Leave russia after the beginning of all of this blood in invasion of ukraine. And its great honor and pleasure for me to be hosting this discussion with bill burr of ga about his new book, the cold of the new cold war. The United States, russia and china from kosovo to ukraine, which were recently published by by kim market and of this research of some very and and the whole topic of the new cold war is not something new for me in fact i remember how we discussed exactly the same of the theme think of the the the common new cold war between russia and us or lets say collective west is as president putin prefers to call cold in mom in december of 2014, when made an interview bell about the cold, which came after the russian ization of crimea after the implementation of western sanctions against against russia and when we broke down and now coming back to this great overview of the russian American Relations since since the nineties. My first question will be if these current state of of war not not the cold war but but the actual falls war in ukraine was inevitable if this war or the reasons of this war where rooted in the very beginning the relations between all soviet russia and us or. It could be avoided in any way. Yeah. Thank ilya and yeah, its its its a great pleasure to to to see again, actually. And that im very grateful to you to too for having accepted to be the discussant in this and the session in this introduction of the book or book launch. This is the book actually was released just today in the United States, which is why we are having this this event on this day. So thank you very much for that great, great pleasure for me. I mean the question you are you started with is what is actually a practically what the book ends with in some sense because its ends with this war in ukraine this invasion of ukraine. And without getting into details, because this is not a book the ukraine war as, you know, its a book about the the whole process since the nineties as you said up to now and how it. To 22222 this war so i mean the short answer to your question i would say no i mean or yes it was inevitable i mean no it wasnt inevitable it wasnt inevitable it was equitable and. This is the product of of the conjunction of. Two processes actually, one which is the us led attitude towards russia, towards moscow after the end of the soviet union since the nineties until now, you have had a certain pattern of behavior of washington towards, russia that led to a crispy portion in the relation between russia and the west in general and especially with the United States. It has gone through stages since the clinton and the George W Bush, the when had obama, which i mean where the tensions were little lower and then you had trump again but then that was it was china that you had the the highest tensions and so i mean theres a history of relations that lead to the the present outcome on other hand, you have another process which is russia and about which, you know alia certainly better than i because you have lived there, you have studied very closely and even written a lot about what is happening in russia. But so you have had a at the level the russian political of the regime, the regime, the evolution of the putin regime, the increase authoritarianism, the increased nationalism, the the the the the even the revanchism of the regime that developed the years and especially after 2012. As i tried to explain the book, which is a kind of turning point the the putin regime goes full speed using nationalism as a main tool of legitimation and hence the the whole discourse about ukraine that will be developing after that. The 2014 annexation of crimea you mentioned and the incursion Eastern Ukraine then in donbas and the whole. I mean a chain of events that led to this fatal day of 24th of february when when you have this invasion invasion. So so you have two processes. And i think of the two was inherited. And to get back to your so too complex if i a bit the issue not of the two processes was inevitable there could have been other developments options other rulers you know and the. And even if we take the the very short time frame of of the the weeks the months before the invasion even then i think and my my view of that is that putin was not i mean, had massed the troops and all that were threatening the use of force, but he was ready to bargain and he offered and there were russian proposals. But those russian proposals just completely dismissed by the United States, by nato, as things that are out of the question cant discuss this and this just propaganda. So this the lack of response is something i think that precipitated the the what happened and the increase the conviction of of putin that that this is the the right course and this invasion, of course he completely miscalculated that its a terrible miscalculation and of course, its very tragic for the poor ukrainian population thats tragic for for the russian even soldiers who are killed like you know cannot cannon fodder in this but it is also it will remain in history i think as one of the most the biggest blunders. Miscalculations of of of any of any imperial project, if you want. So, so, so i think at various levels, what whichever angle you take the the the answer to the question remains that was equitable. Think that was equitable. A but okay we got that and the issue is it is important to understand what led to that in order to try to prevent a repetition of the pattern and even something may be much worse because we have never been so close to a at least from since the worst moments of the cold war. We havent seen a in which the world has been close to to a new global war, to a new world war, which then would also involve nuclear weapons. Because speaking of Nuclear Powers and it is one of the most frightening aspects of what is happening, is that putin has been repeatedly threatening to the nuclear weapons, tactical or not, but you get into the spiral of using the nuclear weapons, the there is theres no real limit. You get into a very, very dangerous. Situation. So so, yes, i think that it is important to to understand how we got there, that it is not a matter of an evil putin, that, you know, the way it is portrayed that we would have done this anyway. I dont think things i think that putin himself is also the product of in part of a certain us attitude towards russia. That is, of course he is the of a local russian process of is the he he built a kind of regime but this is also determined by the environment that he encountered the International Level especially in dealings with the United States and western countries. But the United States particular because countries some of them had different attitude. So a russia like or france. Sent to this for this expanded the answer. In