us, what's the uh, conflict, the mosque that goes and uh, you know, people watch you best life on the tv unless thing is happening. again, i don't see that this is uh, really uh, a something that, that is a, is a lot that we offer over the americas, the west. if not the mose what is happening and they just missed it. cool, as i mentioned, the want to read the map of the mid eighties. hm. all right. we have to, they'd be here now. thank you so much professor peace studies of egypt. japan university side civic. uh, we also have the head to all the silver, all these to do, to alexandra markovich, as well as the chub and all the jerusalem development fund as a mouse in the july. we gentlemen, thank you so much for your insight here. thank you. right. well, i see a big now always stay with our team to national for the latest from around the world spend for once in a bind the

hello and welcome to worlds apart. as an old english, here's them as a goes, always fair in love and war, and it's all just a chick your phrase as close consideration, falling in love and fighting a war, have a lot in common passion, obstinacy, her feelings irrational waste of resources, and a strong desire to refer to your opponent, perhaps then adding a war is also in some way similar to finishing up a faded role as what would have taken the case of the conflict in ukraine. well, to discuss that i'm now joined by michael ross elector. in political science at progress, the university and visiting professor in the department of international relations

at bass through university intern scan, profess arossi is great to senior. thank you very much for your time. thank you. frankie for having beyond and um, thank you for uh uh, asking me what the were about to talk about today. well, uh we are about to talk about primarily the conflict in your plan and perhaps the implications of has both for regional politics on for global politics. but i want to start with a very concrete development you wrote recently about tier cranes attack on russia's course. the region was an attempt to show the world that ukraine can still hurt this neighbor and humiliate logic reports in that of russia's military command. and i want to ask you, why do you think this demonstration of bad billy to, to cause damage is in ukraine's interest. the very quick in this concise answer to that is because ukraine still needs to be seen as relevance. right beyond just

simple, repetitive the western talking points. right? ukraine needs to remain in the news. they need to show that they're capable of fighting despite the weeks and months of the setbacks they need to convince. they are western sponsors that sending weapons and munition lending diplomatic support and realizing that ukraine's membership potential membership in nato is the most for after membership is something that the west should still take seriously and invest in the ability of ukraine to stage this attack within russian territory and still hold on to a large piece of that territory. now for the last few weeks, does a couple of things. one, it shows that, you know,

new cream is not yet ready to give up. number 2, russia is vulnerable, even though it's a small incursion, of as many people who were thinking that a russian counter attack could easily push ukrainian forces back within just a few days were proven wrong. and you know, it was a gamble, it was a gamble, largely to see if 14 would pull some of his forces from other parts of ukraine, back into russia to counter act this incursion. and us relieves some of the ukrainian forces with in the eastern and the southern done by the regions. well, imagined it was a space dunbar. but um, the question is whether it is ultimately in ukraine's interest. because the abilities are heard is certainly a valuable geopolitical asset. but it needs to be more or less precise. i mean, it needs to be a painful for that point. and it, it needs to be at

a relatively low cost for, for a power that causes that do you think ukraine is capable of delivering just that, you know, hurting roster, but not at the huge cost for itself as well. i mean, that was pretty much proven within the 1st 48 to 72 hours. if the, if the larger goal was to reach course or more specifically to reach the course nuclear power plants that didn't happen. so, you know, it was a gamble, which is now becoming abundantly clear, was a miscalculated gamble. so what they are now doing is entrenching themselves in the territory around the border town of soldier. and by the videos that we see coming out, it's not much of an occupation forces. it is

a mercenary raid to simply looting supermarkets. um, you know, terrorizing the local population with maybe maybe maybe the hope that this would create some kind of public backlash in russia that the good thing isn't doing enough to defend his own territory. but in the mean in the larger gra grand scheme of things. i mean if at that absolute best this would have been a paper cut against the larger russian infrastructural and military arsenal. and get, you know, the telegram stories that are coming out and, you know, most of the primary source material that we get on the spot or from, you know, the numerous telegram travels take them. you know, however, way that you want is that this was a, you know, a heavily debated decision with, in the key of political and military elite as to whether this was going to do anything other than just create a, a temporary distraction. well,

maybe the temper or we didn't. destruction is good enough for the p. r oriented, ukrainian lives. sure. but you said before the, the ukraine now is trying very hard to sort of to keep its relevancy, a vital it's relevancy in the eyes of while washington dizzy decision makers. uh, what please do you think the key if i saw or just want to occupy within the us or bid on how realistic is that? well, we have to remember that there is an election coming up the presidential election, which widely is understood to be donald trump, wins the united states, is going to largely disengage from the ukrainian seem focus more on what's happening now. we're getting the middle east. trump has made certainly a lot of noise saying that he would try to negotiate a ceasefire, peace agreement between new cream and russia. this take it as well is certainly

