Doesnt never really accommodates the russian argument or presents even russian interests. So it becomes very difficult or if i could them instruction do their job in order to understand what was a challenge to russia. In order to explain what its doing so its, its not a great time for academics in the west. Im afraid i know that your politics and you cannot mix is your primary academic interest in your area uh, expertise in you for many years. Weve been following on russia. I use of energy for its economy as well as in trade with other countries. We are speaking just days after gas from suspended all its gas applies to europe, citing technical more functions on the north stream one pipeline. What does it mean for both sides . Well, this is sir. Another step in the complete breakdown i think of the entire International Economic system. But it also says the important component of this search, the divorce between the west and russia. Now for some time, we did, the west has been wanting to cut its reliance on Russian Energy because sir, in International System, what you want to have our symmetrical interdependence. That if you want other to be dependent on you, but you should be dependent on them. So again, rush has been dependent on western air technologists industries. Sir. Transportation corridors, sir banks, currencies, insurances, payment system. So across the board, one problem for the west us, weve been reliant on Russian Energy and. 7 russian agriculture and the Us Agriculture her as well. So the, the, the problem now of course, is by reducing or cutting reliance on russian gas and oil, or we actually her to our own economists obviously because, oh, in, often with trip, this idea that were buying Russian Energy of some kind of charity to russia. But of course, this is it, if you want Competitive Industries in europe a, you did, the key ingredient is always cheap energy, so cheap Energy Resources to match it, metals and different resources. And we can always got this from russia, and its been through all the history, the germany, about it, not only in recent times and started actually during the height of the cold war. And yet at that time, both sides are respected, dia, contracts, and respected what you actually called the balance of dependence. And this is a term that rising and put in the present in this country used to refer a lot, but he also was making a point that in order for this balance of dependence to function properly, it needs to be mutually respected and appreciate it. Do you think the europeans fully understood and appreciated their reliance on our rushes energy because it gave them an enormous competitive advantage . I meant that prosperity, or at least in germany, was, was billed on it. I dont think its an exaggeration. No, and i think its obvious that that wasnt appreciated because if you saw the rhetoric and bah, back in february, march, the argument was, will we dont need rush and gas and all, we can cut it completely and well, well be just fine. But us, we discovered or will not find them. Old industries have depended on this entire competitiveness. So even if it was possible to reduce reliance on Russian Energy, it will none, but nonetheless, be importing energy and other more expensive source of energy. So air which means that our industries will be less competitive, especially the germans and the, and the so, so the long term repercussions are, yeah, are staggering. But in reality, i dont think were even able to replace it cheap russian gas with expensive from other places. So i think after this, probably there will be bit more appreciation. Can i ask you something because its very hard for us. The russians to understand that the, you know, we have the same measure 7 times and cut once. When out we had talking about the massive f fundamental economic issue, and yet at this level of corporation that exist that for many decades was cut in a matter of a couple of months. Dont you think that the Decision Makers at least looked at be at the Balance Sheets . I mean, how would Something Like that be done in such a short period of time in that miss . So little consideration for, for their facts and went on on their own domestic economists. I think its for leadership to be honest because it didnt respite from the german side to have recognize starting a cutting for example, north stream to would be suicide. Cutting off swift would be suicide, and of course, stealing the half of the reserves from the Russian Central Bank would also be horrible for trust. So, but i guess so in the hit a moment when the emotions were running high, it became common sense come, became impossible is this is a lot of self harm. All the areas where russia has been dependent on the west. Oh, its kind of relies on trust that is a, you know, using western Technology Banking system. All this had relied on not just the russians trusting the west. But what were now seeing is, after this sanctions and cutting off trying to destroy the russian economy, the rest of the world is looking at the west knocked, you know, with admiration that theyre standing of principal. But the west, the seem to be more rogue. Now, in, in the international it can the International Economic system. So the rest of the world, china, india, in all facing possible threats to trade with sir russia. Then our questioning, you know, is it safe to be, have us reply lines dependent on, in a western industry. Some technologists is safe to use euros and dollars to swift to use their banks. Theyre starting to, you know, question all of this. And this is why the economic system, which has been sol centralized and western centric is now fragmented. So, you know, this should have been obvious. I mean, ive been warning since 2015, at least that this is their direction. Were moving and im sure that, you know, the european leaders are also aware of this, that this is the direction were heading. But nonetheless, her, they only impulse now is to double