where's history heading now? well, to discuss that now joined by so that a little piano editor in chief of a restaurant in for and the various magazines and research director of develop the discussion club. so can, if it's always a great pleasure for me to talk to you, thank you very much for your time. thank you very much. they informed me now the choice of china as the destination for blinding and put in the visit after renewing his term is not really surprising. and the other thing there is some point in sits with i've given the nature of the historical moment. how is the russian chinese relationship now different from, let's say, 6 years ago? first of all, the visit is not a surprise says you're right, the said, and this is the best response to last year's visit of the germans hasn't been to, to moscow. and that was his 1st visit after the official integration as the head of state. so putting base, the return of s for

a relationship of compared to 6 years ago, 6 years ago, russia had much more diversified picture of international partners. now for all those reasons, this picture has been strength or, and shrinking to the allies to crystallize um, no, no, not necessarily crystalized. because 6 years ago it was a much, much broader scope of, uh, international partners. uh, how much to see are they where, visa russia, that's another question. but to, in terms of economy, russia was 6 years ago or 5 years ago, or even 3 years ago. integral part of international global economic system, which is not the case now because of the western actions to uh,

to remove the russian from international economy. and this is the most important change that russia has to rely on the other very important partners. and so there are many, but china is by default, the most important because of size because of it can all make potential. and because the china is the biggest neighbor. now, you mentioned the previous visit of president she to russia. and at that time, he was overheard telling pretend that the 2 nations, or perhaps the 2 liters as pure hiding changes, the lights of which the world hasn't seen in the last 100 years. and it's already been reported that on this visit, put in is going to present she with a sort of historical manuscript by russian writer in the college and a shasky under the title of what to do, how much history plays into one big countries decide to do

in coming going into the future, or, you know, it shouldn't, the social security is not the most popular right to nowadays in the russia. but apparently he is one of the favorites by she maybe maybe a, but this is, this is quite an interesting distinction. a interesting difference because and the subsidy was part of, uh, um, any, uh, uh, necessarily reading during the sort of time. because certainly ask you whether this events during the service to russia. and he was glorified by the soviet, uh, the, the theory uh, science. uh no, i wouldn't say that the russian mood, especially the mood, the rush of that issue. is there a solution that one in terms of how to organize the country and it's rather of the very conservative approach to uh, to uh,

values to uh means how to govern how to organize the site. and then this regards to it. yes, indeed. i think for china, which is still officially a communist country, ruled by the communist volunteer shouldn't shift. you might be still a real event while in russia we are now in a different phase. as far as the history is concerned. yes or no on the one hand, of course, any decision made by any state any and it had those state uh is being determined by culture and the culture is determined by a historical experience history in this regard. yes, of course, put in is very much aware of russian history and we know that you're almost in a conversation. it has with the russian audience or for an audience like

a couple of months ago with tucker carlson. she laughs to refer to history and this is very important because uh, in the very terrible in town, so disruptive world, you need to have some kind of fundamentally, but this is a very interesting point because as you mentioned, both are russia in china despite their political and governing conservatism, i sort of moving proactively moving into the future that i know the afraid of the future. but why don't we take, for example, the united states despise despite its supposedly progressive his values. if you look at the slogans of presidential campaigns, regardless of whether they come from democrats, of the republicans, it's usually about the return to the glorious past. the united states seems to be somewhat not solid, but very much apprehensive of the future. how do you explain disparate ele, uh, you know, the big specialist on the domestic situation in the united states. but i would say

the current mood is even more complicated because yes, indeed we see. and to be here, many people additional 70 united states, referring to the glorious past, ronald reagan, whatever. well, even the democrats build battery, i mean the, the, the, how much for revisions can we also have so much more forward. there can be at the same time, you know, uh, my feeling moving from far away is that the society in the night stays or probably establishment and united states. they are rather very much afraid of the past because they changed the past all the time. the new approach to history is still appropriate is to, to make it compatible to uh, 2 principals are more um, more, oh uh, stance is more points. uh, as they are and this through today. not historically see. and for me,