seen with the, you know, certain problems within kias. if comalla harris with a business as usual, i'm just continuing the policies of the bike and ministration. it really is considering what has not only been going on in gaza for almost a year. but now that there is what seems to be a new or a new front opening up in israel against legend on ukraine is risking being relegated to the back pages of international news. the ukraine war seems to be really bogged down in what is becoming a frozen conflict. there are many, many leads and analysts within europe that are considering brokering some kind of ceasefire even to the point of, you know, both sides just kind of holding onto whatever line battle lines that they have. ukraine does not want this. russia does not want the united states does not want this because it just gets both sides time to regroup. and refresh. can you have

does not want this because of frozen conflict effectively means the loss of the 4 territories plus crimea. so if anything, it shows that ukraine still has a fighting spirits, that they are willing to go the extra mile to not only defend their own territory, but take the war on to russia side and show the west that they are not as fatigue or as demoralized as many people assume them to be on it, i'm sure you've heard me quote this uh 6, no center of phrase in the beginning of the program. that all is fair in love and war. a nice find a strange way of fitting for you. praying which threw itself whole heartedly almost recklessly into these indirect geo political class between russia and the west and sacrificing a lot not only in terms of flies but also in terms of material resources. but so far not doing much. and that's not a very typical behavior for

a nation state. certainly another very practical one. how do you understand the logical bed? i mean, all of us there and loving more, but when you lose the war and you're the political of late, you've got a plane waiting to take you out of the country with all of your assets, your family and your money is so you know, those who wage war in this matter and lose will certainly have an exit strategy and a lot, think twice about the country that they devastate. mean ukraine is really caught between a proxy conflict between the united states and nato on one side and russia. the professor will say it's not just caught it through and south side eagerly into the political lead in key of ever since 2014 right has been wedded to the belief that their future belongs in europe, in nato, away from russia at the direct expense of current, ukrainian,

or russian diplomatic, economic and infrastructure will ties, right? it is a major decision to be made. and it's one that is going to come with significant costs weather days and predicted. the war that is happening right now is really something that only they can they, not only they can say, but knowing that there are a number of a leads within ukraine who somehow believed that the west had their best intent since it is either that they know something that the rest of us don't know, or they were unbelievably hopeful, even to the point of being that you've professed of it. i'll say i find it helpful to add psychological lenses to do political discussions. and in personal psychology, there is a clear link between romanticized passions, brands, deals, ideas, magical thinking on the one hand narcissism and co dependency on the other. and i wonder if that wouldn't be extended to national behaviors to particularly the

behavior of your brain that's relatively young nations, would be susceptible to the pitfalls of political idealization and developing and sort of instinctively look for do political sugar daddy's world whether that is washington or brussels is something that we can maybe, oh it's, i mean there is no credit whatever. only mind that so i don't think it's need so, you know, just one partner. if me a rail of many of them. i suppose most of what i mean, you know, the thing with ukraine is, and you know, this was mentioned almost almost 30 years ago by sam huntington in his book clash of civilizations. it's not a book that i'm a fan of, but i was just re reading it again just leading through some of the chapters a few weeks ago. and he devoted a significant section to you crate the mind to. he's writing in the 19 ninety's, and he referred to ukraine, is what we call a clift country, right,

in which you have really the fault lines between 2 different cultural proclivities . western ukraine looks towards europe. eastern ukraine looks towards russia and the goal of any political government, n, t, as to find the balance between the 2 of them. considering that the european union has now expanded to include nearly all of the countries of the former eastern europe, communist block, and the border of the un nato is right there at the western ukrainian border. those that are in western ukraine as i like to stay in my classes, can look out of their window on a clear day and see europe. it's right there. so where does the border between europe and the rest? why is it at the polar ukrainian border? does it include ukraine? we certainly know from your, from b, u officials. it does not include russia as it,

as well as the nato. but the baltics, that's ok, georgia, that's fine. bold over. that's fine. you cream, that's fine. so it gives a number of political, economic, and intellectual elite, a new cream, some sense that if they really push for this, they can get it. and if they get some kind of assurance from brussels, whether it's the or nato, or london, or berlin or paris or washington, then it's something worth fighting for. and more to the point is that most of the post sylvia countries, the baltics, in particular, it least 2 of the 3 caucuses countries, ukraine mold over another. even there's a few of the leads here within central asia, right? their goal in leaving the soviet fear in leaving the postal. the legacy is to gravitate towards whatever is new. and so for a country like ukraine with its pro western leadership,

that's the future professor. lots and lots stop here because i think this is a very interesting subject to look closer into. but for the time being we have to take a very short break and we will be back in just a few moments section. the the welcome back to wells of parts with michael and ross see a lecture in political science at the bottom gross university and visiting

