u. s. u. k. european countries. and they are prep, but they are assistance to ukraine to be prepared for a big military conflict. and now everybody says it openly, it was denied before, but now even the officials in britain in us, they say yes, we were there with the there was think look, they fight very good because or, and i think in this regard of whether they were prepared for a war for, for attacking russia or for resisting russia. it does matter because here, put in a loss to quote, i think was causing it. so who said the intentions, and it was a bismark. yeah. intentions don't matter. what matters is the 10. yeah, exactly. and the potential of ukraine has been increased significantly, whether russia, rightly and correctly calculated, they were saying that's another big discussion. but to say that this operation was a totally unprovoked, irrational move, that's a bit too far. ok, well for we have to take a very short break right now, but we will be back in just a few moments state she didn't, ah for ah, a one contextual to part with that a look on the research director of the vault discussion club before the break, we were talking about the military operation that russia conducts in the ukraine, and i think authorizing something like that would have been a major tab before any historically minded russian leader. but especially so i think for vladimir putin given everything he said about how the russians and the ukrainians apart, the one people would he have to part with this rather romantic geopolitical notion, you know, that your green light the military operation and don't you think that rushing the way was how hostage of that idea that you know, we and the ukrainians or brothers and wasn't the west using that in a sense, calculating, counting on rushes, inability to take a military step against ukraine for thought. i would not overestimate the intellectual capacity of the west. so when you said that they were rational in center or rational, yes. as you say, that the county calculate how to provoke russia. i don't know, probably not a movement of thinking in the west as we see. since the end of the cold war might be pretty disastrous for, for some process. or what is true. yes, the narrative are and which put in and that many russian decision makers base the approach to ukraine is a group of mine. the not the only one. so you can argue quite grounded about this concept of one nation and one people. because for example, in the soviet union was completely different idea in russia before 19th century, it was another version of this. and we'll put in the revived is actually the approach which prevailed in russian history in the russian state building since me the 19th century. it wasn't an emotional idea or was it because, i mean, the way i see it that he as a commander in chief, had to take rushes interest 1st and foremost and, and many analysts including, i think people are associated with, well, they have claimed that, well, he's sort of push this, solving of the ukrainian issue off for quite some time that perhaps if that have been addressed earlier, we wouldn't have to deal with the, you know, with the casualties and this level of destruction and the level of west and push it back as we are dealing with right now. do you think he has it hated perhaps for a little bit too long. some people believed this action had to be taken down 14 whenever the thing started as easy to be wise for somebody. yeah. i don't know what it is. i'm also to show that it wasn't the emotional put in is not a very much emotional person. yes, he believes in this narrative and he believes in this idea about one nation. but actually, many of us, including myself, were very much surprised to the beginning of this operation and not, not to call it shocked. but actually approaching was very frank. if we remember his article published in july 2021. exactly about this, the genesis of russian and ukrainian relationship and the conclusion that the article was absolutely clear. that's the question to us. why we didn't, didn't read it as, as a what was written. she said that, yes, we believed this is one nation. but we respect realities which emerged for many reasons, that there are 2 states, fine, and we are rated to recognize, to accept this state with one condition that this state is friendly to our, to our state than fine. they can corporate, like i didn't know you as canada and so on. but if the 2nd state will be based on the anti russian ideology and become the anti russian bulwark, then the state will not be there. you mentioned the 2014 and how this whole debacles started with the association association agreement. and just a few days ago the e leaders formally granted ukraine and moldova candidate status calling it a historic moment, a good day for europe. although there were some negative comments as well, for example, from you commission president or sewer on the line. who said that this decision was taken in the face of the russian imperialism. i wonder it's been much the same question as with nate, or do they authentically want ukraine in or is it another case of expansion or promised expansion for the sake of expansion and spiting russia? no, no, i think this is like a trip, so they don't want to grain in the understand very well that ukraine is absolutely unfit to become member of the european union. even if we take full decides all the traditional problems. so you can buy this as a country at war it's, i've gone through to all rules and principles of the european integration to accept such a country. what is interesting and coming back to the beginning, call our conversation europe in union and european leaders who launched this project and then continued that. and i'm, i believe that this project was one of the most successful in european political history. ever. human d e v. i mean, the european integration starting from the beginning of the, the, the, the, the, the, the closer to me actually. okay. but. 3 the initially tried to dig distance to every sink, which has to do a job politics. it's not about politics except it's about development. it's about democracy. it's about economic cooperation, but please, nor geo politics anymore. europe fed up with your politics into, into essentially, so there's and now it's the other way around the other way around because boss or mr from the line and the machine, the chairman of european council d. c openly. this is our job political duty to take ukraine and probably looking from this angle. yes, they the, they have to give some, some hope to ukrainian in this edition. but that basically eliminates the all idea about the european integration because in integration was not about that. and that's the question, not about the future. we agree on the european union, but about the future of the european union policy. and i think there is another concurrent example, all fine, the war is not just being warrants, but being followed by actions. and i mean the, the effort on the part of the e, u, a to limit its dependence on russia's energy sources because energy up until recently served as anchored robes for the whole relationship. and in some sense, preventative from deteriorating, given how both size. now try to cut it off. are there any safety catches left against further escalation or even against a bigger war of wider conflict given how irrational or geopolitical things tend to be? you know, i'm afraid the only mean which still works is nuclear deterrence. unfortunately, that's very sad and that's very primitive. actually we are back to 176. this may be fifty's. above to yes indeed, you are right that the network cannot make into dependencies, which has been developed very carefully since late 906 this and yes indeed, it was an enormously useful mean to protect you repeat countries including the soviet, went in, and then russia from escalations, now it's gone, so we see that interdependencies now play the opposite role there for that the weapon. and unfortunately, in th