it's a very strange thing because you, you basically undermine your past in order to make the contemporary situation more gathered in the bowl. if i understand correctly what the american politicians are doing. now i think one of the biggest challenges of our times, both on individual and collective level as, as to move fast, but also at the same time to stay grounded then this is what history allows you to do and also to be picky about your priorities and i think in the past the west and the united states in particular weren't rather considerate and deliberate about um, you know, the risks or that implants, but nowadays they sort of moved to iniquitous and emissions at the same time. well, having little grounding, as you pointed out how to explain that, that the willingness to be sort of on top of everything while their resources are clearly not there. so it's quite understandable because we leave as the

chairman, she told fortune a year ago, we lease the inability of the unprecedented and pretty rare changes a profound changes. it's not like cosmetic a or does formation add up days in of our life. this is a profound change of how the world is functioning. it's not even jewel politics. there's nothing about the struggle between great bowers, which is a state that in the us national security concept is just a little part of that. because in effect, we see a norm as changes in how society is being organized. so losing that when that when you sit and then assess the dates, you have a strategy about, you know, which battles you, you pick up whether you fight with the joint interest or does this how, how strategy would share from my point to you is

a substitute when you don't know how to address real challenges to real problems, then you need to find problems which you believe you can address. some of them, uh, russia, china around the manageable persistence address, more manageable them them than the societal ones. i wonder if history and historical knowledge at the end of the day is not just the fascination of the leaders, but something that allows letters to have grounding and how to manage their own societies. oh absolutely. it's 63 of the difficult um, the, in this regard, united states as they will have its own problems. russia is not immune from enormous challenges either. we see that i'm the one hand a history and the tradition are absolutely indispensable to keep, to keep going to, to, to have this ground for development at the same time. of course,

if you try to implement a tradition, as you understand the past for the present and the future, it will not work because tradition should be adapted to edition is a setup of, of values not so that police are most how to address issues, got guarantee issues and then disregard a each nation, each country tries to find their own set top of, of, of instruments a rather unsuccessful the, they would say not speaking about different instruments. your role recently the most convincing and not only aligned and our role to you, but also quite distinct about how they approach their intentions with, with the west, at least on a tactical level. what are some of the main differences between most current vision? uh, the main difference is very clear. uh, china is not just uh,

a barcode global economy. it's one of the low. so i've been global economy rationally is not at this point because russia is struggling to, to, not even to regain, but to keep the place which it occupies. and the russia because of our conflict, i would say, can afford to be to be more flexible and more creative. these are the new rules imposed by uh, by a little link to a group of countries that will link you can or cannot, can. yeah, because we, we may have heard so much, i'll send it, we can go exactly well, much tools anymore. they, they, they, they did, i mean, the west, the, the, almost over the thing they cooled in terms of economics, of located sanctions, embargo since, or china is in a completely different position at china needs a pretty smooth economic development to address domestic issues which are,

which are to meet, which are huge. and in this regard, we see that the political level, a chinese and russian approaches are 3 to similar, not completely similar, but pretty similar. but when it comes to economy, of course, china thinks about its own interest and not about russian interest in the 1st time . and that means in practical terms just now for example, and they think it will be discussed when food jim comes to badging that the chinese companies, especially changes banks, are extremely cautious to put it mildly when it comes to business with russia, because they don't want to become subjects of become over the object sofa. you are 2nd through the sanctions. and this is not because they dislike russia or they don't share a russian exploration, but they think about their own interest,

which are different. now. uh. so again, if we have to be a little bit different at this point of time, because we need to take a short break, but we will be back in just a few moments agent. the release, the russian states to navigate as one of the most sense be the best english i'll send, send up the speedy what else calls question about this. even though we will fan in the european union, the kremlin machine states on the rush to day and split our t supposed neg, keeping our video agency roughly all the band on youtube tv

services. for the question, did you say steven twist, which is the, the boss can do, i just need to talk with key at the washington state, the bruce, the dealer, my, the computer system, the phone. i send this

