the, the, [000:00:00;00] the welcome to wells and part in the here since the ukrainian conflict after this kinetic stage international relations have changed more than in the decades prior to it. and the most surprising shifts occurred. the long country is not directly involved in this war. and deciding what steps to take, they have to cancel, we waive that interest and resources, i guess longer into political and you can on the trends on almost all came up with

that own version of neutrality is metrology. becoming a bi board for summer and too little to discuss it. i'm now joined by plus co latasha, associate professor for an attractive studies of care with or university professional as high as agreed to talk to you. thank you very much for your time. thank you very much for having me. now i have to say that i'm a big fan of your youtube channel. i think it's a very rare source of genuine analysis which is such are very to disease. and i want to start by asking about this because political science is called science, because at least initially it was a presumption that it's done for the sake of finding objective trends and basing policy solutions, and actually rather than preferred or concocted the reality. when did a change wanted him to come? so divorce from what is actually happening on the ground? well it, it never really did. it was a misnomer from the start. political science is considered part of

a social sciences. and social sciences is fundamentally misnamed. it's a stupid name to begin with. the natural sciences are real sciences because they're able to create hypotheses and then test them through experiments. now, social scientists at some point, the people who do, who do politics and so on. good, very envious of the, of the certainty that these people in the mattress sciences are able to create. so what they did is they tried to borrow these methods used to mean their own, and that is this, which has it's, i mean that's they are and square. that's ok. but one thing social sciences can never do, never is experiments. we cannot drum history again. we cannot go back and look at what would have happened had a blip in kill or something like that. we cannot run the experiments. so um we are, we're living with this floor and all the political sciences and international relations, especially hands as a propensity towards bias. so we, we, we interpret of things so it will be way more honest to call it

a social philosophy. and within that we have methods to, to come to conclusions, but the invitation to i think your, your point is well taken. but i think throughout the whole history of diplomacy and international relations, there wasn't a understanding that 1st of all, there are certain trans, according to which countries in an international system develop cents. second, it was considered necessary to understand your elements imperatives and red lines. it was considered parts no way of doing due diligence because you know, it's allowed countries to minimize their own policy costs. it allow to minimize unnecessary escalation. and i think you made a point in one of your articles. that's for example, in the case of ukraine and russia's security sensibilities, and that's the region that was deliberately ignored. i wonder why was it a sort of ignorance out of ignorance, or was it a deliberate stance?

i, i don't know. so this is my, one of my big questions there's, we see 2 things in when we look at the past, on the one hand, we have more self choice that counties wanted to fight because they had some strategic object objectives. and i see elements of that in the current situation when we basically have a proxy war. ukraine is a proxy wolf with a lot much logical between, between nato and, and russia that's going on. and we have, we have forces on both sides, which would like to fight that about. on the other hand, we also have moments in history when we see how i the all the jeep each spring. right. the all, i do all the do takes over the crusades where i don't mind the, the whole start to use war in europe was, it was a really horribly dumb idea when people tell each other for ideological reasons. and what we're seeing at the moment, at least in the west, because i perceive russia and china as inherently realist in the west, we're seeing this dominance of id and the ideology that that portrays the world in

a very certain way. and if you follow that, that the way you have a very flattering way, so that is the really a core that's with the, with the actual history. a 3 is the way it was recorded. you know, so i'm a my, i don't know whether the people in power in the west actually believe some of the stupidity is they alter because they're unable to actually compare with their own actions. or if they actually know that they are, that they're faking it on a but use that in order to fight a war that they want to find ways to rush out because these war in ukraine was up to the presentable every realist into west, from noam chomsky to, to henry kissinger. everyone said this part of line has to be neutral. it's a no brainer. everybody understood it. and still we have these war, which leads me to the question. all these people by deal, ideologically driven, or if they're just the faction that one to date of having it. and we are the propagandized masses at the moment,

