or the hello welcome to was a part. there's an old legend victim soon as possible, part of bellum, if you want peace, prepare for war, which may be taken as a call to violence in some few minutes circles. but then it is also a plea for a ground. it responsible handling of realities can be starting a war and is dynamics unable piece will discuss that. i'm now joined by young, over of director of the people fund this transnational foundation for piece of future research. mr. o burke is great to talk to you again. thank you very much for your time. thank you very much. now, mr. albert will leave in a very interesting era when almost everybody has an opinion. and it's usually a very passionate one about the issues of war and peace. and it's usually that war

is beyond comprehension. that is, it does not need to be comprehended. it only needs to be condemned. it definitely needs to be started. it does not need to be understood for all the underlying reasons. and i wonder if these very passionate, tactical, but perhaps not the very labor it stands is directly responsible for the preponderance of conflicts in the world. today. i think we make a distinction between violence and war and the one i'm on the other media on people not to talk about them as you say warfare or they love to do last year or so whether it's true or sounds and cetera. but what we do in the pieces of business is to look at the on the line conflicts, because that's where the key to the solutions online. that's never a solution to a conflict on the be in the battlefield. that has the don't is own dynamics. and at some point, do you know the poppies will be exhausted?

no one will. we know whatever. but when we look at is in like a doctor, a diet most is was on the line the way we have a one year on there. and what are these, that, what is the issue that stands between the policy is and that's a fundamental important question because most people know the war and then they take it as an who is right and what's wrong, that's completely irrelevant. same to do if you're a professional, you are. what is the problem that stands between the pods is why do you use it? they comp. so because violence comes when you call them your complex here. interesting violence as essentially as a, as a product. as a consequence of the preexisting disagreements, but i think more and more we're seeing a violence or conflict being employed that's simply a means to achieving certain policy is not the ultimate result of the countries of size. exhausting all the possible methods. but simply as the 1st option of

achieving what you want, don't you're seeing that perhaps the paradigm of how nation states i using the war has changed in recent years. oh, absolutely. particularly in the last few years when the west is going down, relatively speaking, i'm getting more and more desperate. i'm not able to use the magic power, economic power, cultural power, and all the way it did like say, in the 50s, sixties is out. that is what you have left. now the only thing the west of the united states is go to that is one that, oh, better than anybody else. however, that says they have lost all the wars is we are now morally and in terms of means on that as well on everything. but i think also what you see is a parasite like activity at all, what i call min max, the military, industrial media, academic complex, mean mac, where you have small leads who have never been elected to do anything. well, the right behind the street is behind the politicians,

beyond the limits on some of these images on the enemy is which later to make you know, more money for the military. so you want, where as international, no one that you where the jobs are clearly say that violence should be the last resort. i'm article one say, so you shouldn't be established by peaceful means by law. that's what all countries are written, signed on or on the you. and they told me i like to get every one is my late doing that today. and that's because the global system is a huge confirmation on change. not speaking about the international system and i checked some fingers view as i was preparing for this conversation. and according to the united nations of the out of 2022. for the 1st time in recorded history, the number of people forcibly displaced reached 108000000 was over 35000000 refugees. and so we have a real just the ukranian conflict. we have uh,

unprecedented number of people suffering all around the world. you singled out a couple of factors that i think contributes to that, but uh, more generally what do you think is driving this uh, what's behind this uh, blooming number of both refugees and internally displaced people despite the fact that you know, as he said, there was seems to have lost many wars, but if keeps pressing the same strategy forward, you would see it this way that the wells priorities that would be totally perverse for the page. it's just getting worse that the resources available for let's say, for piece, for development, for human rights, for when you and i would call good and important objects to goal is to achieve including the un, uh, sure thing. i'm gonna go and program, etc. i'm way smaller then. well, the, well this country's been on amazing,

terry. if you take the united nations, i think it has something like $10000000000.00 for, for whatever it does. oh wow. you handle them to sound $1000000000.00 wasted on military if you could. and i could say, well, that is a valuable investment because the world is moving towards peace or landing and with neutral understanding, fast and beyond. that is, that was true. i would not say that the top 10 best thing, but the thing is we've never was never spent as much on the military on b as in secure as it is now. and it's not ukraine. it's on the other place. if you find it, is it don't be something, does that mean every single cell, right? in person, in ukraine, you know, said because it is, it touches my heart. but is this more complete than that compact with what the united states and nato comes as a don since $911.00, for instance,

