circles, this is also a plea for a grounded responsible have length of reality. can be starting a war and this dynamics unable piece will discuss that. i'm now joined by young over the director of the people funded transnational foundation for peace or future research. mr. over cuz great to talk to you again. thank you very much for your time. thank you very much. now, mr. over, we'll 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 and 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 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 on slicks 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, etc. but what we do in the piece as a business is to look at the on the line congress, because that's where the key to solutions online. there's never a solution to a conflict on the b as in the battlefield, that has its own dynamics and at some point, you know, the policies will be exhausted. one when we mail whatever. but when we look at is in like a dr. diet mostly is what's 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 potty is on that. so on the mentally important question because most people know of the war and then they take the stag,

who is right, it was 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 what do you use and they comp. so because violent comes, when you call them your complex is you're tripping 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 counseling being employed. the simply means to achieving certain policy is not the ultimate result of the countries besides 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 space 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 diplomatic 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 obese or had been anybody else. however, that's it. they have lost all the war since 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 smalley, who have never been elected to do anything well, the right behind the screens behind the politicians beyond the limits i'm from the image is on the enemy is we actually take to make, you know, more money for the military. so you want, where as international, no one that you went to clearly say that bottling should be the last resort. i'm article one say,

so you shouldn't be stopping by peaceful means by law. that's what all countries are written, signed on, on the you and drops the that totally by and i to get every one is my late doing that today. and that's because the global system is in a huge confirmation on change. now, speaking about the international system and i checked some fingers to 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 the reached 100. 8000000 was over 35000000 refugees. and so we have a real, just the premium conflict. we have 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 when do you think uh, 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 a lost many wars, but it keeps pressing the same strategy forward, you can see it this way that the wells priorities that would be totally covers for the page. it's just getting worse that the resources available for let's say for piece, for development, for human rights. well, what do you want? i would call good an important objects to goal is to achieve including the un, my goal and program, etc. i'm way smaller than what the world this country's been on the mandatory. 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 was say,

well that is a valuable investment because the world is moving towards peace look beyond living and with michel understanding fast and beyond that if that was true, i would not say that the best thing, but the best thing is we've never the well is never spent as much military on be as secure as it is now, and it's not ukraine, it's on the other places. ukraine is an adult be. so i'm just adding the every single cell, right, in person in ukraine. you know, said pause is the touches my heart, but is this more complete in that respect compared with what the united states and nato comes as have done 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 that each of our governments suspended on limited sums it seems on the military that has never proved to make, pays or make the whole world system better?

because the 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 that 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, you go a religious disagreements, you know, there are other countries like, uh, lets say armenian turkey, that also exploring ways all for doing it diplomatically settling their disagreements, diplomatically. and i would argue that the russia for a number of years has tried to negotiate. it's a very essential disagreements when both nato and ukraine in groups phase. it has done that before the active phase of this complex. and it says that there were several rounds of negotiations in yeah, we have the same dynamic here. it's as a to every new award that the west launch is,

is like it happens it without any previous context. it's as if people have forgotten about the, we'd be a, they forgotten about syria. they forgotten about vietnam, iraq, to 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 sufferings as my country is causing to people in your green. i'm ready to accept that fully and they have relatives in your brain. but it seems that when it comes to the, whereas 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 the, or i mean, if your number one in the system, which i think united states still think that it is, then you teach, you don't learn this, this arrogance of power becomes worse and worse over time. that's one thing. the

other thing, of course, is maybe that contribution to say, but for me was been in this type of academic research on peace and conflict issues . i worked in was ohms. most of my the prorated real life. i'm gonna say, i don't think it's possible any more to understand western security defense policy with rational liberty co theory is concepts. it's is now moved into the re, um, of the irrational emotional list calculus. 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 past due, which about your country about china being the new big strip on the boils down to. it's just that because it's different from us. so you invent,

of course, a threat to you because if you don't have a threat, psychologically you cannot argue that tax payer 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, major academic complex exist in lots of countries, your kind of fee to china, to you, ron and saudi arabia that you mentioned. everybody was always driving forces outside the control of democratic decision making. that's exactly what an item, how is it? 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 create a ticket. this is a very interesting question. let's pause for a moment. we have to take a short break material returns about after a few seconds station. the

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 world support with john over director of the people funded transnational foundation for peace and future research. mr. over and before the break here, you mentioned 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. he says in 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 quite 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 of the united states all the advantages in terms of lifestyle. it have, 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'm believe it should be. now if you don't have that moral spiritual, whatever they mention to the fact that you have military weight and how many 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 our extended as you say. they usually intimacy in the

eyes of others. they militarized themselves to death, and they don't adapt to the changing world around them. they think they can bully like that person, at least the old man who's done his best bet can bully the rest of the world. and i'm trying to is a wonderful example of the way of saying defensive thinking. apart from the nuclear weapons defensive thinking in the sense that we have arrived 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 there's somebody who has invested in social economic development list as the young people, what you remaining prototype during 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 pretty this 40 years ago. i said,

when the soviet union falls, its brother in the west will fall unless it does something else such as closing down they talk. i'm 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 sixty's. evans is what they won't love to be too philosophical about and but all the great powers be professional, are 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 flames 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 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 expelling or impressions, views, etc. that can 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. but more and more of the rest of the world is turning away from the west. the best everybody in the world can do is to walk them to lex. if you asked me to my friend the relationship with the us, but keep it uh they dont antagonize it don't pack it, don't do thing. don't help it. go down with grace on this work with all the others . i mean, if you call shape or form policy in your, which won't come to lex a i, m b, you nature, you westlake, the rest of the world leg is intellect. 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 prosy on the surface. the means, the government by the least stable and the least good people that seem to be re books. people do not 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 you associated with the west.