fact. So, you know, as a person who was barely full and the russian so as a researcher i found the the main kind of motive motive that you have behind it is the idea of the russia is always responding, yes, hold the border will start because russias response impose some threat or of later in the expansion much of russia is responding to some measures of ukraine. So basically although of course we know that this is the universal way to justify every kind of aggressive war of deplorables. Also explaining that he is only a defendant, germany gains the gains the threats from soviet union from uk. And so but now in the Current Situation the question of responsibility in exactly in the framework of this danger or of the you know, Nuclear Threat and so on is well is is extremely important. And all who have responsibility for for what and this this site of this idea that the russia only responding and whole responsibility is lie only on on the west. So my of view and i assume for four years this is very lets say one sided. Yes. Where it is for a kind of primitive and they find the bomb of the many merits of your book that you carefully, carefully researched the the role of the Russian Military complex from from the nineties the development of this nationalist imperialist approach to the postsoviet states from the from the russian officials. So for you provided some very important data in your book about their real scale of the military expenses in in the in the in which were growing during all the recent, lets say two decades. So do think that for now what could be the you know that the place in mind in russia in this and this where a dangerous Global Situation if lets say is possible to communicate to make deals with the current russian leadership and on what basis these deals or ceasefire or Peace Agreement could be could have been like. Because as you rightly point out in your book roster, the huge trade of distrust among the and russia coming back to right. So well well thats definite clear beyond the the the book but but yes thats important issue if i understand you well your asking me how would i see an end to this. Ive written even recently in nation think that i mean i cant imagine. Lets say a political settlement the peaceful ending this war without involving the United Nations and without involving. And here again we find this the where where whereby the United States busy antagonize in china at the very moment when the of china to a peaceful settlement is obviously a very important one and the europeans understand that and thats why you have the succession now european leaders going to beijing to to meet the chinese president have the spanish prime minister. You have now the french president going the the the the the European Union also also love underlay and and so you have a of of of visits to to to russia by people who are trying to china to trying to the to to to get china to intervene in in bringing this war an end. Now now, i mean, putin wont stop the war without a face saving, a solution i mean, otherwise, of course his own regime would be in jeopardy. And china would not support any kind of of ending of the war that would a again be regarded as a major defeat for the russian side. So this will involve some kind of compromise. And i think the the kind of compromise that the ukrainian president zelensky, the beginning of the war, was offering before i think the United States and other western powers, britain in particular, to try to get him to to a more. Radical kind of solution position. This this idea of of, okay, you withdraw to the the lines of 24 february because who are invasion and we can find a you know us a long long Term Solution for the crimea the rest through maybe a mechanism of referenda and and and ukraine will not join they do i mean, would remove this goal of joining nato even from its constitution. It had been added in the constitution of ukraine. I mean, that kind of compromise is something that that could worked and is still i would see as the the the possible. Put it. I mean, the possible basis for a political but to be frank, it has become very difficult and more time goes on it is more difficult unless unless the military situation becomes such that well both sides come to the conclusion that going further would be too costly. The i think for for now western countries through ukraine are betting on this counteroffensive. This that in the spring now in spring and summer depending on what the results are, they can we will see some move, i presume, on the diplomatic level but thats at least seen from the United States. I think that the European Countries much bigger interest in stopping the war than the united and thats why they are deploying more serious efforts that direction. The french, the german in particular and and hence this attitude towards china which is very different from the american the u. S. Attitude towards china. You know sinking for for this analysis. And of course, we hope for for such a solution. But i probably will will develop my my question because well, if we can this kind cease fire of this kind of agreement with the current, lets say, russian leadership, how to deal with the where of the whole, lets say, consciousness the world view hold of these some of the International Relations shared by not only by putin but also by us leadership, by chinese leadership as you explain in your book already and on focused on the on the foreseen global confrontation of the visa of some kind of multipolar world. And also if there russell regime russian political regime by no more a more designed iran the idea of the military expansion so for tomorrow as a person what goes forward and the russian awareness is very hard to imagine russia will under putin will stop was just or was some some modest achievements some in ukraine. Yeah sure. I mean i agree with you i think as i said its a matter of now of the what militarily there would on the ground. So i mean yeah its clear that the Russian Military has been i mean achieving very little and when you think that an army like the russian army one of the mightiest military powers on earth has been fighting for for for for now months to to get the city, bermuda, this is i mean, you know, a disgrace militarily for a Major Military power like like russia so obviously i mean unless putin has become completely irrational and mad, i mean, he he he will or he who need to see or his military can see at least a show you go to the i mean, the the heads of the army they can see that they are not advancing. They are not able to achieve. They are in a and this is costing them a lot. And also the the russian economy benefit from very High Oil Prices and gas prices in the immediate of the war. But has ended now prices have been have gone down even if in the