all over the place in russia and in and in the west. your old before, i mean, just started now the, the, the warning ukraine could have been avoided if the west and ukraine hadn't misinterpreted russia's demands for security guarantees. and i remember when those security guarantees was put, were put on the table and openly discuss back in just a 2021. especially during the last in person meeting between biding and put in in geneva. russia had a sizable contingent on ukraine's border at least $80000.00 troops. and that strikes me as a pretty direct expression, often times the, you know, like then what was your role for, misunderstood for the issue here. why do you seeing the west uh, didn't take the russian signal the way it was sent, at least. so it was a huge mistake in december 2021 notes to come to an agreement with ross. so this would mean this, this, these treaties said rough ends to nato, unto washington, didn't mention to work neutrality,

but it's exactly what they do. mom doesn't mind to probation, was they didn't put the word in there, you know, the not to terms of force. i just want to say one genetic thing, but i think it's, it would be a crucial um, no, to make or considering your fil study. russia was ask, what didn't ask when atrocity but neutrality. and that's the point of time wasn't means of protecting state is qual, it wasn't about the expansion of rushes interest. it was simply preserving peace status for if you look at the tragedy of your crane is that sold the entire time that your crane had a neutrality clause in its constitution up until 2014. and as long as this was credible, there was no problem. and as soon as it looked as if the ukraine could actually eventually become an a to member, that's the name and big crimea happened to 2014, then the calls went away. and then everything went sour and south from there. so that was bad. and your initial question on the why the west didn't take it serious . i didn't believe russia wouldn't with an inmate because in my view,

this is so hurtful to rush out because these people in ukraine, all your brothers and sisters. and this is a civil war, basically a late late civil war. so i didn't believe it wouldn't happen, mister booting and like the russian leadership continuously said, we are not intending to fight a war. that's why i interpreted the troops as a way of saber rattling without wanting to do it. because i believe the speech that was coming, this is such an important point. i think that is totally missed in the west. the rush. it's a very, very difficult war. and not only in terms of material supplies or, you know, financial pressure, but for ethical and brotherly, you know, reasons and the rivers here that nobody saw the russell would initiate that operation. but, you know, sometimes i think if the west actually counted on the fact that the russia can pushed into the corner precisely, on the promise that it was never, ever a day or 2 a tag, the premiums,

a wouldn't be ukrainian leadership is totally hijacked. and the ukraine entire truth is totally hijacked by the enemy. don't you think that puts an ultimately, as a commander in chief? i'm not asking by the way for the endorsement of this policy, but do he have to do something to fulfill his duties of the commander in chief of russian? well, it is obviously, it is obviously now the, the conclusion that he took, i just thought the hurt or the, the fear of like how much it would hurt what, what would actually not allow these to happen. looked at people who understood russia very well in the past. george cannon on the one of the persons i interviewed 1st on my channel and bassett attacked matlock. the last u, as in past, due to the soviet union right before everything fell apart. and these people said, if we pushed natal to the boldest, and if we trying to integrate all of these counties, there will be a war and india and they will do right now. does that, does that just define the rest of the actions? no, it doesn't. because we, we do have a fundamental problem,

but the fundamental problem is much bigger than russia, which is that countries, especially great powers, take the right to self defend in all the count reset. it's the that is the original statement of international relations ever after the 2nd world war. for myself, defense, i go and fight abroad. and russia committed that to. but the west has committed that like thousands of times, things like since the end of the say, control the thing a rush has access to that of the west. i mean, you're even sad. the russia is, i think, ruthlessly using uh, the west playbook, the piano flooding from the other side of the world. you know, like we are sending our old soldiers and we are suffering both in terms of our own economy in terms of our society. we are making our personal contribution in 1st of all, fighting, not only for our security, but also for our self. well then this is something that i want to ask you about because i is also interview a lot of people from around the world. and i see this up search and not just solve warranty, but national self,

what's all around the world in india and china in latin america in africa. and i think this rise the collective emergence of self collective self, which is ultimately at all to get the western concept of itself. because there was only believe the only it's way is legitimate. and all the other countries having that own madness of destiny seemed to be, you know, i, to magically a west anatomy is, is it, is this work only for security, or is it for something bigger than that? well, it, it will, it has already influenced international relations tremendously. right. and the way that all the count, pres, um, behave, and, and that the, the changes that we're seeing with saudi arabia withdrawn, coming to, to, to new courts and with, with a rochelle. so like having a new relationship with china and so, and these have tremendous changes. but i wouldn't go as far as to say that these was probably the intent from the beginning. this is more,

