a free door off the bottle door often reached the top of twitter trends that it made speaks to his appointment, exploding popularity, which naturally converts to product of popularity. how will this popularity be used by telegram itself further? or, for example, by the authorities the syndicate, we do not know yet, which, but naturally we can now say unambiguously bedford telegrams popularity. there's no better story than its founders arrest. right, that's a paragraph for now here, and i'll tell you. thank you for joining us and sharing a sunday with us. so my colleague models have, i'm here with the desk very soon with one of your top highlights of the weekend of the hour. in the meantime, thanks for joining us and have a good the the

hello and welcome to worlds a part expression reality check after the jew political vocabulary from the field of psychiatry. and it's still care is some of its imagining ambiguity. what's the reality to one nation is a total distortion to another or a complete horror to a 3rd? is the international system still capable of the same and respectful conversation about what's actually going on in the world? well, to discuss that, i'm now enjoying by a whole gardener, a professor emeritus of the department of history and politics at the american university of paris. but present gardner. it's great to talk to thank you very much for your time. thank you for inviting me now. so all the you are condemning career, you wrote a number of books dealing with various patterns of international politics, including imperial ambitions or the dynamics of war. and as much as i can sell,

i think yours is a pretty mature look without success, a sentiment without virtues signaling. i think it's a contract and just ask for it to assess reality in the best way possible and all for some modest the responsible solutions of how to improve with or at least make it a little bit better. now, do you think such an approach historically informed, conscientious, rational on sentimental. do you think it's actually in demand today? i would like to believe it's in demand. i would argue the whole social media issue and the way the media's turn now is isn't really devastating to real fact checking and understanding what's going on. but the real problem is we lock a global, a global vision, and for, for almost all my books, oh, predicted this horrible war going on between the russian ukraine today, starting the 1994 surviving the millennium,

and then dangerous crossroads and 97. those books contain pretty much what's happening at the moment because i based it on historical analysis and close observation to how the states are actually interacting. not what the politicians were were saying they were saying, well professor, let me check here because you're sort of putting the blame a little bit on social media. and the reason i'm asking this question is because i see as a media professional, i see a huge gap between the academic field of international relations, which has an extensive knowledge about the dynamics of conflict. the precursor is um, you know, conditions that are necessary for a lasting settlement and the actual reality of international politics. when pretty much none of this knowledge ever gets applied. and let me mention that this with this knowledge is hard. one, if it's it is blocked south and it is responsibility not of the media professionals,

but of politicians to avail of that. why do you think i know doing that? yeah, i wasn't blaming the media and itself. i mean, we go back to the vietnam war, the media was blame for losing the warrant. that was total baloney. it was the chinese who are protecting the north vietnamese and the you and the us didn't want to go into north vietnam. i mean, there is other reasons besides the media that are preventing or these conflicts from, from resolving themselves. so close a close examination of what's really happening is what the academic world tries to do. but when you presented the policy makers, they are hit by all directions from special interest groups due to their own personal ambitions and end up making decisions that are very often contrary to those of their own advisors. so, so this is, you're absolutely right that there's a real, a gap between the, those of us who have been trying to argue for a rational policy towards russia and china. but yet the are really brushed aside

for the immediate political considerations, a road and one of your arch because the longer the russian ukraine, or israel, him ass iran horse, persists. the more the global system will pull arise between states about a pro us. so pro west and those that are pro russia and pro china, and i think this is exactly what the west is pushing for perhaps due to its uh, you know, in the celtic memories of the cold war and how it ended. i think there is a perception in the west that they can prevail and this verification, but i'm not sure that are the russian or china are going there on the actually trying to resist as much as they can. this new bifurcation of the world and the west is pressing for. i'm saying that that's the reality. this would be important and that's why i'm saying that the u. s. needs to engage with russia and particularly with china right now. and really reorient american strategy towards both countries in order to bring this escalation of tensions and bring it down and,