last 24 hours they are up again because the Oil Producers decided to to reduce their oil output in order to to to to stop this decline in of the the the of the oil prices. So economically and from various aspects will be really difficult, i think, for for for russia to carry on forever. This is not possible. And, and hence, i mean there might they might come a point where where also if the chinese get in because chinese also would be worried that this ends up in a kind of major western victory and that is not good for china. So china would want to prevent that and would then might pressure on russia to to accept some kind of face saving compromise. So this is thats why i think and have written that chinas contribution is indispensable they use that term for any settlement. Of course, if you leave it just to putin with his kind of of increase. Very distorted view of the world, i would say. Well, it probably might might. Be become as irrational as oil as hitler has. You know, when when he ended up in his bunker, you know, and so so you have a tendency like this and thats this is something in here, you know better than i know that this. There is a shift, a, in the political regime in russia, which has the traits of neo fascism fascism. We couldnt say that years ago. This is a deed. The product, a development which went through the the rise of opposition against putin when came back after medvedev. Replaced him for four years. So in 2012, this led him to to to seek some alternative a legitimation ideological legislative. And he found ukraine at that point and as one russian author that mentioned call it ukraine mania developed in russia and and indeed the regime managed to to really increase its popularity putin increased a lot its popularity. Im sure you you you agree i mean you are there can see i mean i it from what i read from outside but that the regime increased a lot its popularity through crimea the annexation of crimea was very popular and so you had the development of this kind nationalism and they did the more and more authoritarianism to the point of now really russia almost totalitarian at the level of repression i mean every day we we read articles and testimonies by russian russian dissidents and the rest about the the fact that there is no more possibility for any expression dissent. Its its repression is increasing dramatically so so of course the issue is not if putin would go any kind of settlement or solution. The issue is he might be forced by the conditions on the ground by his military and by china. And thats what you may regard as possible factors in bringing him to some kind of compromise. Yes. Also i think very interesting. The wearing or dont for a moment your book when you describe the approach of the and discussions on the Obama Administration about the socalled reset in their relations russia and you explained that initially obama really interested in some lets see real reset so it was not just just to rhetorics and in fact russia in in one moment was also kind of open for for these talks with us and there where they their mobilization. So the opposition and mobilizations in russia and also the beginning of arab spring thats a radical change the they approach of russia and its very interesting how the role of the lets say mosque movements the popular movements play, this crucial role the in the in the, lets say, global politics. Yeah because definitely whole Russian Foreign policy is designed not only against the, lets say, u. S. The federal money of of the west, but also against any, lets say, ideas, the revolutionary of the Political Revolution of overthrow of the current government on the government by popular and the the core like ideological moment beside the beside the russian is that the masses lets say the they have no edge on civil so there are just one or another global power or secret service behind every every uprising. So i think and case the reaction against ukraine after maidan which a kind of Mass Movement was the Political Revolution for sure. And you agreed with was above this point. And book. Its exactly game is the continuation of this lets say control revolutionary crusade of of putins russia. Do you think that in the further of the you know global the popular masses in various ways could play some significance significant role could intervene somehow arena of of this this dramatic history. Oh well i think you would be better placed and then than me in answering this question about russia that is whether the Mass Movement in russia could wake and and do something about that we all wished for that. We still wish for that. But the unfortunate honestly, its not the for for now, the horizon now we know that you know, defeats and gender revolutions and the history of russia an illustration of that the 1905 revolution came the wake of the defeat. Japan at the the in 1970 revolution came in the wake of the defeat against germany and and the first world war. So if if the situation the military situation deteriorates to, the point of of looking more and more like a defeat. And for instance if the ukrainian counteroffensive in the spring and summer achieves major results, then we may see you know, an awakening of Mass Movement in russia as in the russian history and may be some, you know major mass protest or even a revolutionary movement of i mean spontaneous revolutionary movement because there are no organized able to do that against the against russia seen that 1905 and i think in february 1970 and so so there is a pattern there in the history but this would be predicated on the defeat and. Well i dont think it is that easy to to to to defeat russia for the ukrainian to defeat russia either even with all the western support they are getting, because after the general of forces the size of the country, the size of the population and and the rest, and the fact that one key issue that allowed putin to pursue all these policies over the years is the the rent and the fact that the russian state is our entire state. Its it it it it has the oil and gas around and hydrocarbon. And this is a major income for the state, which allows the state to do every kind of policies. You know, this i mean, states this, the more states can use a like the oil and gas rents, the less they have to abide by the economic rationality of a normal state. And then you can have the more and more of such policies with which verge on the irrational. Actually so thats thats the point. So, i mean. And for now, the regime has been trying to to give the illusion to the population that this is only a special, as it is called, and that it is not some it is not real a real war for though, where everybody wanted to have a mobilization. You have a war economy. You have so regime is trying to to get the impression that life is