this is certainly any effect. but, you know, especially when we'll start and, and, and what, how was, and they usually go very different from the way that people start to plan. now i want to ask you specifically about native because uh, you know, a couple of years ago there was a lot of to talk whether nature threatens or doesn't threaten nature, view road that it's pretty much irrelevant. what, what's important is the perception of the rent, but given the, the recent statements by european leaders like i got an article front. so all along the medscape agreements were never meant to be see, sorry, agreements. they were only expand as an opportunity to do from ukraine, the time to regroup and re arms. can you really blame rusher for feeling very insecure about made his intentions? i mean, the way it's interpreted in russia right now is the look. we're now paranoid coal along these people planned to, you know,

attack us or just threaten us from the territory of our neighbor. i agree with you . i mean, do you don't need to be a genius to, to, to have strategic empathy. look to all these me styles, point to that. i mean they to the cold will cease to, to be made to didn't. and the me sales always pointed to most go, that's absolutely clear. and then they to didn't thing to expand to the atlantic need to expand it to do the east and like the also when you look at the rhetoric that comes from eastern european countries, which maybe for legitimate reasons are afraid of the russians that's, that's possible. but that they also feel threats and that's the tragedy of international relations. everybody feels threatened by everybody and everybody feels like a victim. and if you feel like a victim you feel justified to defend yourself, right. so i understand that the russians feel threatened that they all, i mean there's, there's all of these um, publications just 2 days ago in foreign policy. again,

we should prepare for the colonizing rush for breaking up rush. i mean 20 successor states. that's the only 2 main way of continuing with the entire regions that are you people crazy and they write that they do write that and then they wonder why russia perceive them as a threat. well, uh, i mean, uh, unfortunately i'm sure they're not watching your channel or reading in the history books because uh, there are a number of, of you know, western leaders that attempted to do that in the past. and they've never bode well for them. but let's take a very short break right now, and we can come back to this discussion in a couple of minutes. they tune the, [000:00:00;00] the what is the ukraine conflict?

really all about we're told is about democracy. other say it's about the rules baseboard or whatever that means. in fact, there is nothing noble about this conflict. it's just another huge griffin. those in power, want to keep it that way. the the welcome back to was a part the risk plus color tar. associate professor for an atrocity studies of killed or university professional. it had just before the break. i cut you short then you had the i'm sure an interesting point to express. well,

the point is like people in, in, in russia and ukraine, but most of them were old enough to remember that they were living in a completely different country. they were living in the us as our and us as are broke apart into 15 successive states. people who said, who went through that would naturally like a b b. like think that maybe something could happen again. so i understand, i really understand that a lot of people in russia are legitimate, the afraid of what's going to happen to their country professional to tell you are teaching in japan. and i think japanese history is very crucial for understanding. russia's deep mistrust of western intentions because japan was the only country there was subjected to an attack by an nuclear weapons for no apparent tactical reasons. the wage was interpreted in both the soviet and the russian history all refused that it was an active, disproportionate, cruel, black blades and intimidation. just uh for the sake of making a jewel political point. do you think the current uh, west and then

a particular american little ship with its current political culture, with the fact that they still haven't recognized the bombing of japan as, as a historic mistake. um, do you think they are still capable of doing something like that to make that point? yes, although i must say that he real shimano does. ok, you were not that huge a point. they were, they were bigger as a point towards this of union than against japan because he rose from one of those aki where the integration of these 2 cities. but during that, the entire previous month, several cities were ends in the right. did you know more people died in the fire bomb rates of tokyo than died than during hiroshima, right? at one in one single night? so the 1945 was a huge x. the size of the united states terrorizing civilian population legally. legally, this was clearly legal, this was of law crime. it just the way that's up in east committed war crimes in china, just the way that the war crimes have happened in europe. it was a war crime. it was never perfect the by