we're talking about millions of people being killed. and that is something we have to talk about. why do we accept citizens that those priorities are each of our government suspended on limited sums it seems on the military that has never proved to make pays or make the whole world system better because of reality and all these things are over k. i are very passionately agree with you and disagree with you at the same time because i don't like these generalization. i think there are a number of countries, for example, even, you know, old rivals like saudi arabia and iran, that i'm moving away from this happening. it's rivalry, and that's putting piece and development, it had all why, you know, i download trickle or religious disagreements, you know, there are other countries like a website armenian turkey, also exploring ways all for doing it diplomatically settling the disagreement diplomatically. and i would argue that russia, for a number of years,

has tried to negotiate. it's a very essential disagreements when both nato and ukraine in both space. it has done the before the actors phase of this conflict. and it says that there were several of the rounds of negotiations in yeah, we have the same dynamic here. it's as if every new more that the west launch is, is like it happens it without any previous context. it's as if people have forgotten about the we be a, they forgotten about syria. they forgotten about vietnam, erupt, etc. what explains in your view, these collective? i'm an agent on the past on the part of the western public because we are aware of all the conflicts that have been bought around the world. and we are aware of what is you know, of the suffering that my country is causing to people in your green. i'm ready to accept that fully and i have relatives in your brain. but it seems that when it comes to the west, it always has like some sort of

a blank slate when it comes to every new conflict. i think is a very much to do with the fact that, you know, the west is kind of leader. i mean, if you're number one in the system, which i think united states still think that it is, then you teach, you don't like this, this arrogance of power becomes worse and worse over time. that's one thing. the other thing, of course, is maybe that to come to version to say, but for me was been in this type of academic research on peace and conflict issues i worked in was own most of my the boy and real life. as i say, i don't think it's possible any more to understand western security and defense policy with rational legit call theory is concepts is, is now moved into the re um, of the irrational emotional list calculus. the same thing. i mean,

through everything nato stays on his homepage, there is no more. and now let's see is that there is a post to which about your country about china being the new big slab on the boils down to. it's just that because it's different from us. so you invent who is the threat to you? because if you don't have a threat, psychologically, you cannot argue that tax pay should keep on throwing money into the militarist activities, such as well as a new weapon system. such a new one. you can, it was more on that military, industrial media, academic complex, excuse, lots of countries, your country to china, to you. right. and saudi arabia that you mentioned, everybody was driving forces outside the control of democratic decision making.

that's exactly what i is now, is that we have a military industrial complex that is beyond democratic control and it's dangerous . it will be all the american society and its resources and created. this is a very interesting question. let's pause for a moment. we have to take a short break, but we will return to that after a few seconds station. the hi, i'm receptive and i'm here to plan with you whatever you do. do not watch my new show . seriously. why watch something that's so different. whitelisted opinions that he won't get anywhere else. what could i please or do the have the state department c i a weapons, bankers,

multi 1000000000 dollar corporations. choose your fax for you. go ahead. i changed and whatever you do. don't marshall state main street because i'm probably going to make you, i'm comfortable. my show is called directory. but again, you probably don't wanna watch it because it might just change the wayne say we are in control of land of fire breathing volcanoes. volcanoes vividly capture the imagination and they define our lives much more than you would expect. so what are they capable of and what makes contract as volcanoes stand up the welcome back to wells. of course, with john over director of the people funded transnational foundation for peace and

future research. mr. over before the break here, you mention this issue of the arrogance of power and i don't remember who said it but or one of the analysts. i are respect to the law, 2 sides of the united states has indeed exceptional in being able to strike with impunity anywhere around the world as having unparalleled secures advantage. because no other country used to be at least like that, no other country with striking directly. but as you mentioned, the military costs are rising up and they're rising up not only in the united states, but i think what distinguishes obvious aside is from america, is that of a society that actually investing into themselves. look at china and look at the russian look even at the ron and saudi arabia, they're actually pushing resources into building material life. uh, you know, public sector for, for the people. but i think uh, the united states all the advantages in terms of lifestyle. it has,

it is losing it quickly. when do you think these dynamic of the arrogance of power that is totally neglecting its own people while killing people overseas? when do you think it will catch up with the people within the west collectively? oh, there's no doubt in my mind that you don't have to be a moral philosopher to know that the more power you have, the more capital and i don't believe it should be. are now if you don't have that moral spiritual, whatever that mention to the fact that you have military where you can only go political and cultural power, it will go wrong. and that's it. typically in decatur, oh, when empires go down, they get to be they get impossible to manage or extended as you say. they usually intimacy in the eyes or others. they minutes rise themselves to death and they don't adapt to the changing world around. they think they can bully like that.

