what you said about that the beginning about the demonization of both sides. that is a typical behavior of cold war is that when you're not just involved to what you say, great power politics, but it's actually more existential. you are black and white, many came good against evil, correct me if i'm wrong, but i think back in 1062 and before and after that both sides recognize that security is a sort of 1st and foremost, this is tammy a structural issue rather than a moral or emotional one and that security achieving security. it takes a lot of painstaking work. a lot of very technical negotiations. ringback about where, what kind of weapons in what numbers should be located. and i would argue that most could still insist on the quantitative approach, whether they're west wants to trade in very emotional times. you know, this remain in the ukraine, should not be given to the russian bully, we should not succumb to russia. blackmail, do you think that's intentionally manipulated or did the west indeed lose that diligence? you look at security strategically in terms of rational objectives without passing moral judgments. first of all, i want her to say that the west is a bit divided on this. and in the vanguard off, this sort of new code will behaviors. it is the anglo saxon country is u. k. united states and australia. interestingly enough, and some influence in germany, ross, a movie reluctant to pose it in quite such stock. not just a geopolitical strategic terms, but indeed, ethical, modern terms 1st and 2nd. yes, this is again a reflection of the failure after 1909 to have a stablished. what you suggest is an indivisible piece order. what are the west seems to have had, is a 30 year young just like great in a sense they had before cuba. and that, you know, of course, are going to dominance. and why this is portrayed in such starkly cold war. many can black and white terms is because this 30 year young is coming to an end. suddenly it comes as a shock to understand that russia was no longer going to accept that you know, this endless expansion. and they go back and just policy strangely enough is you know, go petroleum policy. it's a yes in policy and put it. and his successor is to say that security is indivisible. that is the 2nd leg off that whole how think a parish charter is timble as down a declaration, all of these declarations. but the west has been focusing on one aspect that each country can choose, its own security alliances. whereas both most kind of course, beijing, because interesting enough beijing, china has actually quite said the west must take into account your security concerns is it's indivisibility. and that's what we're failed to do for 30 years. and like in cuba, that we simply have now a moment of awakening realization that you have to we have to go back to the negotiating table. the russians have a lot complained about the existence of double standards. but i think what we are increasingly hearing back from european leaves is that these are the double standards are justified, morally justified, because the west is on the right side of history. and you know, for me, the person who was born in leningrad with all the painful history on that city, at the hands of a certain western european power. you know, i cannot, how, how, you know, hearing certain intention connotations. and these type of rhetoric, meeting, western leaders, western decision makers, understand how these sort of moral discourse is perceived here in russia. because whatever you think about putin, you know, his, you know, he's a strategic thinker, you cannot deny that. but his family history, his all personal history, is also rooted in certain events in russian history. and i think he's genuinely sensitive to russians being portrayed of being treated as to mansion. absolutely. one of his speeches about 15 years ago, he said that russians are treated as if they're barbarians who've just come down from the trees. and of course, this is again, i'll go back to the issue. it's a, you know, a lot of personalities involved. but ultimately, it's a systemic issue about how the cold war ended. i keep going back to back, because it really is, this is what this class is over your claim. now the, the so could, you know, the, the russian troops and the one side of the military exercises on the other. so it's all about the sense that we have a system, the western old or if you like the librium international odor, which is democracy and human rights and all good stuff. and the point is, is that the russian vision is not opposed to it by the image is simply saying that there were 2 piece orders at the end of the cold war. there was that go 12, your transformation will have to establish a framework in which you can feel comfortable. whereas the liberal idea puts, rather than emphasizing geo politics or security or is nationalist interests. it's all about the over emphasis on principles which will support, but it has to be politics, is all about a balance between values and interests. and by over emphasizing values, you actually undermine the interests of all concerned here, among the advice escalation before and looking it from a tactical rather than strategic perspective. some analysts in moscow speculated that i'm putting out those ultimatum style demands and massing troops on russia's western borders. allowed moscow to make west pay attention to the issues any concerns that weren't even considered as deserving attention. only year ago, starting and dialogue on security principles in europe. isn't that a small break? so in and of itself? yes, no, absolutely. i can quite understand that argument, and again, that's why cuba is important by planning to put michelle's on cuba. they actually built the u. s. to negotiating table. and of course, it was a success to the soviet union. the jupiter missiles will be the 2 on from turkey, and a promise was given not to invade cuba again, like to buy pigs the previous year. yes. why you could argue that till advised is that yes, the door has been opened to negotiation out to the issues which have been waiting both yeltsin y. gorbachev yeltsin and put in. but you know why to advised? it's that it's not, the door was