down and we continue to do it even though, you know, there are consequences, keep piling on. Thats actually a very interesting question. Because a few years ago it was fashionable to use the terms of game theory. You know, ah no 0 sum game you chill, banner, fancy, you know, i, you scratch my back as great your is. But it seems that even the whole idea of neutrality, if its russia or china and deriving those benefits is politically unacceptable. Right now, how we come to the point when only the neutrality of harm, i, hon. Myself in order to harm you is politically admissible this, well, well, i guess to some extent has always been like this. If you know, for example, if do not have states can break the chinese to come in half the, it would be beneficial to that for the us to do it. Even if 10 percent of its own economy would be wiped off. The always look at the interdependence, you look at the relative, at least, look at the gains for yourself. At this point of time, russia is gaining from diverting and supplies to you are the market. And thats what makes this irrational castillo, you know, lets say were all on board like, its a great thing to harm a russian economy. Well, if this is the measurements were going for it still it will, it, were not, were not shaving it because it went from, you know, we close a lot of pain to russia and only small to us. And now were see, its been completely reversed now. And the sanctions are actually hurting the west more than russia like 1. 2 example is and were not going by russian guess. So we bite from ellen g from china instead will brush us export it to the sanctions. Russia keeps the energy price high. Russia exports to china, china takes a markup, and exports to the u. Rush us being benefiting cost, the price our per stock, russian export less energy, but still make much more money or all our leaders from usaa, britain, you the all kind of bet their entire political legitimacy on, on this fight that we were going to beat the russians but now, or when this all failing, they dont really have any other solutions. Threatened us, double down profession isnt. This is actually again, a very interesting question. And perhaps even an under explore and how much political mythology and rhetoric influence solid economic decisions. Because here in russia, we usually think of the westerners as those, you know, hard nosed capitalist who are good at procuring profits will only mind their own business. But these, the, this again, i, our typical stereotypes of their westerners. I define what is the basic i Guiding Principles of european and western approach at this point of time, not necessarily to russia, but just the approach to policy, both domestic and engine international. What ive been named values of, of the Decision Makers. Well, i think its, sir, its holding on to this a unipolar moment, which, which you, which is already gone because, well, and the uni pull our moment, meaning that im the only one who is good and noble and theyre entitled to making decisions. Yes. So because the way the International System work is when all economic power is concentrated in one place, such as it was in the west, in a 990 s. And you have certain, or youre very comfortable and you can the and, but you also have the incentive to build trusts because youre administrating the global economy. Now, the problem is, when the hedge am on the clients end, it loses this edge money. If you see that, that amount is more likely to use economic state craft in order to punch down on the other rising power. So, for example, china, russia, you know, we, we didnt have this kind of pulses in the ninetys, but us, we use this economic year levers of power to punish and hot and prevent address our addresses from rising her, you know, youll create more incentive for the rest of the system to shed this reliance and dependence on the west. So i think this is so if this is some of the dynamic youre seeing because said the west has a dilemma one hand, we can just wait and see it that, you know, power slips from our fingers or we can use what we have left of economic power, in order to try to, you know, crush our enemies, sir, you know, the enemys artless other serious china and russia, and the, its, well, its not working. So theres also a 3rd option you can work with you and so called animals to make sure that in b and new world that is already being born, you can ensure the best positions for yourself because as the, as the harris of the previous system, you still have an advantage over everybody else, dont you . Yes, i actually argued this in a book in 2015. I was arguing that the u. S. And the collective west kind of had 2 different paths to take because the inequality was over. And we had 2 options, we could either facilitate a multiple or order where the u. S. Could be like the 1st among equals about still, except theres a system based on multiple artie or we, the United States had the option of a trying to prevent the rise of other states. But in this instance, yes, you could prevent a multi order multiple order from for developing cells, but then youll probably see this multiple or order being developed in opposition to the United States. To see the bricks is he had a china, Russia Partnership business, his assa, ofen o, other overt shows, objective of containing or balancing United States. And obviously, the 1st option would have been preferable. Even the speaking of basinski, he also recognized this dilemma in 2012, i think in the are also said he was no friend the russia would have and still he was recognizing that the its better now to make a. 2 for the us to use the current influence to create a new system, a multiple, a system were held a privilege place. But instead, if we are where we are, we have to take a very short break right now. But we will be back in just a few moments. Stay tuned. Ah ah ah ah, ah, what hes got to do is identify the threats that we have. Its crazy even foundation, let