and begin to resolve of the numerous crises that were facing the both wars, the russ ukraine, israel palestine, enjoying the taiwan, which you could break out at any time park or expanding the conflicts rather than of finding ways to resolve them. so us needs a totally new strategy, starting with the hopefully the, the harris administration. if the, if was, wow, i think you can only change your way of relating to others when you change your view of yourself. and that leads me to my next question because this a logic of my way, or the highway or your, you know, you're either with us or against us. works only for the dominant power. and it's not a choice. it's the black male target. then the west has a, had a reasonable success, applying it over the last couple of decades. but i wonder if the west is trying to execute it again,

trying to drive these cars bargain because of its perception of power because it the believes that it can do it to all the nations driving them the way they, you know, it wants them to go on do you think it's because perhaps of insecurity and not knowing anything bad or is it very good point? i think i think it's a little bit of both. um, you know how the, if you put the brakes together now the brazil, russia, india, or china, south africa plus others that are joining their, their g d, a, the, their economies are actually much greater than the group of 7, the group and 7 most industrialized countries so on the one hand, there's a bit of insecurity beer and it appears of insecurity on the, on the, on the western side of the us, european, japanese, etc. but the 7 versus this new what they perceive as a new euro asian access are rising economically. and are the they're fighting to can, can uh, contain or contain that movement and a cert, uh, maintain the global hegemony. but that,

that's exactly what the problem here is. it's the law you do that the more both sides react and, and expand the conflict. therefore, you, you really need to get started engaging with both sides, a rock then trying to confront them. now, you mentioned the worst containment them, this idea of double or triple containment all for our restraining russia, china. and if you know a whole number of other descending countries ran in korea. yeah, it's, it's very popular in the west, but it's hard for, for me to understand what's, what's the point of it, at least from the most cost perspective, because russian 1001 as spread its influence indefinitely and doesn't want to be, you know, the max, the global police cop, but it will not compromise on his national interest and neither will china or any other, you know, self respecting nation. so what is the united states trying to contain when it pursues as policies of containment? the case of china and taiwan us is concerned that

a china is urged to unify with taiwan one they don't. us doesn't feel that that is absolutely necessary. oh, but what of their fear is if china requires taiwanda and they control this, the lines of communication in the end of the shipping routes, from the from asia drop, the watts and down to what and then the that's just the fear then china dominates the region and that, that the undermines us the gemini, so the, that's the problem there. and therefore i propose a compromise in which the can federal a system, taiwan, china work together considerably backed by the international community. and this would be a totally different way to approach the whole reason it would help solve some of the tensions between the philippines in china over the south, where the sea and other things like that. so. so there's ways to compromise here is both sides are willing to compromise ended. and that's why obviously you try because china is becoming the major peer competitor as the americans put it. if we

have to work with china primarily before this war, i would've said we worked with russia, but now, or it's the russian boy idea of working with russia, bringing russia into a new eastern european security order, a security european security order failed. it failed or the us didn't, didn't pursue that as the early bush, the bush senior administration try. well uh, i think one thing in common between the, both of the us, russia and us, china challenges is again this either you are with us or against us. then i make a either your, you know, a winner or a loser, and i think both russia and china see the world in the, in a saw a different way. and if you put them aside, most governments around the world right now are facing serious domestic challenges . having to adapt to a fast changing world and really to respond to the, you know, uh, sometimes conflicting needs of the people. why would you be interested in limiting,

di options and choosing the united states or china or the other way around? why would anyone be interested in part taking in somebody else's war instead of you know, minding our own interest? well, this is why i try to say we are a compromise as possible of international bringing in what, what we used to be called on tag groups working at each each, some conflict, china, taiwan, israel, palestine, israel, palestine, you ran russia, you great, we bring an international community, not in american domination, the you international groupings in which the, the, the regional states themselves take over their security concerns and begin to develop their regions. so it's a win win situation in my, you know, getting into us, working with china, working with russia, working the view, creating, working with taiwan, working with iran and israel, finding ways to, to call these tensions down and, and beginning to develop huge range of what you have laid out here is already

