talk now to have peace arrangement at the country defied. what's the point? so the times really won't be reinforced is a position offer, you know, a principal that neutrality, regardless of tie. what is the then that has been essentially, is the long chinese position, you know, this contemplative, distancing the principle of non accidental way. 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 moving himself uh, desks and refugees. this is a high, 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 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 not in the own back yard, but rather i don't in georgia eviction 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. so you know, this is just my personal view is i think a certain institution. so individuals there in terms of civil, never transition into an ice, these are driving the situation towards more conflict. you or even the show down with a 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 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 secured a 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 modes of confidence building. you go shoes, this dialogue so high uh, you know, publish organizations. these are the same issue of the post, the saw with the space how to handle that. there are 2 radically different examples . the chinese piece food, you know, push for 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 seemed to, even though i and the chinese rushes develop. the framework americans isn't for the size of the, just their national interest in the, on the pragmatic basis. so this is the example of trying to want to drive to, of course, if the time this proposal is largely either 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 opinions to someone must start with this. again, your problem to pop 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 a recent article. and i think this is a, a turning point and trying to actually is not alone. many other countries, i probably believe the india 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's a part of the the the

s for the x to this from the sheriff's harris begins the evacuation of french and other e. u citizens, from the african country, as gripped by political turmoil after the last week's military crews. these fairly parliaments passed as a law doubling the punishment only for palestinians who connects sexual assault. ethel stuart sees, besides the motives are nationalists. last not a single dollar cash strapped argentina refuses to settle and i am, et cetera. payments using greenback reserves. as windows there is works to dollar rice, it's economy with a helping hand from china. the.