it be an arms race is on the offensive. Very dramatic, bad development. The only personally and getting to disease, i dont see how strategy will be successful, very difficult. Im time to sit down and talk with welcome back to was of course, midland isnt a professor at the university of itself. Eastern norway, professor, decent before the break. We were, we touched on multiple rarity and i think theres a difference in how this term is interpreted in the east and in the west. As i speak to the delegate for this forum. What is actually, what they mean by multiplier to is the recognition that each country, even though there are some common laws of economy and the, you know, social organization, et cetera. Each country develops according to its own historic trajectory at its own unique pace. And its not about so much, you know, trying to push everybody in the same direction as the west tribe or the United States tried to do for frankly, for its own benefit, but rather respecting the difficulties. The differences are various countries and try to find, you know, a middle ground between that. And thats why i think i would disagree with your assumption that breaks and all the other organizations of integration in asia were built against the United States. Because it looks like they are building a lot of mutual benefits to, to the members will read it. Well, yes. Well i, i would argue that they were enough to necessary credit only against us. There were seem to be parallel institutions because the u. S. Centric institutions couldnt adapt to the emergency multiple power to take it. For example, the Asian Infrastructure investment bank. The, the chinese were trying to have the i m. F. Reform to the extent to could accommodate the china more properly in accordance with its relative power. But the United States were sna really willing to reform in terms of the voting power. So, you know, the, the chinese began to break away and they just established a and parallel economic infrastructure. What i mean is that the, if, if United States uses this or organizations course of li against russia, against china, then you will see these parallels parallel institutions being used as a way of, of balancing the americans. What would it be fair to say that the main feature of those institutions, even though they pursue an individual countries, interest is neutrality, whereas the main are feature, all western dominated institutions is ultimately courage. And sure there some soft power and sung trying can ties. But when push comes to shop shop, its always about courage in advance. There were, thats because theyre unipolar, theyre seeking to establish their dominance. So which means see, you know, use this a symmetrical or interdependence to its impulse. Its will on other countries. So you mentioned before, and you know that the, the country all the world should the, and develop according to the, the western model. This is the only reason you can have this. I of the ologist because in the ninetys had reflected the International Power distribution. But, but power is really at the core because beginning that night, this was unipolar. If you would sanction, for example, russia than russia would have to adjust or change its policies in order to get to lead back in 2 into the good grace of the west. The problem in the multiple order it is multiple a system is because they have Different Centers of power and she puts anxious and russia. Then youre simply giving away a huge market share of this is the problem of the multiple order. This is why its important in the west to recognize the unit polarity is gone. Did the world this multiple or that the tools of the new polar order doesnt exist anymore . Now i understand out why a unipolar world would be beneficial to the United States from the political and Even Economic point of view. But when it comes to history, when it comes to collective psychology, i simply cannot understand how anyone can assume that one collective psyche can develop in accordance or, or take the path of without a collective psych. I mean, we are all different even on the individual level. I can be, you can be me. Where does this idea that it is possible to develop countries as different from the United States as, lets say, china, russia, afghan is done where this idea comes from that there. We can essentially be all like that, like the americans. It seems so stupid to be honest with you, my friends weller or from like the realist theory perspective, i think everything derives from power even audiologist, a reflection of power when your dominant asked us was in the ninetys. Its very appealing to, to accommodate the ideologists which promote universalism, because when have a universalist idea, 2nd old world should develop in one specific way. It is effectively means that, you know, the should develop in the american way. And the way there is, while universalism is, is appealing, is because now are you know, that where borders matter less, now you have a system of sovereign in equality. And this is what you want when you are the dominant power. The sovereign in call to me is sovereignty for me, but not for you. So when we talk about democracy, promotion means i can interfere in your country. You can to defend mine, you know, i can topple governments, you cant, i can go to war. As long as you have this liberal democratic here recently, this is something john hurts, pointed out in a 1940 said that then often you find that the more a countries ive democratic domestically the more they will learn, sissy dead international democracy. Because swill cedar us. I need to protect the democracy from the majority, which again becomes a contradiction in terms but the but again to it, i think well sacrifice so little long time ago, m m, m a made this argument that, you know, im a citizen of the world. You had that you had a good, Good Intention we, we shouldnt have all this borders between us or them. But then you had alexander,