tv Worlds Apart RT April 19, 2022 12:30am-1:00am EDT
president of the jerusalem institute for strategic studies professor invite great to see, agree can talk to you. thank you very much for your time. my pleasure. you wrote recently about the seemingly existential political need to be. it's being on the right side of history. if we try to put quality center baganda out of it and look at it from historical and perhaps psychological perspective, what do you need? the righteousness i don't believe in the side of his story, basically is the history is written by the victim of the walls and narratives that remains a few. jo is the ones that is defined by the victim. by the way, it was not a victory. if you would have put more attention to the nuclear issue rather than longer resize that, you might have been the victim. would it be the right side of his story?
i doubt that. now, the tensions between russia and the west, especially over ukraine, have been building for quite some time a couple of years, no decades. and yet when i interview western i asked for it, they always point out that the russian actions in ukraine, however disagreeable they may be, are totally approval. they see this totally unprovoked, certainly coming out of the blue. do you think that's a delivery? that's the station, or is it a genuine blindness on that part that they somehow missed the last couple of years of the very 10 years relationship? it's been our side. i can understand the same security dilemma somebody's advice to defend himself and accumulate power. military power is to defend itself at the same time he, po jake, is said to its name. so this type of situation saline i,
i definitely understand, is there russian a desire for larger margins of security? hey, we have to remember that nato expended this 12 close, so to wash and bo those it when it was promised to do the kremlin new us at that time. so i know this will not happen. i, i'm pretty sure that the nato doesn't have any offensive intentions, but at the same time, it's really difficult to dismiss that is a feel over russia and to have historic feel. so renovation from the, from the west. so this is precisely the problem of a security dilemma or in borough we often hear from the next person, right. nathan doesn't harbor any explicit offensive intentions in russia. but,
you know, looking at some of the recent actions by major members in libya or in syria, you know, they make and they were not intentional, but they have not the last. i mean, is it really so crucial to, you know, have these written as a statement of purpose a once you attack russia rather than, you know, proceeding from the reality perspective and seeing what nature members have done militarily in recent history. and i think and understanding was obama and well, i mean, we slept in libya and the silly i seen by the law says, justly or not, it is a middle east. so a things that they're like doing toby, as americans disagree and instead of sitting down and trying
to divide you know, divide zillow. this is the. * this is my palm and then tied to exist as it was doing the called the law. and i think that there is a understanding in the west on how to run foreign policy. they become too liberal or heavy illusion say about what the international relations please. and this result of that for the army misperceptions on both sides. now. 6 i think it from your writing that you take the full selma of national interest rather than morality as the ultimate measure of any policy you wrote that and i'm hearing that no country is allowed to gamble on its very existence. and i think that's pretty clear. and how israel
conducts itself on the international stage. but if we look at the ration from that perspective in russia, have a choice and then to act militarily with ukraine becoming increasingly militarized and increasingly hostile to russia. this is what i want to clarify. a country has no white, no model to commit suicide. and so for a test to act upon its intern, us international, it's national interest. those choices, though is a choice to surrender or so, so well show, obviously as many choices and the so it's a really, you know, the to defend its national interest in ukraine for this was following the silliest little warning list, but it was didn't take it seriously and i'm not making any judgment,
then you my judge, i can understand your behavior overstayed that once a month, to kill it this way once a week. and then i would like to point out that it was to some extent that was all caution. when you leave next to a big bear like russia, you have to because that's all, i have a chuckle about russia being there, i think a little bit more civilized than leaving that. but you know, in that the perception, so be i want to ask you about a country where is that the addition of using phones? now if you can obviously go, yeah, absolutely. and israel is also is by being much smaller. it's also a country that takes in survival very seriously,
and you are definitely not shy about striking targets on the countries territory. and i think to some extent, israel, of course, projection projection relies on his adversaries knowing that some sort of retribution is inevitable. so i want to ask you whether you think that the drastic actions that she's now taking in ukraine is that there at least partially conditions on russia being has a tend to flip all as to your math and for way too long. have russia reacted earlier and more slowly, the current prices have been avoided? doing things it could have been by yeah, i really bye bye not to states paying attention to russian security concerns a or so by z, hugh lease, or for 0 crane in leadership. and not the understanding that there are certain
anxious may go vocal russian sensitivities. and day is the result though we have no, it will deny which is not the really nice thing. people lose their lives, cities, i will destroy it. but this is this spelt of wall now, within the western camera, it has a very interesting position because it tends to whoa side the western resolutions condemning rushes behavior, but it is also not dismissive of russia security concerns what the israel's game or the israel or rationale in this company is a nationally clear yes or no on hand. we are, you know, dependent as united states or what's, what's the cause of pretty well. and then we are going to want to be in american