happening all around the world. it's happening in your rates or where regional countries with many, you know, diverse interest and sometimes open conflict come together to, you know, managed regional affairs. the same happens in africa. we can see similar development in latin america, but uh, you know, there is one major obstacle here and it is the west that for some reason would not allow this conceptual approach. you know, when, when a genuine, when, when to take crew with them it keeps sabotaging in by sparking conflicts around the world or picking a battles with all the great powers. what can possibly pacified the united states, what can possibly make western leaves believe that they will also have the new place in the world. they will retain that insulin, but it will not be being dormant or anything, and often very destructive influences that they have enjoyed over the last couple

of decades. yeah, i, well that's of the problem there. there, you know, every empire goes down pretty hard and uh, and in the co op, some of them clouts are one of the rapidly. um, so the, the, the issue here is how do we find compromises between a, the, the, the so called vital interests. now we have to read to find what is considered vital um for me, pushing nato into all the way up to ukraine was not vital that this was not of the vital american interest we, us could of, with the europeans and with the russians developed a whole new system of european security had they worked on it from, from 1991 on but they didn't say anything about china, taiwan. there's other ways to manage uh, trying to tie when these relations can federal approach as opposed to a one china approach. the problem is when you are a huge amount of power, you don't want to give up on your headphones. i agree, but the problem is will also, you end up losing out big time if you don't store compromising earlier. this is the

route, the traditional conservative is not, not the neo conservatism and not the kind of conservatism that trump talks about. absolutely, and i want to ask here if i may, that you lose not only in terms of your wave it on in the international arena, but you also lose domestically, you losing the eyes of your own population and value. i'm facing the situation when the country is highly polarized them the choice of candidates. uh well, let's say not, not very inspiring. b be terms of standards for the next presidency as a guide. now let's take a very short break right right now, but we will be back to the discussion in a few minutes. they tune the

welcome back to all the parts with whole gardener, professor emeritus at the department of history and politics at the american university. if there is a professor and garden, they're in one of your articles, use drugs that is absolutely crucial to put them down to the israel, have mouse war in order to prevent they've spreading regionally and perhaps even a globally. and i think we would all agree on that, but uh, what makes you hateful, what makes you believe that it is possible at this point of time? well, i think go, there is the man inside is real to, to was go get rid of that and yahoo and to, to put an end to this war and they want the hostages back. so i, some of them are dying or will have died just in the whole process of trying to write a case from us which, which is not going to be possible in the process of doing so. israel is miller to rising the entire middle east. i understood the hudy's of been able to recruit to tremendously in their battle and the red sea and other other

a group like l tied in ices or, or thriving. we just had a few attacks here in france. so let's, let's do you know, over bronze story the advisor of use accurately rub, being just came on just a few weeks ago. stated that israel should immediately recognize a palestinian state. it should have been done years ago. oh, but he's act redeemed tribals assassinated by a jewish extreme is. so his adviser now is saying it's time to bring back the same the same uh approach create a palestinian state that would limit the ability overran and other states to assist a moss. it would be a non militarized state, but it would give the palestinians some respect. they would get a support from the arrow community and, and begin to build themselves with the help of not just arrows but the international community. but israel's being impacted by really uh,

neo imperialist view point, did not view point, but the political drive, which is destructive not only the palestinians, but ultimately destructive for israel itself. okay. now i can, i, uh, push here a little bit here and run by you. what i often hear uh here in the just go from rushing, middle east is to experts and then they have reading the prove of connections in the region to. and they tend to believe that, you know, this is real century can pro, which, you know, they said uh, suggestions that washington has to put the pressure on israel. and then the problem will resolve itself. they believe that it in itself is a little bit of a well interior. i always think because, um, if you actually look at the founding documents of many listing, you know, organizations from the p a lot to from us that not the residents who found the

state next or israel. they are not ready to abandon all the territories that were under, you know, sort of the policy name control during the british mandate. and none of them would agree to that and they do hear. and they suggested that they hear all the time is that, you know, there's some sort of fantasy in western world that was western leaders, grace, any particular problem with that royal attention and put pressure on that set to lives that somehow the problem results itself. but don't they actually have to talk to the palestinians too, and it seems the palestinian from this point of time. i'm not ready to compromise because they want to buy land back. and this is not something that the either israel or the united states uh, are willing to offer really well, you know, on that point is very interesting when, when vice president buying with israel once and then yahoo of purposely announced expansion the settlements into the west bank to undermine the american pressure on the, on israel. so there's a, there's a push pull relationship here between israel and the united states. and it is

