a about the crazy people that you created. the only thing the us government is proving to care about is what is politically expedient to the time. and they have an invasion. they have to political emissions and that part of the world and ukraine is, you know, a tool tool tool towards being expended in eastern your a lot. so when we got time full this hour, we'll be back at the top of the next hour until then his son, a boy with lots of pounds. the

don't welcome to worlds. of course. especially reading all your rate the russian president is making his 1st official visit to china as the world view conversation between the destinations and the west gifts evermore canals with all sides having passed that points of no return. whereas history having now well to discuss that. now joined by so that'll a 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, then for 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 answer to that i've given the nature of the historical moment. how is the russian chinese relationship now different from, let's say,

6 years ago. the 1st of all the visit is not the surprise of the right to the said, and this is uh, which is the response to last year's visit of a german susan been to to moscow. and that was his 1st visit after the official integration as the head of state. so put in base, a director as for a relationship 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 shrink or, and shrinking 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 academic system, which is not the case now because of 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 there are many, but china is by default, the most important because of size, because over control make potential. and because the china is the biggest neighbors . now you mentioned the previous visit of president she to russia,

and that time she was overheard telling pretend that the 2 nations, or perhaps the 2 liters as pure, had and changes the lights so 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 the 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. you know, it shouldn't, the social security is not the most popular right now. adays in russia, but apparently he is one of the favorites by a few. uh, maybe maybe, but uh this is, this is quite an interesting uh distinction. uh, interesting difference because, and the subsidy was part of the, um, any, uh, uh, necessarily reading during the soviet time. because certainly ask you whether this

event during the service, the russia, and he was glorified by the soviet. uh, the, the theory science. uh, no, i wouldn't say that the russian mood, especially the mood the rest of that issue. is there a solution that the one in terms of how to organize the country 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 disregard that. yes, indeed, i think for china, which is still officially a communist country, ruled by the communist volunteer. shouldn't she ask you might be still a real event while in russia we are now in a different phase. as far as the history is concerned, a yes or no on the one hand, of course, any decision made by any state any and they 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 in almost any conversation it has with the russian audience or for an audience like a couple of months ago with tucker carlson. she a loss to refer to history. and this is very important because uh in the very durable in town to a disruptive world. you need to have some kind of fundamentally, but this is a very interesting point because as you mentioned, both are russian in china despite their political and governing conservatism. a sort of moving practically moving into the future. they're not 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 this better adults? uh, you know, uh, 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 politicians in the united states referring to the glorious past, ronald reagan, whatever. well, even the democrats build the battery, i mean the, the, the, how much forward has you 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 united states or probable establishment to do much space. they are rather very much afraid of the

past because they change the past all the time. the new approach to history is still appropriate is to, to make it compatible to, uh, 2 principles of moral moral uh, stance is more points. uh, as the, uh, i'm the store to the notes historically. see, and for me it's a very strange brand because you, you basically undermine your past in order to make the contemporary situation more ungovernable. 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 to your priorities. and i think in the past,

the west in the united states in particular weren't rather considerate and deliberate about um, you know, the risks or the implants. but nowadays they sort of moved to america to us 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 dire resources are clearly not there. it's quite understandable because we leave as the chairman, she told fortune a year ago, relief in the period. the unprecedented and pretty rare changes. profound changes. it's not like cosmetic, uh, uh, that does formation. i'd updates 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 concepts. there's just a little part of that. because in effect, we see a norm of changes in how society is being corbin. so they think that when that when you set and then assess the dates, you have a strategy about, you know, which battles you, you pick up whether you fight with the genetic. sure. does this so 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 troubles 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. let's explain the difficult um,

the in this regard. united states as they will have its own problems. russia is not immune from uh, enormous cio. and just either we see that i'm the one hand 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 and on set 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 mosque renovation or the main difference is very clear, a china is not just a barcode global economy, it's one of the bill or something, a little economy. rationally is not at this point because russia is struggling to do nothing and to regain, but to keep the place which it occupies and the russia. because the lower conflict i'll say, can afford to be to be more flexible and more creative. these are the new rules imposed by, by the links

a group of congress literally and you can or cannot, can. yeah. because we, we may have heard so much all the things that we can go exactly well, much to us anymore. they, they, they, they did, i mean, the west, the, the, almost everything they could 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 read off huge. and so 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 i think it will be discussed when food comes to badging. that the chinese

companies, especially changes banks, are extremely cautious to put it mildly when it comes to business with the russian, because they don't want to become subjects of become over the objects. so for us, i can do a sanctions and this is not because they dislike russia or they don't share a russian aspiration, 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 featured the, the, the,