continuing as usual for for moscow or other parts of of of of russia. How long this will be possible . I dont know. Again i mean, you know, better but but the the the the the the the weakness of the opposition is also an important and this the fact that the the regime was able to crush the opposition after 2012 and all that and that the way navalny was treated and the rest the very repression with means which are far beyond those of the run the czarist time mean the that we are today of the range of repressive tools that the regimes have is much larger incomparably more effective than anything the regimes had a century ago. So thats thats why its its very difficult to bet on or to on on the resumption of hamas. But at least we can all hope that this will happen at some point or. Another oh, yeah. So moving on to another topic of your book. So you wrote a lot about about china, about the chineseAmerican Relations and chinas with russia. You point out how. How was the rise of also the military budget of china during the recent 20 years . How the treats, lets say, us and western powers and so on, but in the same time you describe chinese Global Forum Policy as something much more, lets say a from all them than the Russian Foreign policy that the china is not ready to to take part in such adventurous military adventurous is as the deep and soul in the same time, there was a constant move of china to be more and more like close with with russia and. You describe this tendency of for, lets say, risks. On 2020 or even more years so what do you think will be the role of china chain of family if if china will will ready to follow this radicalization of putins. Lets a global and its interesting that oh just just a few weeks ago there was a visit of chinas leader to the moscow and he openly said that he he believe that putin will be reelected for for term of russian president ial elections will set them less than a year. So how how close and how how lets say almost and friendly to this relations between russia and china could be. Yeah well this is the safest bet one can do is that putin would be reelected if you have elections 2020 next year in 2024 big especially now you have less and less space for any opposition so will be just a you know sham elections like the elections of the chinese leadership itself. I mean theyre there was no surprise in the jinping being reelected the recent congress of the party. So all this is cooked long enough violence and and its almost comical that Xi Jinping Tells putin that hes sure that hell be reelected. It i mean this the moment you remember in russian of opposition media they discussed this point of the chinese leader at the putin already was elected and that moment well she said exactly exactly exactly so now china has i mean a very different conditions as as a country and as a state in the sense that what we said about russia that the russian regime has little constraints because of its frontier character that the order the rent that it derives the hydrocarbons. This does not apply to china. So china is much more normal economy if you want where and russia is china depends very much or to a large extent less than previously but still to a large extent on exports, its very much with the the global economy, the Global Market and the countries and the rest. So and also militarily a china started from much lower point if you take the nineties as a starting for the new cold war. China was far below the two others. Russia has inherited the military might of the soviet union, which was know the second Major Military power on earth. And in terms of nuclear power, russia is the first actually is the Largest Nuclear arsenal in the world. And the larger than the United States. So so china had, every interest of building its economy and and and whereas putin may have chosen early nationalism as one of the key ideology like an elegy of his regime. The chinese the chinese is a communist party have seen the main legitimate nation of their regime in the Economic Development of their country. And that the the the standard of living and the rest and they they i mean the country achieved spectacular in this industrial. Its a fascinating of First Development of course with all the problems including huge ecological but still in terms of people out of poverty there was a huge achievement and and therefore of the three powers of this the strategic threat as as i called it in one of the chapters a china is by far the most behaving in the most peaceful manner. That is there is a huge in the military expenditure of china and those of both other countries in terms of of proportion of gdp of gross domestic product. I mean, the economic importance of of what they devote to do to to the military and and and, of course, i mean, contrarily to both countries, the United States, which beats the world record, the number of foreign expeditions and invasions of other followed by by russia, china not projected its power outside its borders. Now you can see a lot of things about what happens within the border tibet xinjiang. But this is not the same as expanding power outside your borders projecting power invading other countries which both washington and moscow and more are doing so. So there are basic differences here and china quite now, if you see it is contrasting its Foreign Policy very much with that of washington and appearing as a kind of conciliatory power globally that foster of peace, peacemaker, contrasting with the United States seen as troublemakers or people inciting you a countrys to to to with each other. So thats general attitude that. The the beijing is adopting. But at the same time now there is always this threat that if the Economic Situation it hasnt yet but and it might have evolved a in a dangerous way with the covid lockdown and the rest. Now we have seen when the Mass Movement and the us speaking of Mass Movement in china we have one we havent had in russia. I wish we had had the same in russia. People went to the street and we could you could see how the regime well instead major crackdown on this that Movement Like tiananmen in 1989 the regime i mean backtracked very and you know just abandoned so you see that this is a regime that fears the movement and and thats also interesting. But the danger, therefore, is that in case growing popular for economic or other reasons, the regime might become tempted in playing the nationalist, whether taiwan or any other issue like putin has has done, because thats the way putin cultivated his popularity. So thats the point. Now the key issue is and we havent spoken lot about that because your concern is mostly as as a russian, the russian regime. But i to stress and thats what i mean one of the major threads in the book that United States has dealt greatly antagonized both