as it may very well, just drop at quotes and drop you like those that is that ever going to happen? i'm in india and russia. i've got great relations. i'm good about 30 seconds. so your, your opinion please. then i have given you the quite extensive than the can you stand and guess behavior and yes, actions. but was this question back to russian? people that yes foot by who and yes, with phone a button, we used on phone leave and then get you to. so i think that has to be some kind of it broke and showed us also from that i should say, yes, we are with india and we really need this one if we can get these in just need guys and a so thank you so much for your time i'm boss, is that right? you have the full 90 and i'm boss of your time is very valuable. we appreciate that . thank you again. and while that most of this is always good to have your company

dentist at knology dot com. the great story is that we'll be back in about 13 minutes the the hello own welcome to wells, a part expression reality check, add to the ju 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 quarter 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,

professor emeritus of the department of history and politics at the american university of paris. but isn't gardner, it's great to talk to thank you very much for your time. thank you for inviting me now. so all of you all could demick 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 uh without accessing the sentiment without virtue signaling. i think it's a contract and just ask for it to assess reality in the best way possible and all for some mothers, 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 russia? no, i'm sentimental. do you think it's actually in demand today?

i would like to believe it's in demand. i would argue that the whole social media issue and the way the media is turned now is, is a 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 now. russia and 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 is, this not much is hard one, if it's it is block salt and it is responsibility not of the media professionals, but of politicians to avail of that. why do you think they're not doing that? yeah, i wasn't blaming the media and itself. i mean, we go back to the vietnam war. the media was blamed for losing the warrant. that was total bologna. it was the chinese who were protecting the north vietnamese and the you and the us didn't want to go into north vietnam. i mean, there's other reasons besides the media that are preventing these conflicts from, from resolving themselves. so a 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 in china. but yet the, or really brushed aside a for immediate political considerations. a rolled into one of your articles, the longer the russian ukraine, or israel, him as iran horse persist. the more the global system will polarize between states that a pro u. s. o 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, and the celtic memories of the cold war and how it and it, i think there is a perception in the west that they can prevail in this verification. but i'm not

sure that our, 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 is it is being pushed and that's why i'm saying that the u. s. needs to engage with russia and particularly with showing her 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 the numerous crises that we're facing in both drawers. the ukraine, israel palestine, enjoying the taiwan, which it could break down at any time or, or expanding the conflict smaller 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 i'm as wow, i think you can only change your way of relating to others when you change your

view of yourself. and that's 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 them. the west has a, had a reasonable success, applying it, uh, over the last couple of decades. but i wonder if the west is trying to execute it again. i'm trying to drive these hard bargain because of what's perception of power because of 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 as 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 rush of 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 in security bearing, it appears of insecurity on the, on the, on the western side, the u. s. europe and japanese, um, etc, the g 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 search to 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 around then trying to confront them. now you mentioned the worst containment, then this idea of double or triple containment offer are restraining russia. china . and if you know a whole number of other defended countries, man, oh, really? yeah it's, it's very popular in the west, but it's hard for, for me to understand what's, uh, what's the point of it,

at least from the most cost perspective, because russian $1001.00 us spread its influence indefinitely and doesn't want to be, you know, the next, 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 its policies of containment? the case of china and taiwan for us is concerned that china is urged to unify with taiwan one they don't. us doesn't feel that that is absolutely necessary. oh, but what their fear is if china requires taiwanda and they control the see why is that communication? in the end, the shipping routes from the, from asia, joe and as well as a lot of what and then the, that's just the fear then china dominates the region and that, that the undermines us a gemini. so that, that's the problem there. and therefore i propose a compromise which i like in general uh, system taiwan joiner,

work together can center was backed by the international community. and this would be a totally different way to approach the whole region with help solve some of the tensions between the philippines and showing the over the south emergency 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 out, so you try because china is becoming the major peer competitor as the americans put it, is we have to work with china primarily before this war. i would've said we work with russia, but now, or it's um, the russian full idea of working with russia, bringing russia into a new eastern european security order. oh, the 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 the us, russia and us, china challenges is again,

this either you're with us or against us. they not make it either your, you know, a winner or a loser, a nice thing, both russia and china see the world in the, in a solid 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 route 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'm trying to say we compromise as possible of international bringing in what, what we used to be called on tag groups working at each, each the conflict trying to taiwan, israel pallets the 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 region so. so it's a win win situation in my, you know, getting, getting us, working with china, working with russia. working the view, creating, working with taiwan, working with a ran and israel finding ways to, to call these tensions down and, and beginning to develop injuries. and what you have laid out here is already happening all around the world. it's happening into your rates or where regional countries with many, you know, diverse interest and sometimes open conflicts come together to, you know, managed uh, regional affairs. the same happens in africa. we can see similar to 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 genuine, when, when to take who it keeps sabotaging and by sparking conflicts around the world

or picking a battles with all the great powers. what can possibly pacify 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 this of the problem there, there, you know, every and part of goes down pretty hard in the instance in the collapse some of them collapse or one of the rapidly. so the, the, the issue here is how do we find compromises between uh, 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 have 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. um, the problem is with, when you are a huge amount of power, you don't want to give up on your head, your money. i agree, but the problem is will also you end up losing out big time if you don't store it, 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're also lose domestic lean. you're 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. be be terms of standards for the next presidency. this is

a garden and 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, [000:00:00;00] 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 in garden, they're in one of your articles, use drugs. that is absolutely a crucial to put them down to the israel, have mouse war in order to prevent that spreading regionally and perhaps even