a totally different kind of weapons. i mean it's, it's not that there isn't my, my big difference for the, for the victims. but, you know, in terms of the effective produces a public effects nuclear weapons is not comparable to anything else. it was like, since i studied that period, i must say the nuclear, the fact that the nuclear weapon was dropped on japan was a good excuse for the dogs in tokyo, who wanted to surrender to actually surrender it helped those who wanted to surrender because there was an option of continue doing, continuing fighting and we have these problems that i had. it wasn't a horrible thing and i, it shouldn't have happened. but, but if you're asking me yes, i think the, who we are capable of doing something stupid like that again. and i hope never, you hope it won't happen. now let's talk about the international um, impact of the, of the conflict in ukraine. and uh, i wanna start my question with quoting polish prime minister imitation was what i, that's good. well said the other day,

the rest of the victory in ukraine would amount to the found on the west golden age . as if the golden age was supposed to be a turn of putting aside russia. do you think all the countries, especially on the western countries have much sympathy or desire for the west and golden age to continue? well, every country has an interest in their own, in their own well being. right. and we see now 500 years of european dominance or anglo european dominance of, of most the world basically. right. i mean, we white people and i include, of course, all of russia we, we basically raped the rest of the, well, the different ways or this, we didn't have the colonial, colonial pollution on. so on the way russia expanded itself was absolutely different from the way up the was did as we did in the we don't have the white man's burden. i mean, literally we have a totally different concept of, you know, integrating societies and it's still printing visible in russia these days that the

academic and national relations, especially during this over at times by the way the russians were the least politically endowed. the national group uh, within the soviet union. but anyway, let's, let's, let's put that aside because i'm struck by this notion of the golden age because it sounds like extremely racist. demand open lives in the phone book. because the golden age for the west, you know, the way international system is structured, mount significant miss balances and much less precious conditions for many other countries. and most of those countries, one the international system to be, if no fair, then at least a balance the, you know, they, they want to get the fair share and they want to get their parents. you do you think in a western, please for these a turn know privilege resonate with them? well, you know, and that's why um actually south america,

africa and most of south east asia and asia in general is not going along and doesn't, doesn't swallow the west. the narrative, i'm not entirely sure how much they believe the, the, the russian narrative neither but, but they go, don't go along and this kind of like golden age stuff that's, that's exactly the thing that then outrages people outside of the bubble. and this doesn't help, this doesn't help to create a follow or so, right? this is actually an interesting point. you just made that the, you're not sure how much they are buying both the west and then russian narrative ends. and this construct strikes me is one of the 1st conflicts where narrative don't even matter, because the countries seem to be of that own line. they're doing their own calculations, you know, and they're looking at their own reality picture in order to decide where to position themselves. isn't that a new development the about brought the and brought in by this conflict that the, the influence of propaganda, it seems to be diminishing. the world in terms of propaganda is the strongest inside these, these bubbles right inside the wes, probably in. so i don't know,

rush, i haven't been there, but probably day of to and probably like also inside china, you know, in the, the propaganda is targeted to work your own. because if you want to go to more, you really need to motivate people to take up arms and run to watch the bullets. so you need to build a very strong argument that the west is building at the moment. a very strong arguments to basically hate on russia and break all the leadings, including the banding of your, of your network in the whole of europe. this is mind boggling to me. you know, it wasn't hard to hear. i'm in the classical write the check of, i mean they wouldn't have to do with that but, and expelling a russian, a sportsman and sports women, you know, and all of this is really supposed to break the links to the people so that we cannot feel compassion for each other anymore, and this is absolutely horrible, and we need to fight that dynamic and we need to integrate the ukrainians. we need to integrate the russians. we need to build trust again because that's going to be the basis of any kind of peace that's going to come after this. well, uh,

if you're truly interested in p is, but uh, do you think that's actually one of the western intentions? because i think and other this think feature of this conflict is that unlike in any of those pieces, not even pay lip service. i mean, there are no calls for negotiations. in fact, they're outright calls for continuing this war. do you think there is any sort of deliberate association between the continuation of this war and the western political agenda to preserve, you know what it seems as if strategic interest, which is dominance? yeah, look, every country wants peace, but only it's peace. the west also wants peace, but only a piece of its own definition in the world. come on and they're pretty wasted about well, if you got the whole ones, you've got peace. you see, i mean the, that's the whole point. you, you try to use weapons to bring the piece that you desire. now that the difficult