since the nineties during the Clinton Administration at the time when that administration actually was confronted with options because inherited of the postcoup cold war with the end of the soviet union and the and the United States entered what was called the unipolar moment, it was the only major power still acting. I mean russia was in and it was crumbling and and and at that point, the choices that were made by washington, by the Clinton Administration to enlarge nato and knowing this will antagonize russia and that russia will feel that this is a whole i mean, directed against russia and against russian security. And also to antagonize china, which until then been actually a in some sort of of partnership with washington during the last two decades or more of the cold war when china, the soviet union were very much at odds and. And then in the nineties, clinton chose to to to. Antagonize china on. The issue of taiwan by military gestures and my key explanation for that rationality for that is that the United States needed to such tensions in to renew the alleged essence of western europe and japan and some other South East Asian countries like south korea and taiwan itself towards the United States. So the best way to do that is create or recreate with russia, even though russia is no longer communist between marks. But became actually a wild capitalist country of, i mean, russian capitalism is worse. I mean, the russian social system is much more to the right of any western country actually today. So to so there was a deliberate choice to to to cultivate the tensions russia and with china in order for the United States to this hegemony over the rest over the rest of the west the collective west as you said as putin calls it or the geopolitical west in that sense, and which includes also is the east asia. I mean japan and and the rest. So there has been a deliberate policy and this is detailed and discussed in the book since the nineties and actually this book a part of the book is i mean this is a one third of the book is made of a book that i had published in 1999 with the title the new cold. So it is from from that moment that i identified what i called a new cold war that that had started in nineties. The cost of the war was the turning point because if you remember after the not i mean, at the time when the you know, the soviet union was collapsing. Bush senior, the father George W Bush george h. W. Bush, made the famous speech in in september 1990, before launching his war on iraq. And that was new world order speech. And this became a major film and what did he promise that promised that the this new world order would be based on the rule law and, you know, the International Law defending weak against strong states and all that, a lot of promises and then the rest, you know. But that would be a violation. Another of of these pledges. And that starts with the kosovo war, which is a war waged by nato, hadnt gone to war during that whole cold war. Then you have this war in 99 waged by by nato, circumventing the United Nations security council, in other words, violating International Law. And then this will be aggravated a lot by the invasion of iraq, by the George W Bush administration, in full violation of law, and therefore that the United States played a key role in in in actually a blowing up blowing out the the this any any possibility of a rule. I mean, a new world order based on the rule of law, International Law and the rest. So this this this promise completely violated, completely betrayed by the United States. And therefore, the United States bears a major in the state of the world as it is. And and thats, of course, i would say, almost something obvious, because it was so much more powerful than else. So it had much more responsibility in shaping the Global Situation. They used this term during the clinton years shaping the United States was, conscious that it was in a position to shape or reshape the Global Environment and its shape that indeed, but in the worst possible manner. And this is the manner that that led us to the present situation where we find ourselves not only in the continuation of that new cold war that started many years ago. More than 20 years ago, but even on the very close to a hot war, to a not a local one like the ukraine one, but but an international conflagration. And thats a very difficult situation. Yeah, i will agree with with your analysis but you dont look you perfectly explain how you as a forum policy produce this the spirit of confrontation broke out they are formed nations of International Law but then they got the response from from countries russia who said okay no rules no law. Okay we will play this game. Do you in a more radical. Yeah. So and you you wrote a very impressive conclusion in your book about the the ways how these International Law could be could be restored and that is the only way out from from this dangerous operation that we have for full for now. Yes. So youre explaining from is that the humanity as a whole is facing now with the climate with the climate problem, with the refugee problem was with the poverty and so on and that is the that is the moment for, lets say some responsibility in both the state state interests. So do see any lets say move to these things side and who could be agent of this of these restraints and of the International Law. Well definitely at this definitely the last movement. I mean there there needs be a third real conscience of what is going on and thats one of the Major Concerns that i have and thats why i that book in order to help people get of what is happening and as we said from the beginning of this discussion how we got where are and how it was equitable. And but to to avoid that you would have needed a Mass Movement aware of is going on and fighting for Something Different for another world. You know the the the slogan of the Global Justice Movement another world is possible, well, yes, another world is possible, of course, as as we all know it. It wont appear spontaneously. I mean, we have to change the world in order to get another all we have to censor the present world and only the the the Mass Movement, the new generation and particular can do that. Now, you have increasing consciousness of the of the environmental dangers the ecological and the climate issue is of course a major threat. And the major threat facing facing humanity, at least as that exists, not as a potential threat like that of nuclear war, which also is a major its a is a major threat. And and that there should be more of what is going on. Political at the International Level, at the level of International Politics today. There is a Good Progress on the in the new in in realizing what is happening at the ecological level. I hope that there