americans of the left israel, ease of, you know, literally now getting away with murder and gaza. absolutely. that has to be negotiations with, with a mazda at some point. and, and with that top of the solely mistakes are made over the years. and the inability of it to uh, to find the cord that came very close the top of the cords that the number of years ago came close, but then they were, they were overthrown. and then ariel sharon, unilaterally withdrew from guys. and that created a new, a new dime and he didn't do it. he did it unilateral. you didn't work with the palestinians in, in arranging a new state as, as he did is um, you know, what or withdrawal. and that, that ultimately allow home us to come to power and so, so these, obviously the palestinians are a frustrated and did but, but it also there, they have to deal with the real circumstances. so that's where they,

they need the international support, a lots of money and start re developing the region. and then hopefully finding these are some of the binding rental, resolving some of the issues that they, that you're right with. you know, they're not going to get ahold or land back, but what, what can accomplish, come from it. what can the compromise was that you mentioned before your vision of a palestinian consideration, which could be bad to buy for an or our financial assistance with international peacekeeping forces on the border with israel. and you argue that such a posting in consideration with how to reduce iranian leverage on hand. awesome other actors and perhaps even said this stage for a new iran nuclear cord. now that seems like the best of both worlds, but then this gap sticking me wonders, what would make the palestinians and the rang and believe that base all for this international peace is genuine, but it is for real and that it is not the up. another boy to buy time and

disadvantage them long term. you know, you're absolutely correct. you know, oh, every time in the to iraq morris, for example, united states, i got the world community to, to attack a verse, the 1990 war against the side of the st. and the 2nd one in 2003, which was not approved by the you when they both said we're going to solve this rarely pal standing crisis after we get rid of that. on the side, what's happened, they didn't solve any spouse, any of right. so, so the legitimate, there's a legitimate skepticism about the, all, all us proposals and that's why it can't be just the u. s. i, i know the russians a, i've been a number of arrow commentators of urged russia to intervene. i think china is offered to intervene. that's why it has to be a joy after it's like all contact groups working us, russia, china, in this case, might be able to make a convincing case of the palestinians and the uranium that the piece is possible. but if it's only going to be the americans, americans, the loss of their image,

of the honest, broke, or if there ever really had more and, and that's where i agree with you. but the, as i said, the more states you bring into this and the regional states to jordan egypt as well . russia, china, then you begin to create a international pressure to, to try to really resolve the issue. and that's the only way it's going to happen. otherwise, believe me, it's going to continue to expand and, and accusation against accusation. well, it police have good set a precedent for a genuine, genuine piece mediation. the retesting is in the, in the such a desperate demand. today the world really needs a to at least one call think to be a result. and in genuine matter, and i want to turn our attention now to the one that is much closer to, to my whole uh, the one in ukraine. and i think the same problem that we discussed uh no, just the lack of trust, but rather the presence of

a very strong and very legitimate mistrust. i think the plague, so the ukranian conflict as well. um, unlike in the case with gaza with you cream, the west doesn't even recognize that russia has been actually trying to be a constructive bar. and there to this very moment they paid the, relates to the weapons that it is using uh, in the ukraine and conflict to the target selected a russian das signal to the west that it is amenable to, um, you know, a qual, respectful um, a wide range in negotiations, but i think the attitude is being purpose fully opt on the ukrainian side of the fully supported by the west, which at this point doesn't even know what it's actually pursuing in. that's more how do you see this collision? these cult can be collision of these 2 world views being resolved. well, i think there were chances back in 2022 of the turks certainly um came up with us.

