military invasion in ukraine represents about the same time. i think it is that they clean these times. it's important to remain on speaking terms to to discuss if it's at least to prevent further escalation. but also if you want to come out of the current situation, we need platforms for dialogue. so, you know, i mean favor off, you know, very clear term language at the same time, i don't believe that isolating, excluding, and important interlocutor serves the purpose of managing come, take and off, taking us closer to resolving accomplish. you might have the need for platforms, for dialogue and the oil, the, the organization for security and cooperation in europe, which you use to have a few years back was once considered, such a sasha platform and i, i interviewed you a couple of years back when i just assumed that leadership position, and at that time they were already doubts whether the osi was relevant. do you think it's still relevant, given that not only the failed to prevent an active kinetic conflict between russian, ukraine and some would argue russia and the west. but it also now being used as, as a platform for political posturing and pushing out though, one of the sides. i'm speaking about russia. do you think the oil c currently stands for either security or corporation? i would absolutely estimate that. currently, if you always see a crisis it, i think there is no doubt about it, but you ought to say it out that you always see a very valid verdict beats or it's feed missions. the best of all comes in central asia or in parts of europe. the story institutions are, it's the, the programmatic work of a ticket here. it, it, but of course this is politically not but they play relevant. i think, well, participating, say soft d always see what i hope you always see being able to play a role in preventing or at least now in managing a conflict between russia and ukraine or, or russia and the best. by the way, how do you see it? and given that you are now in, i guess a lesson diplomatic position to you, perhaps more freedom may have you perhaps, can afford yourself more freedom of speech. do you see that as a conflict between russia and ukraine or something large and i think it's an overlapping conflict then in this is by the way, this was, i think something back to the saw. you know, so yes, these 2 lines of conflict, the more narrow between a russia and ukraine, and the wider between russia and the best. but i would immediately act that both conflicts could have been managed in an online survey. and i regret, you know, that the missed many opportunities to do so and, and including asti always see, you know, and that the always, the hot platforms, the, to the, they both the lines of conflict and up important stakeholders are important . but they said, you say south d r c, joe was not to use these tools all the and partly whom do you mean by those important stakeholders? they look at, let's say, take example off arms control these been beaten. they're saying, yes, i am. is valerie, say sham and lessons? a stross them on key stakeholders of european security and unraveling off a very complex that of arms control agreements that you know have been built off the air since the end of the cold war and a surf or i provide to those to be a peace and stability, so we beat this to fat unraveling off this architecture girl. and if i'm hunter after you here just for a 2nd because you're trying to be very neutral and diplomatic and i understand why . but i was doing the piece and the d. conflicting efforts service when we are trying to sort of smooth the lines. so diplomatically here, because it's not just the, the, the random unraveling, isn't it? it's the west taking a decision, making a decision that they want to pursue certain policies that when strongly against russian interest and those russian interest and concerns were very clearly communicated for many, many number of years. are we doing reality ever didn't choose the service when we just describe it as single unraveling it? i would say the agreement here with that it was or a beat. some of these are you paler saw off this or arms control like architecture? it was indeed the united states that pulled out of it. i bought what i was a, a c, v, a try to provide an alternative platforms for instance, a structured dialogue. create that if i a decision often means a counselor has been humble, end of 2016. and i think for by that was no hope that this platform would serve to this cost made it very risk, adoption confidence and security security measures. and perhaps also create, again a common understanding on how to resume series arms control conditions and negotiations. but unfortunately, they offer was not taken up and it's a vest. nato did not seem to be publicly interested, but frankly also from the russian federation. i did not really a sense of urgency, you know, to kind of go back and try to reinvigorate this arms control architecture. so that was, i think, my lack of interest to all the relevant stakeholders. and this was frustrating and look at the same is true for the other example that i wanted to address. and that is it means agreements. you know, that i tried to deal with the conflict in the, in the don't boss. and i think of course, being far from perfect, but they would have re present the blueprint to resolve at least the conflict ended on boss. and partly, bob fit the exception of a relatively short period of time. i think that was never at the same time, at a genuine political commitment on either side to take a decent agreements are seriously or on the one side, there was a reluctance to implement 2 tacos, the political formations on the other. there was, are a reluctance to really do you seriously beat the security provisions. and basically there was an ongoing blame game and, and, and, and, and, and, and the fight what to converse, only think of revisions. i'll security probation well, and that's why it was going on as don't bus was being continuously shelf from the ukrainian side and the majority of the dental. we know that a, like it's documented and import thanks to the always see emissions that the majority of casualties of that war. a starting from 2014 was on the eastern ukrainian side on the separate decide. but putting that aside, i want to ask you about an sort of the, whether the negotiating process holds any prospect or what so ever at this point, because russia took a very dramatic step for itself. i think many russians are shocked by the actions of their russian government. they and it only came at the time, i think, when the decision makers would that come to a point or 2 conclusion when they would not believe in the