will be same at the the level of understanding of what is going on in international and therefore putting the same kind of pressure on the the governments everywhere for a different world, for for for a world that is based on rules, the rule of law and the rule of law, the existing is the the the the cornerstone of. The International Law is the un charter. And this i mean, it includes very good principles that should be a the cornerstone International Relations and not only of law. But this law should be abided by and and and respected. So thats the what, what it would take in order to, to to get to a different different kind of situation. And we have to be aware that this is as serious as the climate issue and it is connected also, by the way, because. One major way of devoting dedicating the sums of money that are needed to fight Climate Change, to fight poverty and, to fight disease, pandemics, the rest is to radical, diminish and militarily expenditure. The world spends a huge lot of money on on on on the military. And its basic common sense. I would say that if you had a global disarmament, synchronized disarmament of all countries reducing at at an agreed rate their military expenditure you would you could free trillions of dollars for the the wars the only wars that are worse that for which are the wars against Climate Change against the poverty and and the rest that we. Same to you of course where we can develop this Business Council there a lot of points that some specific ones that i i can also mention from from your very impressive work for from this book but now probably have to the to the questions. Oh okay so should i read the question for you to to answer. So the first question, how do discussions within the Business World of debt, globalization fit in with your view of the new cold war . Are they complementary to trends . Okay. The globalized asian . Well, this in itself is a matter of of of discussion. But of course, there has been a trend, especially with donald trump of of nationalist retrenchment and protectionism, of of of imperialist powers or not speaking of protectionism, which is legitimate of of. A weaker or poorer countries to develop their industry or speaking Major Economic power, getting into a very narrow nationalist mercantilist kind of of attitude and waging what was called a trade war against china. And here we can see here the difference. Donald trump, quite a even fascinated by Vladimir Putin because of the affinity between right far thinkers. They share a lot of common values of the far right. But he regarded china as the and thats not because china communist between quote marx but thats china because china is a Major Economic rival a much more much more serious economic rival to to the United States than. In the other power russia is no economic russia economic only pales in comparison with these countries. Russia and the United States and and china. So, so i mean, the the talk about the globalized nation, the trade war and all that, that involves mostly the between china that part of the new cold war, the china us part of it much more than the russia us part of it until recently course now since the sanctions since 2014 and then again the new sanctions after the invasion of ukraine. The issue has escalated even with the with. So indeed i mean today. I mean the set of trade relations is is not separable very obviously from the general political tensions that characterize this new cold war key. Next question a few long join them later today seems like an that putin has exactly the opposite of what he set out to do with the invasion of ukraine. Natos legitimation and expansion what do you both think will be russias response and our relationship to see more nations join later in the near future. I have my my answer but oh please please. So the question is very good because actually if we look at finland, the neutral status this country was one of the worrying, important achievements of the rule of law order after the Second World War and. So the fact that this country later and there border a between russia and like grew or grew in nearly three times of course look like a real challenge for for russian for Russian Foreign policy and look like some settled that that is very opposite to the putin expectation. But paradoxically they were more any public reaction among the russian. Even the russian official and what about idea of membership of finland in in later in and there are a kind of a few explanations why russia is so relaxed about this. You know, effective, even publicly relaxed. I think thats the reason is that for russia, the question of, for example of the presence of nato in ukraine is not about later is, lets say some kind of civilizational questions and there were written by some experts a lot that for for Putin Ukraine case where a kind of symbolic meaning in his nationalist imperialist universe so ukraine occupies a totally different place in russian imperial list imagination them than a few months. Yeah thats why thats why i think we we cant talk about the war in ukraine only as the iraq of them of the later enlargement in the in Eastern Europe. So we have to analyze the complexity of the situation take into account the history of relations between each lets say Eastern European or countries with russia. And i think one of the very important moments in internal interreligious book is where she. Quarter from from his from his visa to ukraine before 2014. How how was their approach to to ukraine even before maidan which never was treated by russia as the true independent state where. And thats why i think if we analyze the responsibility of nato and the question of expansion of need to we have to understand this not just one side. The its not just the us who is deciding about the now this enlargement, but of course, there lets say, the position of the societies of the Eastern Europe countries are very much important. And we have to understand that the formal in countries like poland or Czech Republic or now baltic states, they in the total majority of they absolutely welcome the presence or in their in their territory. So thats thats why this the full story behind the current should be also treated from the from the perspective not only usrussia relations but lets say Russia Ukraine relations russia few motorways russia halt relations and so on. Yeah, absolutely. And. I remember you told earlier that you were impressed. I think was in 2007 and visiting czechoslovakia, you saw a huge Mass Movement in prague against the deployment of natos in in in the republic. And after all, you know, we also know that putin was before maidan, the the Public Opinion in ukraine that the polls indicated rejection of of the idea of joining. So the behavior putin towards these countries led to the