that's always the old man who's done his best, but couldn't believe the rest of the world. and i'm trying to is a wonderful example of the way of saying defensive thinking on the nuclear weapons defensive thinking in the sense that we have a right to rise on how a system that is not the same as the west. and that is, of course, in contrast to russia, a much larger if you will, challenge to the western world or the us dominate impaired of the system. that this somebody who has invested in social economic development lives to 700000000 people . what you revaluate press drug drain watching. i mean, this is just amazing kinds of things and i'm saying it all those mining because it's so obvious what was, i mean, i predict this 40 years ago. i said, when the soviet union falls, its brother in the west, well for unless it does something else such as closing down a top and creating homeland security in your i wrote that in 1981. and i don't

understand why people can't see that those changes in the big world is now for us to adapt to be fine instead of trying to control. because the west is not only less than the 60, the, well, they won't have to be too philosophical about it. but the old, the great powers, the thrush, or trying to have that period of great humiliation trying to have a center of simulation. we. the russians also, they are tumbled by a very bitter one and back in the early 9. tonight is a, maybe it's time for the united states to, to do the same. but the thing that concerns me is the again, the militarization aspect of it because it seems that the united states is not going to go without the slide and is prepared to set up the claims all over the world to do what? because i mean, as you mentioned the, the system is running out of steam. it's not sustainable. model name is a moral

terms, but in practical terms, nobody wants to be within that system anymore. even the american closest allies, what do you think these people are actually trying to achieve the decision makers in washington? what are they after? because no matter how you look at that, it's not possible in practical terms, nothing ethical ones, but in practical ones, i think it's very much a matter of groups. think inside the books. they don't understand the oil anymore. and of course, i don't think it is about spelling on impressions, views, etc. that could challenge those. you have yourself. and that, of course, is, as you are going to get, can get married. a dangerous, at some point because the goal of decision makers in nato, and washington browser, washington are of the belief that we cannot make mistakes. and we have made no mistakes on your right. the more and more of the rest of the world is turning away from the west. the most everybody in the world can do is to walk them to lex. if

you asked me, keep a friend the relationship with the us, but keep it. uh they dont antagonize it, don't attack it, don't do things, don't help it go down with grace on this work with all the others. i mean, if you can shape or form policy in your, which won't come to lex, uh, a m, b, u natural us let the rest of the world leg, it seems like truly not deciding to survive as a system in my view. but what i, what i argue with these days is that we live in the khaki stock received on the kind of surface the means, the government by the least stable and the least good people that seem to be moved over the books. people don't have a license, people do not ask for any consultancy from people will disagree with them so they will learn something new. that's why us, since you've been the west. well, that's why people like i said, totally marginalized, never used by the way media. we just was twinges the years ago. so there's this,

there's only one that retrieval, so on that, so most dangerous thing. not only for the world that could lead to a new plan weapons way to be used. we know that, but it's very dangerous for the west itself. everything the united states and the, the moment i'm saying it was sadness because i've never been an american. it is self destructive that the united states getting weak go. you just look at, you know, the way 9000 which it in the white tell of home the america so that they can prove it. china from a convention on the new in the field. and now they surpassed the united states and they do this at the time. and again, yeah, everybody in this, in this is on the supply that has the right to be themselves, including nations. if you're defined, if you see the threat to your existence, if you characterize it as somebody or somebody else is right to development, then it's, it's a lost cause because it's a, it is actually also very to tell the tire in claim a if you ask me now,

can we shift gears a little bit because e, right? there's something very interesting that i want to argue with. you suggested that there was, must do away with the concept of re, i'll pull a tick. uh, because in your view it's anything but a realistic and it's a, it's an interesting proposition. to me please. because uh, i think when we have any brain is the class between a manufacturing perception advanced by the west. we talked about that and the battle hardened react, she pursued by russia. and it would seem to me that if uh more countries were to adopt re, i'll pull it take approach like russia does, for example, the world would be a safer place. don't you think? like that, of course, the whole thing as you, when i, when define reality, i do it in a more, let's say, see originally kind of a way it is seeing the world as nation states as national security.

over a common security regional security. mobile security is maximizing one's own interest in some cases, to the detriment of others is a warranty to military means when things get tough, you know, those kinds of things in mind. you and that's how i define adoption with. long explanations is something that has to go and re, i'll tell us, cheek has brought us where we are now. and that is the most dangerous situations at 1940 high. that's the way. so it's main gate, for instance, you know, you have western and i would say russian and chinese leaders was on a, do not think necessarily in the terms 1st on non violent, concrete resolution and column security. well, the, because, as you know, when the soviet union collapsed to russia and china had over, i think,

