The the, [000 00 00;00] the hello, welcome to wells a part. Theres an old legend victim soon as possible, tara belgium. If you want peace, prepare for war, which may be taken as a call to violence in some few minutes circles. But there is also a plea for a ground it responsible at handling all 3. Our team can be starting a war and is dynamics unable piece will discuss that. Im now joined by young, over of director of the people fund this Transnational Foundation for peace or future research. Mr. O burke is great to talk to you again. Thank you very much. For your time, thank you very much. Now mr. Albert, well leave in a very interesting era when almost everybody has an opinion. And its usually a very passionate one about the issues of war and peace. And its usually that war is beyond comprehension. That is, it does not need to be comprehended, it only needs to be condemned and definitely needs to be started. It does not need to be understood for all the underlying reasons. And i wonder if these very passionate, tactical, but perhaps not the very labor it stands is directly responsible for the preponderance of conflicts in the world today. I think we make a distinction between violence and war on the one hand, on the other media on people not to talk about, oh them as you say warfare. Or they love to do last year or so whether its true or sounds and cetera. But what we do in the pieces of business is to look at the on the line conflicts, because thats where the key to the solutions online. Thats never a solution to a conflict on the be in the battlefield. That has its own dynamics. And at some point, you know, the policies will be exhausted. One, will we more or whatever. But when we look at is in like a doctor, a dying most is whats on the line, the way we have a one year on there. And what are these, that, what is the issue that stands between the policy is and thats the funds to mentally important question because most people know the war and then they take it as and who is right and whats wrong. Thats completely irrelevant. Same to do if youre a professional, you are, what is the problem that stands between the pod is one of these and they comp. So because violence comes when you call them your complex here. Interesting violence as essentially as a, as a product. As a consequence of the preexisting disagreements, but i think more and more were seeing a violence or counseling, being employed as simply a means to achieving certain policy is not the ultimate result of the countries of size. Exhausting all the possible methods. But simply as the 1st option of achieving what you want, dont youre seeing that perhaps the paradigm of how nation states i using the war has changed in recent years. Oh, absolutely. Particularly in the last few years when the west is going down, relatively speaking, im getting more and more desperate. Im not able to use the magic power, economic power, cultural power, and all the way it did last day in the 50s, sixties is out. That is what you have left now the only thing the west of the United States has go to that is one that, oh, better than anybody else. However, that says they have lost all the more since we are now morally. Um, in terms of things on that as well on everything. But i think also what you see is a parasite, like, uh, i stream it to you on what i call min max, the military, industrial media, academic complex, me, mac, where you have smalley, who have never been elected to do anything well, the right behind the screen is behind the politicians beyond the limits im from the image is all the enemy is weeks later to make you know more money for the military. So you want, where as international, no one that you encounter clearly say that violence should be the last resort. On article one stage, you shouldnt be established by peaceful means by law. Thats what all countries are written, signed on or on the you. And they told me i like to get every one is my lighting that today, and thats because the global system is in a huge funds formation and change. Now im speaking about the International System and i checked some fingers view as i was preparing for this conversation. And according to the United Nations of the out of 2022, for the 1st time in recorded history, the number of people forcibly displaced reached 108000000, was over 35000000 refugees. And so we have a real, just the ukranian conflict. We have uh, unprecedented number of people suffering all around the world. You singled out a couple of factors that i think contributes to that. But uh, more generally, what do you think is driving this uh, whats behind these uh, blooming number of both refugees and internally displaced people despite the fact that, you know, as he said, there was, seems to have lost many wars. But if keeps pressing the same strategy forward, you can see it this way that the wells probably your to use the be totally covers for d k its, its still getting worse that the Resources Available for lets say for piece, for development, for human rights, for when you and i would call good and important objects to goal is to achieve including the un. Uh sure thing. Im gonna go and program, etc. Im way smaller than what the well this countrys been on the mainland terry. If you take the United Nations, i think it has Something Like 10000000000. 00 for, for whatever it does. Oh wow. You handle them to sound 1000000000. 00 wasted on military if you could. And i could say, well, that is a valuable investment because the world is moving towards peace with the landing and with mitchell understanding fast and beyond. That is, that was true. I would not say that the top 10 best thing, but the thing is weve never was never spent as much on the military on b as in secure as it is now. And its not ukraine. Its on the other place. If you find it, is it dont be something, does that mean every single cell, right . In person, in ukraine, you know, said because it is the types of my heart. But is this more complex than that compact with what the United States and nato comes as a don . Since 911. 