to you for the list of over a huge because they used the spoken back to wells appointments, the pianist, editor in chief of russia in global affairs magazines. so look at them before the break. you mentioned that the, the chinese are far more cautious about how they deal with the west and both sides . they live service to responsibly managing their competition. but on the other hand, it's pretty visible. the mutual irritation is growing and there has been, you know, a succession of american leaders visiting china, and it's pretty clear that their reception is sometimes it's not what they expect

to guess. my question to you is looking at the scene american relationship, how much of it is due to the objective nature of the differences and how much of it is due to the communicative style that uh, both beijing or washington choose to practice is every one. another cute, communicative style is important. and in this regard, i thing that american style and chinese style are 2 extremes. so to say the, we can see collision of 2 completely different approaches to how uh, international relations should be conducted. as far as the american style, the american way of diplomacy is concerned. of course it, it sounds as it looks a little bit strange when the american high representative be it's

a secretary of state or even president of the united states meets the chinese compet parts. and the little this wish the old us agenda used to improve relationship to stabilize. what was the old risk for new or part of your not the, the or something the, you know, the older soon for america's because they say that we need, we need to normalize. we need to stabilize, maybe not to improve but to stabilize. with this intention they come, but at the same time, they start to poke up, start to see the changes, but we once do it to have better relationship. but you should not do this. you should know that you should be aware that if you do this, we will. so it's not a very much friendly approach. secondly, uh, that's uh like, like a joke already. that for example, secretary of state has meeting with chinese which got smaller or less. okay.

same day or the next day i present by them speak somewhere and says that the presidency is a dictator and we know this. so it's kind of difficult to comprehend. actually for do you think that matters for the chinese? i mean, do they, uh, uh, pay any attention to that or does it affect substantive politics? because, i mean, they may express outrage and public, but does, it doesn't affect the way they deal with america. i think it does affect how they deal, but chinese are very much different from us. for example, from russians, they are very patient and they accumulate, they accumulate and they, they make notes and of course it before them. so long term approach and the long term agenda for change. so i think the chinese are very much aware that the legal term perspective or the long term perspective of the

relationship with the united states is a very harsh concept. maybe not necessarily war, but the very harsh competition. they know that now they, they didn't. uh, they were not that sure say 5 years ago, but now the noise. but at the same time, yes, they are very keen to look as if they these are the guard because yes, they want, they really want to stabilize relationship at this point. and the yeah they, they are in the way much more sophisticated. they indicate that they not this, but they do as if they can, so to say, communicate them corporate to any way. but again, that's a very, a very visible and old is a discrepancy in the approaches cultural approach is not just about diplomacy.

and there are many other countries who are watching this interaction. i think this is a new phenomenon of recent years, have sort of sitting on defense in many countries and do it in very in different ways. the way, let's say united arab emirates balance is very different from the way turkey balances and many other countries. can you talk a little bit more about this? proactive form of diplomacy, of sitting on the fence and what of the risks and the opportunities that it allows . you know, i wouldn't call it sitting on the fence because sitting on the fence is a passive approach. what is happening in international relations nowadays, how actors behave and those acts, those are multiple, we see much more much more active of countries middle sized countries which have

a real influence on the international relations much more than before. because years ago we have okay, couple of countries, others working. oh my to the gold was yours. it was a rather silent. now the global majority is not silence anymore. the global majority says that we have our interest. they are sitting on the fence in, in, in one sense that they don't want to join any sides in competitions or wars on conflicts which they don't believe are the or so. okay. now, there are many countries who don't want to be at from both under these great power rivalry, but there's one particular exception, which is ukraine. that wants to be a ride in the midst of uh, of the fire 2 years into the conflict in the country. how do you understand the

current, your cranium, calculus and how those changed in any way, given the, the losses of the last 2 years. i don't think the cocos changed and one of them that i don't believe that this particularly the issue uh can afford to change the color because it was because they made the ones they, they they, they put everything on one state to when uh, honestly, they cannot do it the what's the create the august straight to the whole situation. i mean, ideal logically, political, economic currently in military terms, evidencing in the wake, which doesn't allow them to back, doesn't allow them to, to change the position. because now initial point, not, not even by the landscape by ukrainian presidents, i would say, you know, the gates ago, the initial point was that we have to break with russia and to join and other than