a globally. and i think we would all agree on that. but uh, what makes you hopeful what makes you believe that it is possible at this point of time? well, i think go there is the med inside is real to, to was to get rid of that and yahoo and to, to put an end to this war. and they want the hostages back so that some of them are dying or will have died just in the whole process of trying to radically home us which, which is not going to be possible in the process of doing so. the israel is miller to rising. the entire middle east, i understood the hudy's of, of been able to recruit to tremendously in their battle and the red sea and other, other groups 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 usually 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. but the effects are being

tried was assassinated by a jewish extremes. 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 in 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 the arrows, but the internet's gonna be, but is real as being impacted by really uh, neil, imperialist um, a view point did not view point, but um, political drive, which is destructive, not only the palestinians, but ultimately destructive for israel itself. okay. now uh can i, uh push here a little bit here and run by you. what i awesome here. uh, here in moscow from uh, rushing, middle east is the experts and then they have,

we didn't do prove that connections in the region to. and they tend to believe that, you know, this is real century control, which, you know, they said suggestions the washington has to put the pressure on israel and down 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 ready to found the state next or israel. they are not ready to abandon all the territories that were under no sort of the policy name control during the british mandate. and none of them would agree to that. and they do here. and they suggested in the bay here all the time is that, you know, there's some sort of fantasy in western world that once west and leaders grace any particular problem with that royal attention and put pressure on that is set to lives that somehow the problem resolves itself,

but don't they actually have to talk to the palestinians to and it seems the palestinians at this point of time on not ready to compromise because they want to buy land back. and this is not something that the either israel or the united states a 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 american pressure on it, on israel. so there's a, there's a push pull relationship here between israel and the united states. and it is americans to the left is really, you know, literally now getting away with murder and gaza. absolutely. that has to be negotiations with, with a mazda at some point. uh, and with that top of the sony 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. you did it unilaterally. it didn't work with the palestinians in, in arranging a new state as, as he did as 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 ended but, but it also there, they have to deal with the real circumstances. so that's where they, they need the international support, lots of money, and start re developing the region. and then hopefully finding these are some of the finding a resolution resolving some of the issues that they, that you're right with. you know, they're not gonna get ahold or land back, but what, what can accomplish, come from it. what can the compromise with 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 off and other actors, and perhaps able to set the stage for a new iran nuclear course. now that seems like the best of both worlds, but this gap sticking me wonders, what would make the palestinians in the range and believe that base all for this international peace is genuine, but it is 4 wheel and that is not the yet another boy, 2 by time and this advantage 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 versus 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 is rarely posted in crisis. after we get rid of that on the side, that's what happened. they didn't solve any spouse, any of right. so,

so the legitimate, there's a legitimate skepticism about the, all, all u. s. 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 russian to intervene. i think china is offered in are being that's why it has to be a joy for looks like all contact groups working us, russia, china, in this case, might be able to make a convincing case to the palestinians and the uranium that piece is possible. but if it's only going to be the americans, americans lost their image of the honest broker there ever really had one and, and that's where i agree with you. but 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, a police of good set, a precedent for a genuine and genuine peace mediation. the retesting is in uh, in the such a desperate demand. today the world really needs a to at least one call think to be a result in a 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 very strong and very legitimate mistrust. i think the plague said the ukranian conflict as well. um, unlike in the case with gaza, with you cream the was, doesn't even recognize that russia has been active. we trying to be a constructive bar. and there to this very moment they paid the, relates to the weapons that it is using uh into your cranium conflict to the target

selected a russian das signal to the was that it is amenable to, um, you know, a qual, uh respectful um, a wide range in negotiations, but i think the attitude is being purpose fully opt on the cranial 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 these collision? these cult can be collision of these 2 world views being resolved. well, i think there were chances back in 2022 with the turks. certainly um it came up with the so the resolution for the serial prices and getting serial. great and, and then, and i really, from what i understand the britain, 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 were something there uh, uh,

that had nothing to do with resolving situation. the 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. dentist continued to this this moment, i pers purposely think we're move, moving into a new a period where um, if um, uh, russian forces sees both or i'll skip, i can pronounce that correctly, and ukrainians are able to maintain some of the territorial advantages that they've taken which some 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 of 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 rusher has the resources to achieve it. that 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 ukrainian side. because the brand new side, 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 is he 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 either mutual 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, look, russia is becoming pretty dependent economically on china. and uh, then why do you, this is not, is another reason why russia should think closely about continuing this more if it means reading a to grade 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 master has a strong incentive to put an end to the war. and i think it's not a shy to recognize that if, if 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 a deal where, uh, russian will probably get some of the territories. all that is taken in, in the dawn box region and maintain the crimea, which i think is, is most essential. at the same time, ukraine will re gain some of the stairs that but then you're going to have to have a population exchanges that are in 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 this war continues. it's, it's fairly limited and it's region now the ukraine and 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 in 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 a, 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, is great and thank you for watching hope to hear again on the well the part the

the civilians on the fire 11 people including 2 children. i know you where it is. so i called the russians the deed of belgrade, while russian ad defenses down a $158.00 deep cleaning drones of applied across the border, part of the solver rented off is running guns. a full size is over parts of gauze to allow an emergency roll vaccine problem if the case that my son's the test result was positive. he was diagnosed with polio shots that he got polio during the war, the closure of the crossings and the lack of treatment. all these thoughts ran