so the resolution for the serial prices and getting serial. uh, great and, and then uh and i really, from what i understand, the brits and the americans really, really put a check on the, on the continuation of the negotiations, even though the lensky, the ukrainian, the president looked like he was going to go on with them so, so there was something there uh, uh, that had nothing to do with resolving situation with crisis the, there was there something that was purely geo political in which the americans and the end of birds in particular were to continue the conflict. so that, that created a lack of trust in the ability of the to, to resolve this conflict that is continued to this, this moment. i pers purposely think we're moving, moving into a new a period where um, if um, uh, russian forces sees both are it's good if i can pronounce it correctly. and ukrainians are able to maintain some of the territory of advantages that they've

taken, which they might not be able to do in incurs. you might be able to come to some sort of agreement at this point. but right now, uh without a what you call a mutually hurting stalemate, where both sides feel that they can't move forward without undermining their own interest. you won't get to the settlement of this conflict. gardner, this is a very interesting point because in order to achieve that, the mutually hurting stalemate, you need to have a certain accounting of your resources and when it comes to rest sizing, rushes goals or objectives, a more or less defined the roster has the resources to achieve with the i know the overwhelming assurance bleeding is hurting. but, you know, there is some relationship between what we are trying to achieve and uh, the resources that we have be seeing is uh, absolute, absent on the premium side. because the ukraine inside, 1st of all, doesn't even know what it's realistically trying to achieve down. it has to rely on

the outside actors for the very basic war, fighting necessity. so i wonder if the mutually hurting and failing it if you put it, is even possible at this point without, you know, some genuine accounting of what you have and what you're trying to get to know is, it's very uneasy, but it's not clear you can get it even a mutual it that both sides to define their hurt in a totally different way so, so that they may not agree on this as a mutually hurting still it, but i would simply step back and say, well, russia is becoming pretty dependent economically on china. in the mind you, this is not, is another reason why russia should think closely about continuing this war. if it means reading a to great of a dependency on, on chinese investments finance or do we use technology, etc. and, and it's all, it's on the market now for, for energy. pretty much is china and china is

a raised up. it's the interest rates, etc. i totally agree with you. but the roster has the strong incentive to put an end to the war. and i think it's not a shy to recognize that if, if the ones have to be close, but in order to for that to happen there, that the has to be some agreement with the ukrainians and with the americans about the secure is arrangement in this part of europe. yeah, certainly, i totally agree with. that's where i applied any way to outline now let's sketch a few, a few possibilities where, um you, you have uh, a deal where, uh, russia will probably get some of the territories. all that is taking them in the, in the don box region and maintain the crimea, which i think is, is most essential. at the same time, the ukraine will re gain some of the stairs, but then you're going to have to have a population exchanges and all sorts of issues that will, will absolutely. but i wonder thing, what satisfy the western appetites to really genuinely strive for the resolution of

this war? well, that's where i, i, i'm afraid the, they only react to force. and in my do the way this world go, it's not going to the to, it was not going to attack the nato countries, but the war could expand in new in new regions. and this is what concerns me the most of the more of this war continues it's, it's fairly limited and it's region now the ukraine and, and in russia. but it could easily expand to trans nice to you in, in europe or, or even north south korea. so those are the, remind you, the 2 areas that could, could to explode at any time if this war continues. so it means reason in washington, reasonable people are washington and hopefully a new reasonable in ministration. next year we'll see that this war is going to get out of control and it's, and nobody's interest for that to happen. and therefore begin to wind down working with china and russia to do so well proficient gardner and this is all we have time

for. thank you very much for being with us today. thank you very much for interview me. it was great and thank you for watching hope to hear again on the walls apart. the look forward to talking to you all. that technology should work for people. a robot must obey the orders given by human beings, except we're so shorter is that conflict with the 1st law show your identification . we should be very careful about our personal intelligence. the point obviously, is to create a trust, rather than see it the area, i mean with artificial intelligence, we have somebody with him in the robot most protects his phone existence was alexis,

the russian, the defensive, to destroy a 158 new cleaning and attempting to start getting started for you the night a swarm all the way. beasley taken out on approach to boston. this division of polio vaccine kicks off and all the, all the is on and raised a so called monetary in pools. as we speak with the mother on the 1st infant infected with a virus in gaza and 25 is my sons test result was positive. he was diagnosed with polio po shots that he got polio during the war, the closure of the crossings. and the lack of treatment, all these thoughts ran through my mind while my son remained like this. surprised

for this is what.