absolutely you know contrary result to what he. Expected or wanted which is to to turn the population of these countries to into into pro pro very pro nato countries. Populations and. The same goes for for all the indications now the starting point, of course, i mean, of of the story of nato enlargement is that a russia and the real scene that was in the nineties was expecting or hoping that the United States would at very least keep as it was and not in it. I mean the ideal solution would have been dissolution of natos because you had the of the soviet union the dissolution of warsaw pact that was the counterpart, the Eastern European counterpart, nato. Now since this did not happen the very least that the russian leadership hoped for was, that nato would not be enlarged. It be kept as it was, and there could some kind of agreements with countries of Eastern Europe. But but then the decision of the Clinton Administration, of after hesitation, after debate within the administration, which shows that there was other options possible, finally they opted for this enlargement and which started with the three countries, the visegrad countries, the Czech Republic and hungary at that point, russia had the kind of red line which was, okay, dont integrate into natos states that border on the on on russia, on the mainland, russia that be a red line. We want to keep those buffers. But then this was violated by the bush George W Bush administration, by the integration of the baltic country, which were only bordering russia, but they were former soviet republics and they were in in russia and at that time. Of course, the putin was in power then because that was 2004 when they were formally integrated. And that was something that he he took obviously very, very bad. And thats why also when in 2008 during the natos George W Bush insists on the integration of georgia and ukraine this lead putin to counteract this by the incursion in georgia. We forget that in 2008 he did in georgia what he would do in 2014 in Eastern Ukraine and he did that in georgia. He didnt do it in 2008 in ukraine because he believed that the ukrainians did not want join nato. As we said. And so his idea was to, you know, put his foot in the door and the doorway that is to prevent the door of being closed. You just put your foot in country. Then it becomes in a state of war with you and then it cannot join natos because they too cannot integrate. If, for instance, if georgia had been integrated into natos after 2008, natos would have been in a state of war with russia. So natos would not do that. And you have made them in in in ukraine. And you had this shift and the opinion and that he came to the conclusion. Therefore, he must do the same and he sees the opportunity to annex a crimea, which i think is a different project for him from donbass. What hes been doing donbas because of the specific history of crimea and the way the russians look, the crimean issue. So now of course this war he waged, i mean, this invasion of ukraine in the name of preventing the further expansion, nato and thats another aspect of the the total miscalculation he made he rendered the huge service to the United States policies. He rendered a huge service to natos resuscitated data which was brain dead as the french president called it before all this and this i mean, you had a resurrection of of of the two and the further expansion and. Thats a full a full i mean, one of the aspects and if you said earlier that there was hardly any in russia on finland, but thats for good reason because if there was a lot of comment on that, that was would would have showed everyone the total failure of the putin policy so because he didnt want to do thats why they they just kept silent about they they are embarrassed by this major defeat because its a major defeat and not only finland and are now joining nato but in fact ukraine become a serious candidate to nato and in anyway in fact ukraine now is fully integrated in the nato or system and the big achievement of of putins invasion, i think. Yeah, i will just separate that. The fact is that finland this lot the orthodox slovaks it is very important for difference of the its membership later than lots situation in ukraine for a for putin lets say modulation that is very worrying the moment so the next question it didnt. Became it didnt receive much attention but chinas recent success on establish some talks between saudi arabia and the wrong seems evidence of their point about China Project itself as a peacemaker occur. What do the both of make of that move and what it means for inter imperial rivalries as human china isnt just this for the sake of their reputation. Well, you you are turning at me. China is doing that when it comes to the saudi kingdom and iran, because it is in the interests of china to promote peace between. These countries, unlike the United States, which. Actually plays on the contradictions tensions between these countries in projecting as a lord protector the overall mode of of of gulf countries in the face of why is it in chinas interest that this there should be a peaceful relation there it is because china is a major client of of these countries of the saudi kingdom actually. China is the major buyer of saudi oil and and also a. Buyer from from from iran. China needs to diversify its sources of of energy. It doesnt want its very clear, for instance, in the chinese attitude and you could see that there was no enthusiasm from xi jinping when he visited moscow about this new pipeline in siberia because china doesnt to get into a situation where it would be too much dependent on even russia they dont trust each other i mean its not a love story this you know friendship limits they speak of is hypocrisy. We know how it functions. But this is not the real thing. Now, china still the interests of china is is still one where you would have i mean, a peaceful relations. China is really, i think, has not been happy at all with the invasion of ukraine. It has said that times we are not happy with what we and they said that several times they reiterated more than once the principle of territorial integrity of all countries, which is the u. N. Charter. They didnt need to do that. They did that. And is a clear i mean, clearly a distance from from which which is violating principle very, very clearly. So so china is doing it because thats its it happens that this is much better for world peace than the attitude of either moscow or washington. Thats the point. Right now. It may change in the but thats the kind of point we have though. Thank you. What . Two more questions. So and well probably finish with the lost during conflict the us engaged in the of iraq was clearly a disaster and yet the consequences of the blunders seem relative minor in retrospect