negotiating process. and i think there is a strong sense in moscow that piece process the conflicting efforts have been methodically abused. that all the negotiations i used simply as a measure of getting some respite from military action and never are never committed to with, you know, a will to inclin than that. and is there any and legitimacy to, to that kind of opinion, i would agree that did all the sites are in that, and i use the bureau eventually and not the plum optically, or besides, ver, bit never a certain time period, but never, never overlapping. ben, i says that was a genuine commitment to move forward with implementing or means agreements. for instance, a few months after presidential entity to power. i really have the feeling that, that, that, that was a genuine commitment. but then you know, the been the also, but you need the coast and, and when i last of my mandate that 2nd to child, i kind of felt that the meets are something very protracted. and i didn't see a out which in my view doesn't justify a war. bob, i have sympathy bits to prostration. but again, i would put the blame on both sides for this lock off genuine, implement the means to pre k. well mr. grandmother, we have to take a very short break right now, but he will be back in just a few moments. stay tuned. ah ah . only 41 percent of you has a don't have enough savings to cover a $1000.00 emergency. we have record numbers of americans who are on the verge of having their cars repossess more than a 137000000 americans are facing financial ship because of medical that in america we do have a welfare system in place to help people who are struggling financially, but it's a conditional system you have to prove to the government that you truly need help. the simplest way, like explain a basic income, is that it's like social security for the rest of us. a basic income would be a monthly payments that would go to everyone. does a $1000.00 a month, no strings attached about. i mean, i don't know, i just won't go crazy. the reason that i am a fan of guaranteed income because it is this idea that everybody is deserve it and just bad virtue of your being here. ah ah, welcome back to wells of foreign smith, thomas graham, inter director of the geneva center for security policy on former secretary general of the organization for security and cooperation in europe. at mister graham anger, in 2025, the house in k ag, the, the founding document for the oil, c will mark it's 50th anniversary and it has some beautiful principles there that actually helped us to put an end to the cold war. and i think one that i asked was signed, there was a clear recognition that differences exists and that they have to be dealt with. and yet when we look at your of right now, there seems to be so much stress on unity that there is barely any room for even the negotiation. not only between russia and europe, or russia and the west, but even within the west. why do you think 50 years after the creation of the oil see, which is supposedly dedicated to freedom of speech, to you know, dialogue as contentious as it may be? why do you think there is such a fervor such a demand on uniform agreement within western camp? i think me a half again or come back to were and euro off. very tough jail political, a competition. and unfortunately, you know, the brain principle, the fact you refer to with that for a great in a, in the framework else for helsinki. final accord in 1975. and then re committed by states again in 90909099 into in, in 2010 enough somehow. unfortunately, it by nobody questions these principles, i think the hm. at least lately, not been a serious attempt to deal with the delay most between these principles and the, the labor day in by a, by dylan mustang needs to be addressed. if dana not addressed it, they lead to quality intentions and, and conflict. and let me illustrate that point, you know, there is a, regarding all those states that the, our geography jell graphically between the russian federation and natal and there isa. and you alluded to it in your introductory comments, and there is an issue and their status, right? because you half the a less be specifically in their security state is because russia never precluded down from developing their democracy, the markets, whatever they won, the issue was always as the name of that organization stresses on security. correct? correct. so there isa it. there are 2 principles are backed by each other, if down all the address diplomatically. there is a principle off in the visibility of security that these you, as a say chilton, increase your security at the expense of an offer. and there is another principle and allows us to state to freely choose your security arrangements. now if you apply these 2 principles to states like georgia, ukraine, a media as a by john bella russo, moldova, you half a dilemma. and you can as a tried to solve this dilemma a by force it up that's probably not advisable. oh, i think dar diplomatic a means to deal with this issue and the battle properly then lead to an o. m. an agreement on the status of these countries that is coastal and non alignment neutrality, something like that. combined weight security guarantees, combine are obsolete arms control agreements. you know, that both prevent, for instance, nato in establishing nato infrastructure, aster, ukrainian, or russian border. you think that's still a reality specifically on the principle of individual ability security? because i heard you saying why i think at some panel that you would laugh at the countries in the members state by 2025. not only to commit to the old principles, but to try to redefine them in a, in a new way that would be workable for all. do you think that's still a possibility? i think not by 2025, a box, you know, is she think conflict prevention long term india or atlantic in eurasian area. i don't see any other way than to deal with the deal. i must be these brands because i don't think i global conflicts. could be one way of dealing with it. absolutely, and i think if you will, that i will need to eat or, and i think at some point we need to come back to the negotiation table and then building on dr. drive to we construct their, your p insecurity order in that, that allows us to, we commit to these principles box by open to addressing a m a d c lamps. and i think that that is a vision. it's not gonna happen tomorrow, thought it might happen. they stories political in 58 years. well it for that to have happened. besides, also need to come to certain calculus. that piece is more beneficial for their goals than war. and i think on the russian side, it's pretty, it's easier to define the way