that. so now the discussion whether it was wise or not, or told for the reckless whatever or even possible, or even possible, but this happens and then uh, building uh, the $22000.00 pounds and that escalate that all the time. and that will add to the conflict, which we uh, witness now. and since this uh, idea prevailed, the only way for ukraine to survive is to join the west to join florida. mother the formerly joined the listing institution on it. that means that uh, at least for this rolling group, there is no other option, but to fight or whatever. uh, the price for the the nation will be. so that's why i, you, you are absolutely right. that the grain is,

it'd be the exception from the global threat. and the global trend is to be to try to much, to, to try to maneuver and to try to even money purely but not to get the hear about self preservation for. yeah, exactly, exactly. it's not the case with you claim and unfortunately i'm, i'm afraid that the consequences for this nation will be disastrous. now, the worst is now organizing of conference in switzerland to discuss the conflict and ukraine and russia is not invited. and yeah, there is an attempt to give this a, if on some sort of, for international representation and legitimacy. how do you understand the purpose, how, why would the other side be motivated by something like this, at this point? or, you know, the purpose of one of them that goes through absolutely clear. and it's 22 purposes . one purpose is to legitimize the landscape, because we know that to formally, he has some problem. he's official therm,

expires in may. and after that, uh that so legally bait whether he still remains the legitimate presence on not the bait, not the internationally, but they be domestic and which is much more important because legitimacy is about domestic situation. not about international recognition. so of the conference is an attempt by france offers and ask in france of care to do these, give up to demonstrate that he's the only absolutely legitimate, powerful head of state. leave them in the 2nd uh, what evasion is to demonstrate to create and that's most viewed to create an image that every body is for a peaceful solution, but the russian. and that's why participation of this world, majority of countries absolutely essential. that's why china

is desperately being repeatedly invited by ukrainians by suisse, by americans. and so, and that's why chinese are so far at least very em again, very cautious whether to participate in this. uh, this is a game. make sure you saw the above piece. of course, i heard you say recently that's a major obstacle to any substantive peace negotiations because the russian, the west understand the cost of the valley for this conflict in very different terms. why wouldn't that even matter? at this point, given the, you know, the profound changes on the ground that would matter at this point or at some later point. because uh, sooner or later it should come to some kind of abuse, be stoke open, close to a secret official, whatever. and the question is about what to and this is the main

difference that for the west and for do you agree they the promote it very much. this is a in, for always stick war by pull to, well that, but that's just rhetoric do seem to be a no, no, no, no, no, no i the, i don't believe it's just rhetoric, i think for your convenience and for meeting the west. this is really for deals, attempts to just gain the territory, destroy it, con, 3 of which russian lead the many in russia sees us historical about the russian so on. and so that's about you agree. so negotiation shouldn't be about to create a russian position. and i think this, this should be emphasized very much the cost was bailey was not to create the customer's bailey, was expansion on that. all right. can you, wrongly, we can discuss it. but russia received expansion of nature as a vital existence of trapped directions, security and uh,

it must be repeated once again that the russia said that many, many times students may have $9.00 to $9.00 to sexual when, when nathan lot of them started no longer, no one cares about this, no one, no one wanted to listen. and if we believe that the, the whole issue is about to ukraine. it's one type of negotiations which russia will not be engaged in easily belief as russians think. and as i share this view that the, the, the causes bailey and the issue was about naples, which means about security in the security of the interest in europe. that's completely another type of dialogue with a completely different set up or for participants, or mr. ok let's we have to move it there. thank you very much for your time. and thank you for watching hope to see her again on the world's the part the

what is a part of the the employee would post isn't the defense you of us and building the word? or is it something deeper, more complex might be present? good. let's stop without cases. let's go products or

the the, the concert carrying b, rainy and president on several high officials with supposedly makes a rough landing due to hot weather conditions on his way back from the find you an idea to tackle the refuge account kills at least 27 palestinians. is the overall desk told in gauze there from is wally selling policies. 35000. also ahead. the police clause with protests as intel of b, this thousands rally against is way the prime minister. netanyahu all the losing sweats of mutilate cost for shot the.