in terms of us public memory its almost as if it never happened what consequences do you both see from that and reason and why have the powers that been so success for the cultivation a sense of amnesia about it. Oh. Well, first time. I mean, i im not sure that the consequences of iraq has been so minor in the sense. You could see the impact also in afghanistan later on this. Major defeat of of of of washington has renewed the socalled vietnam syndrome to a large extent. And there is again this this strong sensitivity against the foreign expeditions which which you could see already from the obama years. And obama with this program to go to complete the the the the the agenda of the the schedule of of withdrawing from in 2011. You could it in a different form was donald trump and and it carried on with biden so this is a consequence of this major fiasco the us imperial germany that that iraq was now the the the are less. May may be less visible than vietnam. You want to compare because of course the number of troops engaged there was much more limited the the the the casualties the impact of all that on the one hand. And secondly, that was much less of a a hot war all the time. Ukraine, for instance, or vietnam, for that matter. What i mean by that, that in iraq, the toppling of Saddam Hussein was not met by any mass resist since the masses not willing at all to take any risk to defend the regime. Saddam hussein. So happened in a kind of indifference of the masses. And later on you had fights some fighting against the us occupation. But that was never a popular war like you in in vietnam or. If like what you have in some way in ukraine today against the russian invasion. So the scale of the fighting, the scale of, the war and all that, despite the the terrible consequences on iraq, of course, but is not comparable. And thats why i dont think its its its matter of communication, think its a matter of difference of scale and difference of nature of this wars. Think you end the last question, which is the central one in terms of the left and the peace movement. What can be done inside like us or western, where there is this place. Thats the the key question to which i wish any of us had an answer. We i mean, world are we we we we. What should be done politically but how to move from from from the the present situation to that kind of of a situation that we were describing just before that there were the Mass Movement, the young generation in particular would would be conscious of all the of all what is at stake react to that. Well, there is no shortcut that but the the the the the the the the the i would say the the ideological and political fight and thats what the it take. I mean of thats one of the advantages of of the modern technologies. They are double edged of course they can be manipulated by governments by all sorts of far right forces and all that. But they provide also good tools for the the the the the Progressive Forces for a to spread awareness. And i think this is this this is the starting point of any of any of the build up of any of any Mass Movements. So we have to carry on. We have to intensify and and also to make known to study what is happening, you know, because a lot of things are happening now more and more there is more and more with the modern, as i said, technologies and more is written about trying to explain that. But the well, this is we should also be able to point to an alternative and thats why i and the conclusion of the book was was pointing to some kind of alternative because its not enough to to to to denounce the bad guys in washington or in moscow or anywhere else but, i mean, you have to point to should be the demands a Mass Movement i made some proposals in this regard. Think so much i also my own answer to this question. I will cut to the to just one point thats for now you have. Lets say, a conduit of, the hundreds of thousands of and russians who are in western europe or us because of this terrible situation and because they suffer from this war and the poles this war and, if you want to, you know, to clarify your position, to expand knowledge about this supposed and the experience of the the Common People in this situation, you have a Good Opportunity to talk russians. And ukrainians and some get information from from them from directly but not from some sort of propaganda media from both sides. And i will say that sort of smokers also a great source for the information and for reflection of of Current Situation and this is definitely the piece that doesnt produce the simple answers to to them current questions. So i want to thank you a lot better for for this conversation for your book. Im the one i was must thank you thank you very much ilia it was having that and thank you to haymarket to the team join them and our with us in the background thank all and thank you to everyone watching this this conversation and very best wishes and hopes for author Katherine Olmstead looks back at the years leading up the world war ii and Media Coverage of the rise of adolf hitler. Heres some of what she said recently at the roosevelt reading festival in hyde park, new york. Sometimes the american newspapers made explicitly white supremacist arguments. For example, the daily news worried that if american anglosaxons fought germans, hen the socalled white race would commit suicide and asians, or the yellow race as the daily news called them, would take over the world. Remember, this is the best selling newspaper in the country. The press barons argued that they supported isolationism because they believed Franklin Roosevelt would use the war to seize dictatorial control and become an american caesar. They believed roosevelt wanted to the aid hit hers enemies not because he sympathized with the victims of fascist aggression, but because he believed that a war would give him the opportunity to seize control of democrac ccel elections and watch the full pgr anytime on booktv. Org. Just seahatherine old to. Stead or the title of her book, newspaper axis. And youve been watching booktv. Every sunday on cspan2 the watch nonfiction authors discuss their books. Television for serious readers. And watch them all online anytime at booktv. Org. You could also find us on twitter, facebook and youtube the booktv. If youre enjoying American History tv, hen sign up for our newsletter or using the qr code on the screen to the receive the weekly schedule of upcoming programs like lectures in list erie, the presidency and more. Sign up for the newsletter today and be sure to watch American History tv every saturday or anytime online at cspan. Org can history. Funding for cspan2 come from these Television Companies and more including midco. Mco, along with these Television Companies, supports cspan2 as a public service