care, on the other hand, and not file form. well, i leave a in syria and though we reach an agreement to coordinate our military actions with against iranian thong, which is something which is extremely important to ism, is national security. and we want to make sure that this call with the nation a continuous which is dependent upon a russian good will in the national interest. and so we try to balance our no participation in it. what's called a western can it with a stick position. this a v n a which is a name and we have to take it because we are not acting idealistically. i think the general outlook cove is really fun policies and quality
. and as a result of that, we are trying to balance those through interest, which is not going to be on india is doing the same amount of countries. so doing the same without the loan in what you call this game, nationally, any both. and to have to take into consideration, it's national interest. and when we act, if you seen it, you mentioned russia presents in syria. and i think one out of country to mentioned here is turkey. and i think you would probably agree that in syria, russia was both, are accommodating, it was respectful of both turkeys and israel's central security considerations. but it also could be power on some of the actions when, when dean did them. so that allows me to conclude that at least with israel and
turn to interior, russia has learned how to differentiate the various uses by power cord. why he didn't work the same way with your brain go. so i agree with you when they decided to intervene on a dig into a situation is wally and play a. a new claim for basic is always know it currently those sheep. and which is that, and i would say to not the russian and namo it was ideal for being part of the view. it has didn't play a game. and as a result of that, and as i mentioned, this is one of these before. so we are witnessing now, since i mentioned turkey,
you know, that it's a very challenging partner for both russia and these are especially under prime minister, and i'm at a prime minister. yeah, that's my mistake president. how could i forget that? but anyway, he's been a really, was with here, he's in powerful way for quite some time and 2001. yes. and our countries have gone through the periods of acute crisis and very pragmatic relationship. and we managed to restore some sort of partnership and the very precarious incident back in 2015 when the church shut down a series, which was taken in moscow as a, as a staff in the back. and yeah, it's work towards restoring some sort of a pragmatic relationship serve as
a model for, you know, future adversaries that serve as a model for either russia and ukraine going forward, or perhaps russia and the way going forward. basically my knowledge and this is what we see developing is that is all again between the united states and its allies and the, and i am and does a lot of times when i make i had a different leadership and as a to come to the storage unit, you know, doing a key since i differently the blows the flag says united states doesn't have its kissinger at this times it understands international politics, understands politics and understands that sometimes you'll have to accommodate your lease because they have ran national interest and day in
so 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. development only personally, i'm going to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful, very critical time time to sit down and talk with me what come back to? well, the part with our president of the jerusalem institute for strategic studies. professor in bar, one of the proposed gold rush and military operation in your brain. he's the so called to see cation and i have to say that when i 1st heard this term,
it sounded very odd and artificial. i think it was the russian speakers a couple of weeks to even learn how to pronounce it without stumbling. having said that, do you think naps is an old fashion has ever been a problem in modern day ukraine? a modern day? remember who i did was that was the nazi, but i do, i do not know enough about the politics. so claim today to be able to respond to that. i might say that, you know, this sam sentences sounds very strange toward the western ears. and even here, and it's where we have a population a, i think, you know,
if i would have to advise mister booth and i would advise him to use a different sentence to justify his is the will. now can i brought in this out towards the issue on now says because i think the address on, on 2 pillars, one is i you know, exceptional or secret nature of any given. and the 2nd i thing is the, this issue of the, of the end of history that history has some predetermined more. and as we know, people are, was trying to bring that about. is that a concept that is being reliable? not only, let's say in ukraine, but also more broadly movies that you consider most of the chosen people. so and nobody, you know, things that just to say any of those and that's it. but you know,
many nationalities, things out. and so this is a list. and again, i think that this choice of who owns it was not as a best one. you mentioned that the just consider themselves the chosen people that you're not trying to impose your way of life. in fact, you are quite restrictive about who can join your, your people's rules on that. but when we look, let's say in the american constitution, they not only define themselves as exceptional, but also see themselves as a the ultimate judge, almost the replacement of god. i wonder if this russian, american rivalry over the years is partially spiritually based over whether one country can be the ultimate just what, what is good and what is evil in international affairs?