00, for instance, were talking about millions of people being killed. And that is something we have to talk about. Why do we accept citizens that those priorities that each of our government suspended on limited sums it seems on the military that has never proved to make, pays or make the whole world system better because of reality and all these things are over k. I are very passionately agree with you and disagree with you at the same time because i dont like this generalization. I think there are a number of countries or, for example, even um, you know, old rivals like saudi arabia and that iran, that im moving away from this happening. Its rivalry in that putting piece and development. It had all why, you know, i download trickle or religious disagreements, you know, theyre all the countries like a website armenian turkey, also exploring ways all for doing it diplomatically settling the disagreements, diplomatically. And i would argue that russia for a number of years has tried to negotiate. Its a very essential disagreements when both nato and ukraine in both space. It has done that before the active space of this conflict. And it says that there were several of the rounds of negotiations in yeah, we have the same dynamic here. Its as if every new more that the west launch is, is like it happens it without any previous context. Its as if people have forgotten about wed be a, they forgotten about syria, they forgotten about vietnam, erupt, etc. What explains in your view, these collective . Im an agent on the past on the part of the western public because we are aware of all the conflicts that have been bought around the world. And we are aware of what is you know of the suffering. Thats my country is causing to people in your green, im ready to accept that fully and i have relatives in your brain. But it seems that when it comes to the, whereas it always has like some sort of a blank slate when it comes to every new conflict, i think is a very much to do with the fact that, you know, the west is kind of leader. I mean, if youre number one in the system, which i think United States still think that it is, then you teach, you dont learn this, these arrogance of power becomes worse and worse over time. Thats one thing. The other thing, of course, is maybe that to come to version to say, but for me was been in this type of Academic Research on piece and conflict issues. I worked in was ohms. Most of my good boy and real life. As i say, i dont think its possible any more to understand western security and defense policy with rational liberty co theory is concepts. Its is now moved into the re all of the irrational. Emotional is calculus. The same thing. I mean, through everything nato stays on this homepage, there is no more. And now lets see is that there is a past due, which about your country about china being the new big strip on the boils down to. Its just that because its different from us. So you invent, of course the threat to you because if you dont have a threat psychologically you cannot argue that tax payer should keep on throwing money into the militarist activities, such as well as a new weapon system. Such a new one, you know, as more on that military, industrial media, academic complex, excuse, lots of countries, your kind of fee to china, to you, right . And saudi arabia that you mentioned, everybody was driving forces outside the control of demo graphic decision making. Thats exactly what i is now, is that we have a military Industrial Complex that is beyond democratic control and its dangerous. It will be all the American Society and its resources and create a ticket. This is a very interesting question. Lets pause for a moment. We have to take a short break, but we will return to that. After a few seconds station, the, the tide appears to be turning against the frame. The counter offensive is a stunning failure. Future western funding for the proxy more is endowed, and european voters. It started to vent their displeasure for a conflict designed and promoted by they were leading. Is this the beginning to be in the welcome back to wells, of course, with young over director of the people funded Transnational Foundation for peace and future research. Mr. Over before the break here, you mentioned this issue of the arrogance of power, and i dont remember who said it but or one of the analysts. I respect the law and he says that the United States has indeed exceptional in being able to strike with impunity anywhere around the world as having unparalleled security advantage. Because no other country used to be at least like that, no other country with striking directly. But as you mentioned, the military costs are rising up and theyre rising up not only in the United States, but i think what distinguishes obvious aside is from america, is that of a society that actually investing into themselves. Look at china and look at the russian look even at the ron and saudi arabia, theyre actually pushing resources into Building Material life. Uh, you know, Public Sector for, for the people. But i think uh, the United States all the advantages in terms of lifestyle. It has, it is losing it quickly. When do you think these dynamic of the arrogance of power that is totally neglecting its own people while killing people overseas . When do you think it will catch up with the people within the wes collectively . Oh, theres no doubt in my mind that you dont have to be a moral philosopher to know that the more power you have, the more capital and i dont believe it should be. Are now if you dont have that moral spiritual, whatever they mention to the fact that you have military weight and how Many Political and cultural power it will go wrong. And thats it. Typically in decatur, oh, when empires go down, they get to be they get impossible to manage or extended as you say. They