professor in the department of international relations at webster university in touch county. now, professor ro see before the break, you describe these, uh mm, you know, lines the main song, a former soviet republics, that sort of russia or the soviet legacy is the pass, the repeating the union or association with the west as the future. but countries and governments have to leave in the present northern the past or in the future. but in the present that it's in the present that they have to trade with the neighbors to collect taxes, to build roads, to run schools and hospitals. and, you know, they say very basic necessities. so why big town to make politics a little bit more grounded. but it seems that ukraine was so infatuated with this glorious um, vision of the future that the you know, the costs of getting there are somehow escaping because it's very hard for me to on,

to believe that them are the ukrainian officials would not anticipate some sort of reaction from russian, because we believe to be the russia side by side. they have the oldest narrative from call abuse for russia has been to, has been historically. so they are supposed to have genetic malory's of how russia conducted foreign policy. how do you think this gave them? that's a, that's an unbelievably good question. because knowing that there is with, in this mindset of a healthy dosage of what glen decent prefers to as ruth, a phobia. and that isn't just simply racism and xenophobia against the russian people, but this, this set of assumptions presumptions, right? that russia is this autocratic beam. is this your reason be humorous, that he's not going to just simply stuff are being pushed to the sidelines. right. there is going to be some kind of response from them. so the only thing that i could say as far as the ukrainian political and we have to be very,

we have to be very careful about who we're mean when we're talking about ukrainian political elites. you can't lump them all together. there are plenty of ukrainian political leaders and parties at least up until 2022 that were pro ukrainian, but were very pragmatic in dealing with russia in not severing ties and trying to find a balance right between the west and russia. because that was what ukraine strength was a bridge between europe and also literally and the industry and the patent, the or the strategy that many in between countries are pursuing. for example, trick and many others. they're actually getting the benefit from this class rather than sacrificing everything to be in the middle of it. yes, but note that some countries like turkey k get away with it because turkey is larger and it's still seen is much more strategic to nato as well as its position

within the mediterranean. ukraine on the other hand is but at least since 2014 has been given. unfortunately the same degree of take it or leave it scrutiny that smaller countries like georgia, moldova, and serbia. we have to remember serbia ever since. 2000 has been pressured to say you have, you cannot sit on more than one chair. you cannot sit on to chair, sir, but you cannot be europe and russia. and this is now a big problem when it comes to the disputed territory of kosovo, which i need to emphasize is support. there is independence. it's unilateral. independence is supported by the very same powers in the west that insist that only a return to the 1991 borders with ukraine will be an acceptable piece solution. so the double standards that are coming from the west towards serbia, towards ukraine, among others, right, is seen, right?

it is visibly seen, which is why we're having these conversations. the ukranian leads that have put all of their hope and future with in this. take it or leave it. the west is best and the rest is nothing. as i said, may be the ones to leave. the country may be the ones as soon as they were about to leave, you know, and be thrown out of power to find an exit strategy. absolutely. while the kind of the country remains and in russell, essentially. now i know that your one of your interest, academic interest is the connection between culture and politics. and i want to throw in that sort of a personal question because i'm a russian of ukrainian descent and i think what americans perhaps don't appreciate enough about the ukrainian culture or ukrainian collective psyche is the degree of vengeance. because historically the ukrainians have had the habit of calling out of allows just as quickly as falling into it. do you think these ass

cold of ukrainian vengeance will ever reach american shores? does washington have reasons to worry about your claims ability to damage nowhere? russia, but also it's a form or a sponsor who is not providing enough? well, i don't think that um, if we keep it within the, the question of let's say potential ukrainian radicals. will they do anything when they reach american shores? most likely not. i mean, i'm, i can't make, you know, app. so the predictions, but they can very well reach american assets around the worlds. um, but for the time being, the only way for that scenario to happen would be if nato b d. u, and all promises for getting into, you know, board rails european garden are shots. mm hm. and they realize that this was all

a ruse. ukraine realizes that the only countries in europe that benefit natal wise is sweden and finland. i mean, you've got to think about this. you know, ukraine is the one where the war is happening and sweden and finland has been sitting by neutral and they just joined nato. like that, no, no problem whatsoever. and you crane is the one doing all the fighting is it has to it has to do on, on many of them. in fact, when, when the war 1st began, i remember this back in, i think, march, or april of 2022. lensky was white. angry, quite adamant. doing his insistence with nato and other european countries saying good, give us an up or down answer. are we in, are we not? are we something to you or are you just gonna use us as i want? because if you're just going to use this as a pull on, look, just a cut. the nonsense. tell me right now, so we can cut a deal with bulletin and save what can be saved. i asked him before whether