well, that's why people like i us totally marginalized, never used by the way media we got was 4 inches of 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 is self destructive at the united states. it's getting weak go. you just look at, you know, the way 9 legit and the white telephone. the american saw that they could prevent china from inventing something new in that field, and now they surpassed the united states and they do this at the time. and again, yeah, everybody in this industry august by the has the right to be themselves, including nations on it. if you're defined, if you see the rest of 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 you know, can we should gears a little bit because e repo something very interesting that i want to argue with. you suggested that the work 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 in your brain is the clash between a manufacturing perception advanced by the west. we talked about that and a battle hardened re out. 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 went to finally out on the i do it in a more, let's say, so you're ready to get like a new, a way it is seeing the world as nation states. it's a national security over a common security regional security. all those security is maximizing one's own interest in some cases to the detriment of others is a priority to military means when things get tough, you know, those kinds of things in mind. you and that's how i define a property without along the explanations is something that has to go and re our policy has brought us where we are now. and that is the most dangerous situations at 1945. that's the way. so same thing, 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, one of the soviet union collapsed to russia in 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 be shipped from the border and shipping to the west when we are dealing with ukraine. because there is a trust this 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 and argue over many school things. what do you think stands on the way on the united states or the west adopting the same approach? that sure are you with your interest 1st, but at least you can have before 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 civilian concrete, resolution, mediation, reconciliation forgives nest. you in order peace keeping strong un compared with national organizations and military all week, or that's why i say we are apologies 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 minus the games culture man's violence against women. on the bond between actors address. as i said in the beginning, watch stands between is because they will always be complex and then is, be the marriage of school was a work place. any conflicts are lovely, we should,

we should accept and celebrate. the difference is because that makes the world weak on that well, you find down from the trees and know how to use toolboxes, where there's something else. but a hammer in that 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 a country that has a ministry or piece. i don't know anybody who tries to come out to know what piece of comment was allusion is, but we have tons and really to arrange the deeds. we have legal expertise, our political addition to what more weapons, unless where you can take the whole problem. and then they, marvin's week old apologies released to minute from left to right off for, 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 few crying it. russia 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 reduce the files 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 seminars compete resolutely in these data, beating nature. 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 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 our calls like this, 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 dis, parting with 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 to the west, if you mean the u. s. natural 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 culture it enough to really say its own policies. by the ma'am, and you have somebody who runs this and say, don't think just go to or 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. why do you and i don't know, sitting here talking about it is where the, the western m, i will review 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. and that's part of your country and all countries that, oh we have, we have 2 western system to compact with, you know, the wisdom system in china. we just completed the room at these 2 brothers, if you will. marks on adam smith, extra caricature a little bit is, is a built on the idea on mission. they, 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 human,

it just dialogue about how to create unit teen diversity. i'm song conflict with much less violence make made, you know, a real nobel peace prize that very large and those who built down the wrong is. so something like inviting the, the, the, the confidence building measures. i take a little step and 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 understanding these things. i do believe it is possible possible, whereas what we do now is not possible in the wrong well, mr. over at our time is up. thank you very much for being with us today. my lecture bucks on us. thanks a lot and thank you for watching cope to syria again on was a part of the, the, the,

[000:00:00;00] the, [000:00:00;00] the number you need use visa, stupid loyce law here. see it to nancy. click jim's in the book is that the message just needs a the, the only showcase is use the so i'm just going to the

boys at the boys, the probably the most new and that'll be for them. i'm not sure if this slaughter doesn't want that extra them put adults up under that number executive and i'm here to plan with you whatever you do. you do not watch my new show seriously. why watch something that's so different. whitelisted all opinions that he won't get anywhere else. welcome to please or do you have the state department c i a weapons, bankers, multi 1000000000 dollar corporations. choose your fax for you. go ahead. change and

whatever you do. don't marshall state main street because i'm probably going to make you uncomfortable. my show is called stretching. but again, you probably don't wanna watch it because it might just change the way you on the east of authorizing you use a force in haiti without a clear understanding of the parameters of the emission being established is short sighted. rush has invested into the un condemns resolution to send the us back canyon. that international ministry contingent to c t. s moscow and trying to abstain from the votes. the body and administration buckles on this. right. so i've got maybe shut down as officials that maybe you as is running out of money to support the conflict. conflict in new trade at new jazz industry leader said that