usually intimacy in the eyes of others. They minutes rise themselves to death and they dont adapt to the changing world around them. They think they can bully like that personally, the old man who has done his best bet can bully the rest of the world. And im trying to is a wonderful example of the way of saying the Defensive Thinking on the Nuclear WeaponsDefensive Thinking in the sense we have a right to rise on how a system that is not the same as the west. And that is, of course, in contrast to russia, a much larger if you will, challenge to the western world or the us dominate impaired of the system. That theres somebody who has invested in social Economic Development list of 700000000 people. What you revaluate during watching. I mean this is just an easy case of the and im saying it all those mining because its so obvious. What was, i mean, i pretty this 40 years ago. I said when the soviet union falls, its brother in the west. Well, for unless it does Something Else such as closing down, they talk and creating Homeland Security in your i wrote that in 1981. And i dont understand why people cant see that those changes in the big world is now for us to adapt to be fine instead of trying to control. Because the west, it not only was in the sixtys as evans is what they wont love to be too philosophical about. And but the old, the great powers, the thrush, or trying to have that period of great humiliation trying to have a center of simulation. We the russians also. They are tumbled by a very bitter one and back in the early 9. Tonight is a, maybe its time for the United States to, to do the same. But the thing that concerns me is the again, the militarization aspect of it because it seems that the United States is not going to go without the slide and is prepared to set up the flames all over the world to do what . Because i mean, as you mentioned the, the system is running out of steam. Its not sustainable. Model name is moral terms, but in practical terms, nobody wants to be within that system anymore. Even the american closest allies, what do you think these people are actually trying to achieve the Decision Makers in washington . What are they after . Because no matter how you look at that, its not possible in practical terms, nothing ethical ones, but in practical ones, i think its very much a matter of groups. Think inside books, they dont understand the oil anymore. And of course, i dont think it is about spelling on impressions, views, etc. That can challenge those. You have yourself. And that, of course, is, as you are going to get, can get married a dangerous at some point because the goal of Decision Makers and nato and washington browser washington are of the very least that we cannot make mistakes. And we have made no mistakes on your right, but more and more of the rest of the world is turning away from the west. The best everybody in the world can do is to walk them to lex. If you asked me to buy friends the relationship with the us, but keep it that they dont antagonize it, dont it dont do thing. Dont help it go down with grace and then work with all the others. I mean, if you call shape or form policy in your, which wont come to lex. Uh, i, m b, you nature, you, westlake and the rest of the world. It seems like trimming up deciding to survive as a system in my view. But what i, what i argue with these days is that we live in a khaki stock. This, this is doctors the means the government by the least able and the least good people that seem to be re books. People dont have a license. People do not ask for any consultancy from people will disagree with them so they will learn something new. Thats why you a sense of even the west. Well, thats why people like i said, totally marginalized, never used by the way media we was twinges 80 years ago. So theres this, theres only one that retrieval, so on that to most dangerous thing, not only for the world that could lead to a new plan weapons way to be used. We know that, but its very dangerous for the west itself. Everything the United States, and i mean the, the moment im saying it was sadness because ive never been an american. It is self destructive that the United States getting we go, you just look at, you know, the really 9000 budget and the white tele home. The american saw the pruitt china from a convention on the new in the field, and now they surpassed the United States and they do this at the time. And again, yeah, everybody in this industry, on the supply that has the right to be themselves, including nations. If youre defined, if you see and the threat to your existence, if you characterize it as somebody or somebody elses right to development, then its, its a lost cause because its a, it is actually also very to tell the tire in claim a if you ask me you know, can we should gears a little bit because e, e, right, theres something very interesting that i want to argue with. You suggested that the world must do away with the concept of re, ill pull a tick. Uh, because in your view its anything but a realistic and its a, its an interesting proposition. To me please, because uh, i think what we have in your brain is the class between a manufacturing perception advanced by the west. We talked about that and the battle hardened re out, she pursued by russia. And the, it would seem to me that if more countries were to adopt re, ill pull it take approach like russia does, for example, the roles would be a safer place. Dont you think like that, of course, the whole thing as you will know when to find a way out. Oh, do you guy do it in a more, lets say see originally kind of a way it is seeing the world as nation states as a National Security over a Common Security regional security. And all those security is maximizing ones own interest, in some cases, to the detriment of others is a warranty to military means when things get tough, you know, those kinds of things in mind. You and thats how i define adoption with