the russians can draw their line because they, they, we've been very open about it. but what about the west? when do you think the western powers will calculate that? that piece is better for that long term security goals than war or that and proxy conflict. look, i don't have a crystal ball or it, but i would agree with you with that that that water sucks. archman calls the mutually hurting state made which makes a conflict ride for a solution is not reached yet. and i think a both sides, they seem to be believe that the by military means they can reach a much more advantage, just negotiation position. i wouldn't exclude that at some point, you know, they're at ration exhaustion, same scene. and, and you know, there is a resumption of negotiations i bought for the time being that my year that the most realistic scenario that i see for months is to companies. unfortunately, continuation of high intensity conflict. now, in previous conflicts in which european powers to part, i mean in curious conflicts of the century, the cost to the european population was either minimal or none. this time around is different than the economic and energy corporation that has long as the killer of both stability and concept convention in europe has been said, right. how big of a challenge is it for european countries as far as you're concerned? and do you think that will lead to any sort of reassessment in values or political commitments in europe? i would absolutely agree that the costs half enormous in your, in a time terms in economic terms, in political terms. you know, if you will see us currently again moving in some sort of a cold war, i think in the short term and it's shortages and et cetera. i think that being at that with people, people suffer about my perception. you know, off the political situation in european countries is clearly, you know, that this can solve the ukraine a such a did. these sufferings are taken into account and, and they always need or, you know, the refugee flows and, or energy shortages that they change. or at least in the medium term that the perception of, you know, the european audience. i remember that the, the always see golden here is there was a lot of tension between political rights and economic rights and more developed, more prosperous countries were sort of in the habit of preaching down to less prosperous authoritarian neighbors. and sort of prioritizing political rights over i cannot make necessity given that euro for the 1st time may in this century has to deal with have to actually struggle with fulfillment of economic rights for its own citizens. do you think it may change in the discourse, at least in general, and the realization how, how important is a economy versus politics? i hope it elite us again to recognize how important a comprehensive approach to securities and basically the political rationale off the c a, c and d always c was always combining political, military issues, military assets, hauled, security issue on economic and environmental affairs. the 2nd dimension and the human dimension, meaning respect for human rights, rule of law and democratic institutions. and i agree with your, with the, has been a history of the all you see is a history of play. one i mentioned against the other day, but again at the same time the organization has always been a browser for its comprehensive approach to security and the security channel. i have always reminded participating states at the end, you know, the security and it consists of these different dimensions. and we should also be respectful of different dimension and also respect all the states. you know, that may perceive economic and environmental a fast will be a more, more relevant, like the central asian se, all basically you're saying that we have to be respectful of diversity, which don't you think it has become a run, a controversial proposition this days that diversity of use political, economic, humanitarian views should be respected. i agree with you, but unfortunately this is a feature asti, extremely polarized, a political environment that we are currently in the it's, it's a feature of a cold war for those of us that half leaf through cultural walker gone, called warrant, correct me if i'm wrong, because i was born in the final years of the cold war, but i remember that at that time, difference was actually respected because it was dangerous. there was a realization that was fear, that if you don't respect their, your partner enough, you know, they will, can blow up into pieces. do you think that here that respect for, for the enemy is there? i think there is, they lay at these are among the major powers, said there is still a certain respect in all for for instance, the concept of mutually assured destruction. i think that hasn't been seriously on the mind or. and fortunately, and bob walked was a typical feature off the cold war was basically a image is off the n b, m, i dollar g. if i'm right, you're wrong by definition. and, and i think i see that happen again and on both sides. you know, i'm, i'm, i wonder if between the rural and i'm struck by that. and so both sides in best, to locked in at this, that are then being sold market that asked deep soul to well, at that time, back in the seventy's, the 2 sides were wise enough to come up with a new forum and east west forum to try to discuss those differences, let's keep our fingers crossed, that that is still possible in this day and age. in any case, i really appreciate your bravery and your time during this interview. thank you. thank you so much for your interest. i'm thank you for watching hope to hear again on wilson part a with mm blue. so what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have. it's crazy even foundation, let it be an arms race is on often very dramatic development. only personally and getting to resist. i don't see how that strategy will be successful. it's very difficult time to sit down and talk a precaution spencer with us or forced from national leader, which is obviously new to still when you have a moment to go with the national anthem, a campus that the carpet from. wanted to see that as the boys are new to me with with a my name with my ya. with alice top headlines off the international as 2 people that killed and another 10 wounded as ukrainian artillery hits hotel and a restaurant complex at our holiday camp. and the city of melissa pensions rise as kosovo. gives belgrade an ultimatum to remove protesters road blocks, or threatens to use force and divisions emerging again in the western alliance. south korea, europe could join together to stop a protectionist u. s. law from damaging global industries with.