[000:00:00;00] the, [000:00:00;00] the welcome back to all the parts miss the countless editor in chief of russia in global affairs magazine. it's

a 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 . and they live service to responsibly managing their competition. but on the other hand, it's pretty visible that mutual irritation is growing and there has been, you know, a succession of the american leaders to 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 same 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 acute communicative style is important and in this regard, i thing that american style in chinese style are 2 extremes. so

to say the, we can see collision of 2 completely different approaches to how international relations should be conducted. as far as the american style, american way of diplomacy is concerned, of course it, it sounds, and it looks a little bit strange when the american high were presented to be, it's a secretary of state, or even president of the united states meets the chinese comp that part and the little this wish the old us agenda east to improve relationship to stabilize the old risk for new or part of your not the, the, or something the, you know, the oldest of them for americans 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 the same time, the start to talk about the start to see the changes. but we once do a 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 or present by them speak somewhere and says that the president, she 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, pay any attention to that or does it affect substantive politics? because, i mean, they may express outrage in public,

but does it affect the way they deal with them or 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 for them. so long term approach and they'll 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 their 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 they know it. but at the same time, yes, they are very keen to look is if they these regard because yes, they want,

they really want to stabilize the 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 and 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 the fence and many of countries and do it in very in different ways. the way, let's say united arab emirates balance is very different from the way taking balances and many other countries. can you talk a little bit more about this? proactive form of diploma seals sitting on the fence and what of the risks and the opportunities that it allows you know,

i wouldn't call that soothing and the sense 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 are those where it's lighter. i think the goal majority 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 in the sides, in competitions or wars on conflicts which they don't believe are the or so. okay. now are there many countries who don't want to be it from both under these great power rivalry, but there is 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 ukrainian calculus and the how those changed in any way, given the, the loss of the last 2 years. i don't think the calculus changed and one of them that i don't believe that this particularly the issue. i can't afford to change the color because those because they made the ones they, they, they, they put everything on one stake to when honestly they cannot do it the

what's the create the august straight to the whole situation. i mean, i deal logically political, economic only, in military terms, evidencing in weight, which doesn't allow them to back. it 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 thought the reckless whatever or even possible or even possible. but this happens and then doing the uh, the 2002000 pounds and that escalate that all the time. and that will add to the conflict which we witness now. and since this

idea prevailed, that the only way for ukraine to survive is to join the west to join florida. mother the former, the, during the was the institution on it. that means that the, 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 so to the 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 relate, but not to get the fear about self preservation for. yeah, exactly, exactly. it's not the case with ukraine, 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 in ukraine and russia is not invited. and yet, 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 a basement this point? or, you know, the purpose of organize us, there's absolutely clear. and it's 22 purposes. one purpose is to legitimize the zalinski, because we know that to formally, it has some problem. she is official term expires in may. and after that, uh that so legally bait whether she still remains the legitimate presence on not debates, not internationally, but the big domestically, which is much more important because legitimacy is about domestic situation. not about international recognition. so on the on, for us is an attempt by france offers and ask in france of care to,

to the steve. i have to demonstrate that he's still the absolutely legitimate, powerful head of state leader of the nation. second, uh, what division is to demonstrate to create and that's most viewed to create an image that every body is for a peaceful solution, bought 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. this is a game, make sure it's not the above piece. of course, i heard you say recently that and major obstacle to any substantive peace negotiations because the russian, the west understand the cause of sally 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 stuck open, close a secret official, whatever. and the question is about what to and this is the main difference that for the west and for you agree they the promote it very much. this is in for always stick war by pull to well that but that's just rhetoric do things . yeah. yeah, 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 a really hotels attempt to adjust the gain the territory destroy it. con 3, which russian need, the many in russia, sees us historical,

a bunch of russians so on. and so that's about, do you agree? so negotiation shouldn't be about to create a russian position. and i think this, this should be emphasized very much that the cost was bailey, was known to create the customers. bailey was expansion on the right, the wrong way. we can discuss it. but russia received expansion of nature as a vital existence of trapped directions, security and the it must be repeated once again that the russia said that many, many times since the mid $9.00 to $9.00 to section one, 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 with you, the, 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 thoughtful dialogue with a completely different set up of participants. well, mr. little kenneth, 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

the the the search and rescue operations underway in the mountains of north under raul, an officer, a helicopter carrying the country's precedence on foreign minister makes pause landing. i do have a task on a refugee camp, kills at least 27 policy means says the role that told in goals as a policies 35000 also then attempted coup d'etat has been nipped into by the lady of defense and security forces. this attempting vote for and there's and congress, these kimberly's end, the foreigners have been put out of harm's way,