opened, the door was smashed down, and so maybe a more delicate way, opening that door may have been better advised, but then you'd say there would you refusing to open the door? so the only way to get it was to smash it down. i understand that argument didn't dordy misplaced one way or another for in order for the tops to continue. it requires some sort of football sites to have a degree of negotiating skills and certain conception of a level playing field given that after you know, for the last 30 years, the what has been assuming that it's vision has to be accepted and complied with. no questions asked, do you think there's a skill set where these negotiations to continue rather than, than you know, go on with value preaching, media friend via and etc. all those exactly are skills that the west is so good and practicing. yeah, no, absolutely. and compared to those leaders, i'm thinking of jack kennedy and robert kennedy in 1962, who in many studies have shown just how intelligent and of course they resisted the military. talk of the defense secretary at the time. mcnamira was actually, you know, advising that we can't put up with this. we need military action. and of course, in washington today, there's hotheads who actually saying that as well. so absolutely do they have the skill set? the responses to your social security trinity ideas develop delivered in december, they answer from nato showed a completely inadequate response. it was highly, i do apologized. and of course it completely closed the door to a possibility of negotiation. however, the u. s. response was actually far more nuanced and it, i actually think that biden, despite his own personal inclinations as somebody who has been at the head of a u. s. foreign policy for facing it for many, many years he had he met was put in june 20 last year for the geneva negotiations. and of course because they went no way. that's another reason why gosh, has continued bashing or the dull with it's false mobilization. and they, on that this response actually does suggest room for negotiation and maneuver. so the diplomat of us on so was, you know, obviously disappointed, rushing all sorts of ways, but it's kept the door. the door is still open, i think is a huge positive american response also include a langley weapons into your crane and increasing. and you know that military contingent in europe, the western media and i filled with reports about the imminent war. and i think even those people in moscow who used to dismiss it as deanna just part of the american a muscle, flexing it or the political postering. then getting a little bit a nerve, especially taking into account the temperament our, the political temperament of our ukrainian neighbors. how likely is that an open confrontation at this point? do you think they could be a, why not a big war, but still a war? at 1st the us response actually did open the door to the band on a deployment of still like massage and so on. in your thing, but obviously the, what they would call the defensive weapons is being rushed in by the anglo saxon powers. don't forget that germany refused to allow britain overflight rights over. so it has to go over the baltic and denmark. there's a huge military industrial, complex number, communist eisenhower wound against a military industrial complex. and of course, it's only got more powerful. so biden in opening, keeping the door open for negotiation. it is, but it's not blinking. the secretary of state or jake sullivan, the i national security advisor. it is by personally whoever you them. but of course as you say, even zalinski, the president of your claim is saying that there is no immediate threat or 5 full scale. so no, and the, the idea of an invasion is very much a london washington thing. it's not a repair. i stand apart from oppose and about to your publics, of course, the, the usual suspects. so, the situation is extremely dangerous. an idea for russian invasion, i've always said it simply, nothing is excluded but extremely unlikely. if any action didn't come in defense, it would be using long, long gains to act, weapons and so on. and another thing to remember is that ukrainians have over a $110000.00 forces on each side of the border. and of course, in part the russian, semi mobilization is to prevent a sudden attack on the dung. best of the sort i had against the territories of armenian occupied it. you're not going to come back. so the military situation is extremely dangerous and has been for the last 10 years. and getting worse, so military exercises on both sides. planes flying within inches of each other. so an accident is just waiting to happen. well, what is also waiting to happen is a little break. we have to take it right now, but we will get back in just a few moments. ah for ah ah oh gosh, i never say they're going to further me for geography me, chris you too. but john the musicians and the from gashodi she can hi sharon, my name is risha riled with kaiser. yeah, i look forward to seeing the group moved with she been wholesale and kelly recording quote, and i renewed my for my 2 year. sure. thousands of london q 2. i learned that to me for she gave us times to i must be lucky. i could see adam of satin, although you know that you can think of samuel pesky asked him. you myakea protection for him. um, to see we get my son, the money that i can live with . what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy confrontation, let it be an arms. race is often very dramatic, that development only personally, i'm going to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very critical. i'm time to sit down and talk ah welcome back to wells, of course with richard club, professor of russian and european politics at the university of canada. this is what in the beginning of our conversation you mentioned? the principal, indeed, is ability of security that the russians are insisting on, which is essentially an idea that no country should enhance and security at the expense of another country. but when we look at russia, a country that occupies a quarter of the european land, it's pretty clear that it's security interest somewhat larger than let's say the security interest of