the hello welcome to wells of parts. 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 human, a circles. but then it is also a plea for a grounded responsible handling of realities can be starting a war and is saying that makes unable peace. we'll discuss that. i'm now joined by young, over of director of the people fund this transnational foundation for peace and future research. mr old 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 a long time 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 that business is to look at the on the line conflicts, because that's where the key to the solutions on line. there's never a solution to a conflict on the b, as in the battlefield, that has the don't is own dynamics and at some point, you know, the poppies will be exhausted. one will we know whatever. but when we look at is in like a doctor, a diet most is what's on the line, the, the way we have

a one year old there. and what are these that? what is the issue that stands between the autism that's a funds to mentally important question because most people look at the work and then they take it as and who is right and what is wrong that's completely irrelevant. same to do, if you're a professional, you are. what is the problem that stands between the pa does, why do you use it? they console because violence comes when you call them your complex is your a 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 that's simply a means to achieving certain policy is not the ultimate result of the countries. besides exhausting all of the possible methods. but simply as the 1st option of achieving what you want, don't you're saying 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 last night in the 50s, sixties is what left. now the only thing the west of the united states is go to that as long as rather than anybody else. however, that says they have lost all the wars is we are not morally and in terms of means on that as well on everything. but i think also what you see is a parasite, like i assume it to you all what i call me mac, the military, industrial media, academic complex, me, mac, where you have small leads who have never been elected to do anything well the right behind the screen behind the politicians beyond the limits, i'm from the image is on the enemy is we actually take some a, you know,

small money for the military. so your mind where as international, no one that you encounter clearly say that bottling should be the last resort. i'll take a lunch say so you shouldn't be established by peaceful means by law. that's what all countries are written, signed on, on, the un dropped off the top of the mileage and everyone is violating that today. and that's because the global system is in a huge funds formation and change. now speaking about the international system and i took 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 the reached 108000000 was over 35000000 refugees. and so we have a real, just the ukranian conflict. we have a 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, the west seems to have lost many wars, but they've keeps pressing the same strategy forward, you can see it this way that the wells priorities have been totally covers for d. k, it's, it's still getting worse that the resources available for let's say for peace, for development, for human rights, for when you and i would call good and important objects to goal is to achieve it, including the un. so the goal and program, etc. i'm way smaller than what the world countries spend on the mandatory. if you take the united nations, i think it has something like $10000000000.00 for,

for what i worry does while you handle them to sound $1000000000.00 wasted on military. if you could, then i could say, well that is a valuable investment because the world is moving towards peace and with the only thing and with mutual understanding fast and beyond. that is, that was true. i would not say that the best thing, but the thing is we've never the well is never spent as much on the military. i'm b as in secure as it is now, and it's not ukraine is on a on the other place. if you brian is and don't be, so i'm just going to be every single self, right person and ukraine, you know, said because it is the taxes my heart. but is this more complete in that respect, compared with what the united states and nato comes as a don since $911.00, for instance, we 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 are spending on limited sums it seems on the military that has never proved to make pays or make the whole well system better? because we all are doing and all these things are over k, i are very passionately. i agree with you and disagree with you at the same time because i don't like this generalization. i think there are a number of countries, for example, even, you know, old rivals like saudi arabia and that around that i'm moving away from this happening. it's rivalry in that putting piece and development, but it had all why, you know, i don't want to go religious disagreements. you know, there are other countries like, uh, lets say armenian turkey, also exploring ways all for doing it diplomatically settling the 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 may,

to end ukraine in good faith. it has done that before the active space of this conflict. and it says that there were several 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 reba. they forgotten about syria. they're forgotten about vietnam, erupt, etc. what explains and you'll 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, on the suffering. that's 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 it 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 like 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 own most of my go ahead and real life. as i say, i don't think it's possible any more to understand western security and defense policy with rational analytical theories. concepts it's is now moved into the re, um, of the irrational emotional list calculus. the same thing. i mean through everything nato stays on this 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 slab. i mean boils down to it's just that because it's different from us. so you invent, of course the 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 could, 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 always 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 create

a ticket. 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, the, the,

[000:00:00;00] the welcome back to world support with young 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. they've had 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 wes 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. or now if you don't have that model spiritual, whatever that 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 or extend. and as you say, they lovely gentleman see in the eyes or others, they minutes rise themselves to death and they don't adapt to the changing world around them. 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. not trying to is a wonderful example of the way of saying the defensive thinking on the nuclear weapons defensive thinking in the sense 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 start during watching. i mean, this is just an easy case of the 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 a child 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 sixty's as the well, they won't love to be too philosophical about it, but the old, the great powers be professional, are trying to have that period of great humiliation trying to have a center of simulation. we the russian goals or 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 uh aspect of it because it seems that the united states is not going to go without the applied 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 expelling or 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 and 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 that they don't antagonize it, don't attack it. don't do thing. 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 a i, m b, u natural us leg and the rest of the world leg is intellectually not just having 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. mostly this is doctors the means,

the government by the least stable and the least good people that seem to be moved over the 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 are censorship of the west. well, that's why people like i said, totally marginalized, never used by the way, some media we just went just a few years ago. so this is there's only one that retrieval. so on that to 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 i mean 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, between 9 says the chit and the white tell of home the america. so that they can permit 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's 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 shift gears a little bit because e, e, right, there's something very interesting that i want to argue with. you suggested that the world 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 what we have in your brain is the class between a manufacturing perception advanced by the west. we talked about that and the battle hardened re out, she pursued by russia. and the,

it would seem to me that if 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 o d, i do it in a more, let's say. so you're ready to go like in a way it is seeing the world as nation states as a 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 of all, 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 be shipped from the border and shipping to 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, it's far more beneficial for them to, you know, have that container over relationship been argue over 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 civilian concrete, resolution, mediation, reconciliation, forgives nest, un order peace keeping strong un compared with national organizations and military all 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, john, think 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 is 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 on this. 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 has a ministry of 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 expertise. 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. it on, on the, by the way, not view crying. it russian conflict, but the national russian that plays out and you find because that's what it is. i think that the goal for all humanity to survive is to point you 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 civilized, concrete, resolution, 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 uh, address your disagreements, your voice, your disagreements. honestly, you, i'll try to address them by bringing them to the costs of the store,

negotiating table. but there is one very important clause in it to a conflict, is that both sides consider themselves to be equal. that means that you have your choose. 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, philosophical level, except that it's 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 policy is by the man and you have somebody who runs the say, 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, 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, the width of this don't 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. 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 humanity is 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 often 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. and 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, is it possible? whereas what we do now is not possible in the long run. well, mr. over at our time is up. thank you very much for being with us today. my picture books on us. thanks a lot and thank you for watching close to syria again on was

a part of the, the, the, [000:00:00;00] the,

the, the, [000:00:00;00] the, the, the sure the distance of the sort of the series doing it, which was for you and you have them by see it the split this of the that they did stop you, but even the way needs yeah. you're saying you missed us and you to see because of

the, to those him but things go mental village doesn't notice we are gambling with the future of all mankind. and we're, we're risking it for not the, the outcry from human rights advocates in kenya into like as the u. n. and tool for the u. s. in fact, 1010 your lead international minute to mission, to hate sweets with locals in the country saying they shouldn't be doing washington . they take it is ridiculous to have tenure restore peace and are in haiti so that america can achieve its mission. and advocates only one to misuse our country and use it as a stepping stone to reach that destiny. our mission is not experienced at all. we don't even have good weapons and our economy also is not doing well. ukrainian