part is always to accept a piece that is not perfect. and um, yeah, i do think that the way this is going like over the long run that will have to be a piece that nobody is happy with. now many countries, as i mentioned in my introduction, now describe that position is neutral, but i find to my line of work that neutrality has different chaise to it. and uh, the way the chinese noun atrocity is very different from the way india and describe it or the way seen in turkey and south africa. what does neutrality even mean in this day and age? it means what countries need it to mean neutrality is one of the most flexible concepts and international relations that you can imagine, which is why it's so useful. but why it is so inherently different, difficult to grasp. so that the chances we have is that countries fill it with a meaning that is useful to them. and hopefully to, to all this because i think it's called, it means i'm not taking the side of either of these completely. i'm not going to have the military lines, which is why i also think china is not actually in an alliance with russia. all the scholars also, i agree here because you don't have these need to make an ism and blah, blah, blah,

blah. you have a good friendship. yes. and there's various degrees here and i would hope that more counties blaming neutrality would have to de escalate the, the spiral between these 2 rivals speaking, both russia and china. i think in both most grand vision, a non describing their relationship as a, as in the lines. and even though that this concept is not very particular popular in rush, i think it's more like an open relationship when they have mutual attraction. and they also have practical benefits of sticking together and the flexibility of this arrangement is viewed as a, as a particular value within the construct of, of the relationship. how does it compare with western insistence on alliance as in unity and why addressing the concept of neutrality is ultimately so unpalatable to the west. because as we discussed in the west,

that is against the concept of new product and neutrality, both for ukraine and as we saw for finland and sweden. c, neutrality is always benefiting the weaker part of a conflict more, you know, you can be neutral, but your neutrality, political neutrality will never be outcome you throw. it will always benefit one of both parties of the conflict and right now in the conflict between russia and nato, russia has the, we, is, is the week or part. so russia is more interested in, in your trial at the, into west, on the stance that, that's why they tried to crack down. and everybody else as hard as they can. because they know that disney try to do a little commit to benefit russia. it's a very natural dynamic off of a triangular relationship, but yeah, it's, it's another way of like, imposing dominance. now for many countries and correct me if, if i'm wrong here. but i think for many western countries, metrology is no longer a security concept. you know, the way they talk about it, it's couched in

a very psychological language. it's either you or with us or you're against us. you have to be on the right side of history. and. and i wonder if, if you think it will remain that way, especially considering that the united states is increasingly preferring and specific. alas, more then if your opinion wants, i mean both in terms of economic development in terms of military developments, the united states is looking more engagingly towards the pacific and the europe is sort of left to fend for itself. and do you think it will, do you think that's real in power this try for the triology or do you think that would make it? we can, i can, i can predict that, but at the moment in europe, neutrality is shrinking. we've lost finland. we've lost sweden, um, on the other counties are also very much ideal logic, ideologically captured, but ideal neutrality is striving in the, in the developing world, south america, africa, most of asia. and so there will be a change, you know, every international system creates, again, its own version of neutrality that's been adapted to that situation. i can also see

it what it is, but in neutrality is moving out of europe and moving into the wider world, probably around some form of known alignment for europe, the situation and great, really not. i mean, we now have like very hard friends, and this is very dangerous. so i would hope that you can some level um, some form of the escalation. nothing is, is there any drought of the escalation? what to come along? because we need to live together. you know, our continent is no good at not slipping each other's throats. we have to stop these and we, we keep sailing over and over on our common you ration complement. absolutely, but in order for a long face to take place a you need to leave and left leave and allowed the golden age to effect. not only yourself, but also in your your neighbor as far and wide professional as has been a fascinating conversation. thank you very much for that. thank you. ok. i'm thank

you for watching hope to hear again on walter part of the the,

the, [000:00:00;00] the, [000:00:00;00] the, the aggression is launched against us will not be an easy ride to some people think it is. they will be off the gauge, 26000000 new sherry and they share as the military authorities, one of a tougher schools. if the echo was proof of west african nations takes up arms against the country. certainly i will help hungry increase rawson gas deliveries, fly this turkish spring pipeline. if the price stops as transit to europe says