washington has to be concerned about your brains ability to deliver damage. and i want to throw in one potential example because um, we started talking in the 1st part about the invasion where incursion into the kiosk region. and i've seen in some ukrainian need to speculate that one of the objective so that the raise was to on down the nuclear power plant. the in course can, can use it as a, as a trump card in potential negotiations with roster. first of all, let me ask you whether you're seeing that wasn't realistic stride in here, or you have another of these brands deals. fantasy is that the then you're creating leadership a so proud of my gut reaction to that is i have to go with the latter than the former. if they really had any plans on taking courses, nuclear power plant, they would have planned this much better. and there would have been much more resources thrown into this. it could have been something that they said as a way of trying to justify what had happened. and if there was that window of

opportunity it passed, it's gone. now, at the same time it's been voiced as the as a legitimate target. then we have have a number of examples of ukrainian forces, shelving various nuclear facilities. i've heard the number of experts raising concerns that nuclear a targets. i sort of becoming legitimized because it is being used by a nation state that is fully supported by the west. are you concerned about that sort of aspect of the problem that facility has been where previously of limit in uh, in nation national warfare is now considered legitimate. i mean, look, you hit a nuclear power plant. i mean, we're all dead. and this is something that, at the end of the day, all but the most diehard war hawkish leaders in the u. k, in the us will say this is a red line. um, you know, we don't want a tr noble. we don't or more to the point. we simply do not want to give russia

a green light to retaliate. right? we were hearing up until about a week ago the talk about whether the u. s. and the u. k. was going to listen to restrictions on ukraine to launch. larger missiles would look more longer range, deeper into russian territory. maybe even hitting moscow st. petersburg among others, and put things response very, very simple response that he gave to the pebbles sold and was, if this happens, we know that this was given orders from nato, that this is nato's approval. we no longer see ukraine as the culprit, and all of this, if they are doing this, nato was the one that gave the order. we consider nato to now be responsible and directly engaged in the war and suddenly the us and the okay decide they're gonna take step back and bought all of this. so, you know, red lines are being drawn summer saying 14 is bluffing. putting is in a way, saying, try me, you know, try me. you really want to go that far. i mean,

come to your senses. well, i think put those response was very measured, but at the same time there is a very heated discussion here in most go about somehow the kremlin needs to drive the message home to western powers that they are supplying. or if you're praying with long range striking capability, will have certain limits and consequences if the russia words to strike the young to create that. and i'm sure you wouldn't want that to happen. but let's imagine this hypothetical with russia. we're just trying beyond the ukraine. um, what do you think that would be the depending upon where they strike and they would have to again, this is all hypothetically or, i mean if they strike beyond ukraine, but let's say that they do strike, let's say, you know, a noodle, military installation, a military nato, a naval installation. this is going to cause a major uproar within nato,

between those that want us to, for peace. because this, they don't have the capability or the stomach to bring the to, to, to escalate the conflict. and look, there are a number of hawkish noodle countries pole in the baltic states, potentially even finland that are going to say let's you know, let, let, let's do this. and that my goal is an internal risk. nato is having a very difficult time trying to find consensus there having a very difficult time even now trying to get some of their countries to commit towards you know, armaments lending. i mean even within the european union, you have countries like slovakia and hungry that are openly keeps saying that we will not embargo russian gas. we will not accept ukrainian green because it hurts our own economies. we're already beginning to see the cracks. we're beginning to see the ruptures with getting this supposedly united coalition. so god forbid

pointing should be forced to retaliate outside of ukraine. it would be, it wouldn't be a very, very come to heart moment with nato on how to respond. well, uh professor rosie, i hope your concern about that is cute is in some uh, western capital. so they'll, they'll have to wait and see. but for the time being we have to leave it there. thank you very much for being with us. thank you again and thank you for watching hope to see her again on the world's a part the of the the what is a part of the leg?

isn't it, but it would post that isn't the defense you of us in that in the word? or is it something deeper, more complex? might the present good? let's stop without pleases. let's go out of how we were looking at. i was going to dream live for dreams come true. we have approximately 10000000 people in california that are risk of becoming on house look, good man pulls up somebody for working to pretty jobs and still not enough because of the cost of leaving also has increased coal bags and he'll buy chest last year alone. the amount of, of homeless rose by 12 percent in california

of the above the 4 people are killed and $41.00 that has israel targets to the port fees. and that's who the controlled parts of gammon with infrastructure and how trends coming on. defiance is rarely approximation. of it has put alita habit and this rollout, you folks outrage around the world with crowds marching in from fast against the escalating is ready. valens of the region to europe. certainly explosives follow through the north stream gas pipelines, the remains unclear. he got me who was responsible for the sabotage, although my.