of interest rates, in other words, the cost of my deep inside developing countries we have that's why we have rising indebtedness of developing countries, the consequences. therefore, these austerity and austerity means less government spending within societies that actually require even more spending because of the conditions of any quantity. and especially under development, of course, many of these terms like fan multi polarity re on new concepts in the global discourse. and so all these leaders of who would hold these visionaries, x pads and analyzed they have converged and descended upon this venue. and so cheap to do exactly what they're supposed to do to figure out as to what these terms off precisely and how they can potentially make the world a better place. well, that is our person for the saw. thank you for the company. have a great day as you see

the the, [000:00:00;00] the hello, welcome to wells a part. there's an old legend victim soon as possible, tara belgium. if you want peace, prepare for war, which may be taken as

a call to violence in some few minutes circles. but there is also a plea for a ground it responsible at handling all 3. our team 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 peace or 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, 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 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 on the one hand, on the other media on people not to talk about, oh 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 its own dynamics. and at some point, you know, the policies will be exhausted. one, will we more or whatever. but when we look at is in like a doctor, a dying most 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 policy is and that's the funds to

mentally important question because most people know the war and then they take it as and 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 pod is one of these and 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 counseling, being employed as 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 last day in the 50s, sixties is out. that is what you have left now the only thing the west of the united states has go to that is one that, oh, better than anybody else. however, that says they have lost all the more since we are now morally. um, in terms of things on that as well on everything. but i think also what you see is a parasite, like, uh, i stream it to you on what i call min max, the military, industrial media, academic complex, me, mac, where you have smalley, who have never been elected to do anything well, the right behind the screen is behind the politicians beyond the limits i'm from the image is all the enemy is weeks later to make you know more money for the military. so you want, where as international, no one that you encounter clearly say that violence should be the last resort. on article one stage,

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 lighting that today, and that's because the global system is in a huge funds formation and change. now i'm 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 these 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 can see it this way that the wells probably your to use the be totally covers for d k it's, it's still 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 than what the well this country's been on the mainland 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 with the landing and with mitchell 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 the types of my heart. but is this more complex 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 that 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 this generalization. i think there are a number of countries or, for example, even um, you know, old rivals like saudi arabia and that iran, that i'm moving away from this happening. it's rivalry in that putting piece and development. it had all why, you know, i download trickle or religious disagreements, you know, they're all the countries like a website armenian turkey, also exploring ways all for doing it diplomatically settling the disagreements, 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 that before the active space 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 we'd 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'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, 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 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 learn this,

these 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 piece and conflict issues . i worked in was ohms. most of my good 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 liberty co theory is concepts. it's is now moved into the re all of the irrational. emotional is 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 strip on the 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 know, as more on that military, industrial media, academic complex, excuse, lots of countries, your kind of fee to china, to you, right? and saudi arabia that you mentioned, everybody was driving forces outside the control of demo graphic 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 tide appears to be turning against the frame. the counter offensive is a stunning failure. future western funding for the proxy more is endowed, and european voters. it started to vent their displeasure for a conflict designed and promoted by they were leading. is this the beginning to be in the welcome back to wells, of course, with young over director of the people funded transnational foundation for peace and future research. mr. over 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 respect the law and

he says that the united states has indeed exceptional in being able to strike with impunity anywhere around the world as having unparalleled security 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 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 don't believe it should be. are 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 or extended as you say. they usually intimacy in the eyes of 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 personally, the old man who has 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 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 there's somebody who has invested in social economic development list of 700000000 people. what you revaluate 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. well, for unless it does something else such as closing down, they talk 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,

it not only was in the sixty's as evans is what they won't love to be too philosophical about. and 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 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 books, they don't understand the oil anymore. and of course, i don't think it is about spelling on 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 and nato and washington browser washington are of the very least 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 buy friends the relationship with the us, but keep it that they don't antagonize it,

don't it don't do thing. don't help it go down with grace and then work with all the others. i mean, if you call shape or form policy in your, which won't come to lex. uh, i, m b, you nature, you, westlake and the rest of the world. it seems like trimming up deciding to survive as a system in my view. but what i, what i argue with these days is that we live in a khaki stock. this, this is doctors the means the government by the least able and the least good people that seem to be re 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 you a sense of even the west. well, that's why people like i said, totally marginalized, never used by the way media we was twinges 80 years ago. so there's this, 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 we go, you just look at, you know, the really 9000 budget and the white tele home. the american saw the pruitt 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 industry, on the supply that has the right to be themselves, including nations. if you're defined, if you see and 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 should 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 roles would be a safer place. don't you think like that, of course, the whole thing as you will know when to find a way out. oh, do you guy do it in a more, let's say see originally kind of a way it is seeing the world as nation states as a national security over a common security regional security. and all those 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 pause cheek has brought us where we are now. and that is the most dangerous situations in 1945, 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 call them 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 painstakingly negotiated all of them to the point. very true, we now have the longest border with china,

and we can afford to be shipped from the border and ship interest to 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. 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? first, with at least you can have before side understanding that if you put your adversary down, then if you 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. i'm really just a week or that's why i say we all volunteer is 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 piece 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 bottom is between actors addressed. as i said in the beginning, watch stands between is because they will always be complex in any be the marriage of school, a work place, any conflicts are lovely, we should, we should accept and celebrate. the difference is because that makes the world reach on the way you find them 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 that

country that has an industry or piece. i don't know anybody who tries to the collection knowing what piece incomplete resolution is. but we have tons of military expense each we have legalize, but these are we have 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 around the same thing 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 nation, russia that plays out and you find because that's what it is. i think 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 as a huge too much for that. the institute around the world which deals with a design limit and say, 1000000000 civilized concrete, resolutely in these data beating nature. absolutely. can i ask him or something

about the cost like so you spoke where personal are they 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 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. 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, to 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. natural system will have to go in where to go. when the empire has crumbled, or they trying 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 this and say, don't st. john's go. and 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 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. and that's part of your country and all countries. it, 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. 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 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. the loss of those who built down the wrong is so something like inviting the, the, the, the confidence building mission. i take a little step and invite you to take a little bit down, was also from the,

from the high levels of weapons. byron's, 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 to 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 called to syria again. and was in part of the of the

the office of speaker of the house of the united states house of representatives is here by declared vacant us house baker, kevin mccarthy. as opposed to the out from his post for the 1st time in the country's history. i met a congressional route open, new funding for you. quite some of my colleagues are only willing to stand up and fight for our border if they could send billions to ukraine to fund their border to well, i've had enough of that and that's why i brought this motion to vacate ukrainian president. not him is a landscape public k on us yet to know, but not to collaborate to 12. the west and media tends to whitewash the track