no, i refrain from making normative judgments. but it's, you know, every church believes it and it has a direct line to, to god and a christian it though. so america, it, which is actually becoming less and less so it's not so different from environmental when that was in the center, not the specialist was also does church in russia, but they believes that is very valuable. and you know, it's all in design, you know, it's coming back. absolutely. but i think a self conscious nation wants to build its own, you know, have only jerusalem of that for sure. but i think very few nations, in fact, only one nation plays that, you know, this is the one you only have only jerusalem,
you know that. and the russian also allows for the multiplicity of gardens. the question is whether the americans are ready to leave even after the ukrainian crisis, whether they are ready to accept that they can be a multiplicity of developmental pass in the world. and that not everything. and not everybody will play tune i want agrees that so is the missionary stain in american foreign policy. and this is why we have those complaints for democracy and the campaigns for human rights, which actually blue ridge, national interest of the united states. and this is america, and zealous and positive sinks about it though some negative things about it. but
this is towards that. so is a mission mission of israel, sometimes in american foreign policy, and which is not prismatic. when you displace too much of this type of desire will be moral and imposed. it's morality on the hello now and one of your articles he pointed out that you korean experience being last one on one as you put in ruth, less russian neighbor. what will reinforce israel's belief in south protection doctrine that in the times of crisis, you can only rely on yourself even if you nominally have very, very strong ally. do you think israel will be the only country to draw that's lesson or do you think there will be more countries that now? so relying on hooley, on, on the power of american deterrence. i think we see in the middle east to clear
with development in that direction because americans are signaling or the so we have ministration obama come and does a by nurse questions that they don't want to be them. it is, they want to retreat and to focus on the chinese challenge. and as a result of that, her as outgoing feels particularly among though. so that boy will do seen countries said so when the man was out the shield against the ha, no, i do so. and as a result of that, of course we see the alignment was excellent and but is well definitely has the self reliance. milton comes the very beginning. this is also a jewish experience, and i am at a disdainful says a, you know, zone i, investor guarantees on up the world much. and i think same king has made a mistake,
hoping that the westwood intervene on our behalf. and despite goes ahead, said the worst case providing to claim, but no single american soldier cost the same crumbled. can i also ask you about here because you're up to a very long pass, this is spell and now seems to be more willing to invest into its own designs. in a sense that is very visible in germany, germany very dramatically rose from expenditures. is that something natural to be expected, or is it something to be well worried about in historical hindsight, being made the mistake of the end of the call believing that they are going into a paradise. and those are national security problems, so will be sort of after the defeat of the soviet union. so i'll
go home and this is a awakening. pull you up. i'm not sure how don't get to a less and maybe it will fail, you know, is this dilemma between the guns? i may fail to be, but those are those and use the money for guns. but this remains to be seen but clearly. so there's a change of ethical within, you know, in many or countries in owns a show for national defense. i guess it's my final question a, you mentioned this choice in butter and guns. and clearly there is also an economic damage that's coming to all sides from a very harsh sanctions introduced by europe and the united states. you mentioned before that your ultimate test for foreign policy is how well it serves national
interest. based on that, do you think the policy of sanctions is good enough for the europeans because it seems to be hurting not only the russians only the europeans, but also much of the much they will, that has absolutely nothing to do with that. you know, a, all the arguments didn't rush in the way. so we're really economic sanctions. we're really successful in, oh, america, right? sanctions against iraq against cuba for many years and didn't change behavior of the country. so i need to suffer and to pay heavy price for continue. was there a policy a i don't really much you for as a sanctions will change a calculus. so fashion leadership and of course the commission will be seen. we
shouldn't forget that is a sanctioned how those, those are with you up in particular is dependent on russian n, o g, a russian weight. so it is so, you know, in every world we have 2 equations. one can cause a mold damage, but or so, and i don't equation, it was the countries that can take a most hopefully you know, for looking at history. i think her russia is displayed their willingness to cost full well what it believes. it's too well. i agree with you, but i also think that russia definitely has showcase capability to suffer a lot. but it also has demonstrated a willingness to reach some sort of a compromise with israel. tricky or many other contentious neighbors and partners.
i hope the west can also learn from bad news. ok, possibly know why they've outcome won't be the people on the station. oh, okay. is there a kindly delray has already and i'm not going to join, but they don't think so. russia miscalculated is a competent, so if it's military forces and that will 2nd phone, you know, it's more go crane by then no one said, you know, one more piece it's ok. so maybe this will be, they'll come in, they be a bug, met the washington. well, time they'll tell of it for the time being, we have to leave it here. thank you very much for your insights. you're welcome. thank you for watching hope to see you again next week on will depart
a with shelling is reported on the done bus front line as you cranes, president zalinski says russian forces have started a long prepared offensive. it's something moscow has yet to comment on. an italian journalist slams ukraine's president zalinski as an obstacle in the way of peace. and it says, cuba leader is neglecting civilian casualties. lensky seems like a very dangerous character. he is leading a campaign that can actually bring about massive destruction and casualties among the ukrainian people. i consider zalinski one of the main obstacles towards achieving peace and.