melrose, estonia, georgia, or even mid sized european states is not only a matter of security. it's also a matter of responsibility when it comes to, let's say, the fight against terrorism, or they fight against the infectious diseases. you know, russia is usually expected to intervene when things go awry. and as i did, for example, in the catholics on defending, not only incumbent government, but also western substantial western investments in that country recently. why do you think the west has such a big difficulty? accepting that russia would have a certain area of not only influence, but also responsibility in this part of the world. indeed, again, when has to come back to the post cold war settlement where there was no decision, no, no framework for behavior of their so called post soviet space. and i got from the beginning, there was a sort of a neo containment policy. is that the fair russian imperialism coming back? so you call it responsibility and leadership, and i keep that us as the major power, just like united states in its own region, in china, to educate and it's part of the world has responsibilities. but this was never counted by the western powers because of that vision of a liberal, international order, which is like a universal monro doctrine. it means that they can be no regional spheres of influence. even regional phase of security weren't allowed. because that would, by definition, infringe this universalism of the west. but now all of that model is being challenged. and as you say, yes, it does have yes, possible. it is. in addition, as a permanent member of united nations security council says, not just regional, but oh, even global responsibilities. why isn't that difficult for the west york 2nd? because i haven't understand why they would have, if you, let's say 30 years ago after all the transfer is associated with the end of the cold war in the collapse of the soviet union. but now the, the united states doesn't have the means or the desire. you involve itself in every part of the world, they just withdrew from afghanistan because they don't want to waste their resources. they do, they really want to be a sort of a global policeman. let's say in catholics or energy, if they're not even in georgia or your brain when things go arrive there, when they write a different russia to deal with it and pretend i interest as wow, yes, to put to decay. but the fray would then be, they would say, is that they can be no challenge to the soviet international sovereign independence of countries that you can move in. because then of course, there's a part of element of double standards because there's so interventions in serbia 1999 it up later, libya and so on. but yeah, the, the idea if you are sure as the regional head, human or older maker is not been accepted. and that is why the western powers. so nato absolutely refuses to engage with the collective security, treat organization which was involved in kazakhstan as an organization. so refuses to give space. i think that's of course, one of those big elements on the agenda today. and it will be helped of course, by the guys of china, which is also finally moving from a unit polar world to a multi polar well. but it's very painful person for those in washington, in london to understand that this, like some russian coming day to say, 0500 year period of western dominance is coming to an end. so there's a lot of civilizational cultural issues involved as well as security factors. now speaking about the collapse of the soviet union, which i mentioned before, last year, march 30th anniversary of this historic event. and there is an burgeoning debate here in russia, an analyst about that of the solidity and resilience of the state of the former soviet republic. that ability to exist as self deficient, responsible, independent states who can take care of all the issues that may happen on dietary, to be the terrorism. on the spread of infectious diseases. what, what have you. we've seen a succession of crisis in on those territories, starting with georgia, ukraine could get done armenia bellows. now potentially it gets done. i do sort of natural growing pains. do you think the map of the, of this region is still not set in stone? i'm not even implying that the russian would come and take over them. i'm just asking us specifically about the ability of terry trees or state to exist in all the south. yeah, absolutely. so this 30 appear says, since the disintegration of the soviet union is still continuing. some people say that slow motion collapses continue. oh is too much to is taking much longer to build nations and states in the region. and this is where jackson's i day of negative sovereignty is important. where the only sovereignty is that given by outside, by the international system, was internally these countries are divided and unable to establish genuine polities . i think you claim this one of those. and we've seen this since 2014, that the enormous division between these 2 models of statehood one which is pluralistic, ingenuous and encompassing it's multiple identities. and the other one which is this, the new nationalist exclusive, is vision, which is why this crisis, today's, at the intersection of the crisis of the post cold water and the crisis of stated in particular and you can but as you say, some of the other central asian states, and of course south focuses as well. so russia rounded by a whole stack of unstable se, and of course, the whole region across it is tensions. and, you know, when you say afghanistan come outside and elsewhere. so it's a very dangerous part of the world, and as you say, russia is the most powerful state in that has certain responsibilities, but obviously not to infringe the sovereignty of the states. and yes, has no intention of doing so. if we look at the soviet subsidies to former soviet republics, if i'm not mistaken, the largest amount per capita went to georgia. where is the biggest recipient in absolute terms? was ukraine and both of the state now nurse very visible animosity towards russia, and i'm pretty sure that the russian leadership is quite aware of that. when you hear that put in was nothing more than 2 in corporate ukraine