8000 territorial disputes. and these 2 countries painstaking me negotiated all of them to the point. very sure, we now have the longest border with china, and we can afford to do trips from the border and ship the west when we are dealing with ukraine because there is a trusted relationship, a win win relationship. and the recognition by both countries, the in the longer term is far more beneficial for them to, you know, have that container over relationship been argue over a many school things. one do think stands in the way of the united states or the west adopting the same approach that sure are you with your interest 1st, but at least you can have the 4 side understanding that if you put your adversary down, then it will come back to her to sure what i mean to say is that simply and concrete resolution mediation, reconciliation forgives nest. you in order peace keeping

strong un compared with national organizations. i'm really just a week or that's why i say we are going to use not, not the right way to go. if you ask me what we need to do in this world, and i read an issue, johns and go about the future peace system of the world in chinese china investments. the only ones were interested in global thinking today, really the journey is that we reduce violence everywhere, violence against nature of violence, against each other, violence to gauge cultures, man's violence against women on the bond between actors address. as i said in the beginning, what stands between us because they will always be complex in any be the marriage of schools, a work place, any conflicts are lovely, we should, we should accept and celebrate. the difference is because that makes the world reach that way. you find down from the trees and know how to use toolboxes,

where there's something else, but a hammer in it. you see what i mean? it's, it's, it's this whole thing that, that makes me believe that reality is dangerous for us all. and i don't know that country that hasn't ministry or pete's. i don't know anybody who tries to come out to know what piece and comment resolution is. but we have tons of military expenses . we have realized that these are real political addition to what more weapons and less where you can take the whole problem. and then they log ins. we, all the policies release to lead from left to right offshore. i mean, you know, this is a real college extension that i think most go nobody talks about finding a negotiated solution on, on the, by the way, not view crying it russian conflict, but the nato, russia that plays out and you find because that's what it is i think that the goal for all humanity to survive is to bring to file of content violence and do something else. and the only possible i tell you there's

a huge too much for that. the institutes around the world which deals with a design limit and civilian humanized concrete resolution. instead of beating each other. absolutely. can i ask him or something about the cost like so you spoke with her passionately about it and i happened to study psychology on the side and including a couple of counseling and indeed within a couple come counseling is considered a conflict. these is the only way of developing, you know, you uh, address your disagreements, your voice, your disagreements. honestly, you are trying to address them by bringing them to the cost of the store, negotiating table. but there is one very important clause in a to a conflict is that both sides consider themselves to be equal. that means that you have your truth. i have my truth and we are not seeing each other as you know, like a shining cd on a human. this parting we're wisdom to you know, the rest of the people living somewhere down there valley. do you think the west will ever, on a moral ethical, psychological, throughout suffolk, a level x sap,

that is on par with everybody else that everybody else russians, chinese, lot in americans, africans, whatever. we are old people on. we are entitled to own vision of the world in peace and humanity just as much as the people in the west are wonderful question again. thank you. yes, i believe that's possible. i think the west, if you mean the u. s. natal system will have to go in where to go when the empire has crumbled or decline to become less important and they will be we think the width is good enough for intelligence model and culture it enough to really say its own policies by the man and you have somebody who runs this, they don't st. john's go. as long as you have those leaders, there is not much help, but in my view, that's not, that's only going to take a few more years. what do you and i don't know sitting here talking about it is where the, the western m r u s. m. i. and they told me to go down with them. but what i'm

saying is possible that there's one reason that i would side with us skepticism that is christianity as a, as a co allow, you know, that's part of your country and all countries that, oh we have, we have the width of system to go back with, you know, the wisdom system in china, we just completed the room at these 2 brothers if you will, march, and adam smith, extra caricature a little bit is, is a built on the idea on mission. we want to make somebody else a little bit like us, or if they don't do it, you know, with the bible, we come with a sword that's not in the bodies and what confusion is all the other isn't. so if we could learn from others, like they have learned from us, human, a humanity is dialogue about how to create unit teen divested to a song conflict with much less violence make made, you know,

a real nobel peace prize that there was no, she will built down there, um is that something like inviting the, the, the, the confidence building measures. i take a little step. i invite you to take a little bit down was also from the, from the high levels of weapons or virus. of course we can do a why we don't spend 50 years of my life on this. i think these things i do believe it is possible possible. whereas what we do now is not possible in the long run. well, mr. over at our time is ok. thank you very much for being with us today. my break but cubic sounds. thanks a lot. and thank you for watching close to syria again. and was in part of the the, the

the who's the sure. i knew the distance of the sort of the series pulling it for you and you have them by see the display of this, of the property. but even the rain itself, you're saying, you know, the image stuff and you to see because of the few those and, but the instrumental village doesn't notice we are gambling with the future of all mankind. and we're,

we're risking it for not the, the authorizing you use of force and heating without a clear understanding of the parameters of the emission being established short side pressures and bassett, or to the one that condemns a un resolution to send us back to kenya. lead international military contingent to haiti as moscow and china abstain from the vote. the biden administration buckles under threats of a government shuts down as officials admit the us is running out of money to support as costly conflict in ukraine. the and these areas and military leaders say they will examine and algerian and mediation plan as locals continue to protest against.