or george and jim, believe it is absolute nonsense. this was the hilary clinton line off to the announcement of the what was going to be the your nation union. you action economic union. she said to in a famous speech in dublin, we know what protein wants and at which is that it was to create the soviet empire . and we know how to stop it. well, i've been trying to stop at this imagination since the beginning. so no putin came to power, one of his 1st things he wanted to do all the way through was to stabilize existing borders to actually build up the domestic sovereignty of the states. yes, democracy human rights. an important element of that. but also state capacity, just the simple ability to govern your space in a reasonably effective manner. you claim, for example, today has a lower g d, p per capita, than it had an independence in $1009.00 to $1.00. it's a fuss. and so in many ways, if you actually was to invade, to take it over, to have responsibility for a country which cannot manage, it's a phrase in a humane and democratic manner, which has extremely hostile populations, debilitating infrastructure, lots and lots of problems. many rationalists argue that taking over ukraine, taking responsibility over ukraine, would be the worst thing to happen to russia, that it would be a major blow to its own ability to develop itself and be a strong, agree or disagree with that that would be suicidal or russia it would be absolutely suicidal it would be equal and perhaps even far, far, far worse than the soviet invasion of afghanistan in december, 1979. which of course pigeon ski and other started to say they deliberately pulled the soviet union into that fatal mistake. and some strategists in washington today, no doubt would like to see augusta make this huge mistake. because, you know, an invasion is unthinkable quite apart from the loss of life. and quite apart from the fact that you can and people, the people over the rushing people overwhelmingly peaceful. all they want is to develop and live normal decent human lives. now he quoted, i mean, also argues that men get, romans is the only way to go. and i wonder if that's really the case because they had of ukraine security council. i like, i like seen denila a few days ago, warren, that in the west where to continue pressing or to start pressing rather you grants, you comply with them in agreement and it's current terms. it could, is stabilized deciding as the stable act as it is already from within. and i think there is a certain kernel of truth and that because if we remember the situation back in 2013, it was the sudden you try on the issue of the integration with the european union that led to the uprising and the you know, very, very passionate reactions from the ukrainians, the site to do you think the misc agreement as as good as it may be as a satisfying, as it may be to the outside powers needing the ukrainian society can digest it now after pouring acid on it for so many years, no, it can't, but still it's the only way forward. so in a sense we have a, an impossible program. the only way forwards is not a way forwards. the, the means containment, as you say, it hasn't been. and i will say that their responsibility lies to some of the members of the normandy format, france, and germany. in particular, because on many occasions, anglin merkel refused to put cash on care of the meeting in december 2019 after zalinski was elected. and don't forget, he was elected as the peace candidate with overwhelming majority. if you can, people reflecting what i say, the majority of your opinions won't piece. and i know that it's quite clear yet what happened, even as they were meeting in france, i was put in as a lensky. people these the, the, the neo nationalists as i colon. let's not call them fascist. let's not call them anything extreme. these are just neon. nationalists who have a very limited vision of your current state and they were mobilizing already in kit they. so you could say this out, her guy twig article around twin is holding. you can nation and state hostage. and so, you know, earlier on those in the dung, by shirt opinion poll showed they were happy to return to canyon sovereignty. as long as they could have a level of was taken cultural or torn political economy. today you could say, what do the people of it? don't bass want? nelly, i over 650000 now have russian passports. so it's it's, it's got even more of a tangled and difficult issue. but you know, at least within the mens format they may well build a moment for me to have negotiations. i also think the united states should join it because ultimately european powers have shown themselves to be ineffective and unable even to stand up to the normative principles in ukraine, where we see a tax on the russian language and culture. where's the european response to that? well, professor, what we have to leave it there. thank you very much for being with us today. that pleasure, thank you. and thank you for watching hope to hear again next week on the well the part ah ah, better by a survival guide. if they can use my own storage safely at the federal with no, with raising canes. when we get the rest to 7 years. a report. this is all smart city is a city that's using technology to make people's life easier, happier. collecting a lot of data to try to improve the way things are in theory, these big organizations that are now amazing and pulling all that data together. they're not looking at yours and individual, necessarily lose data being collected or so much data that there's a real possibility of privacy violation. and that's something most of us wouldn't want to world transparent, but we must live with permanent surveillance with among the stories that shaped this week. russia closes the boss, go off of germany, west and made your abandon the principle of leaving politics out of sports with war mongering commentary coming to the for is the beijing winter olympics kicked off. russia has a mass more than a 100000 troops on 3 sides of ukraine. u. s. officials have threatened severe sanction. release 6 children are killed in heavy fighting in northwest syria. well, president by nails, the skill and bravery of american.