 It's been a week of diplomacy in Europe, but is it going to bear any fruits? Over the past week, we have seen a number of meetings between Russia and the Western powers over the crisis at the Ukraine border. There have been a number of statements made, talk about war. Things do look a bit bleak right now, but what exactly is the situation? What is likely to happen? We'll be discussing all this on Mapping Port. We have with us Pravir Prakash. Pravir, so over the past week, like we said, we saw three meetings. Of course, one was the US Russia summit that first took place on Monday. This was followed by the NATO Russia Council and then the organization for cooperation and security in Europe as well. All these meetings took place. On the other hand, despite all these confabulations, the situation is still clearly very tense. Russia, for instance, saying that there does not seem to be too much of scope for diplomacy right now, considering the fact that the West is not really moving forward on any of its demands. The West, on the other hand, continuously ratcheting up the talk of an impending war. There are the Western media sources saying that a false flag operation may be staged, for instance. And generally, the environment and atmosphere is being built up where it looks like we might have an attack any moment soon. So based on your evaluation of these last weeks, these three rounds of talks last week, where do you see the respective parties at? The crystal ball in terms of future prediction is always a very risky enterprise and we shouldn't really think about trying to calculate what each side can do. But if you look at it, that all this started essentially from the Biden Putin talks and therefore the fact that the Biden Putin talks seem to have gone nowhere, but led to three more discussion itself is at least a step forward. That finally, what Russia put on the table, NATO expansion is being discussed. It has become an international issue. It's something that is now worrying people that there has been this eastward march of NATO, which didn't seem to be stopping and has finally Russia drawing a line on the sand now brought it to a place where at least it needs to be discussed. What resolution will take place? We don't know as yet. Russia has also put on record the fact that the US also should think about that Venezuela, Cuba are close to the United States, and it is possible for Russia to build up certain facilities over there, for their bolster, at least Venezuela, militarily, all of these possibilities, they have hinted at. But the real issue is really at the moment Europe and what does Europe do? Visibly what Russia is demanding, what United States seem to be egging them on and the belief that a lot of people have also expressed that the Americans are quite willing to fast fight to the last European, fight Russia to the last European. So that is also the issue that if there is any war, it will be fought in Europe. It sort of will be fought over the Atlantic as NATO might indicate being not Atlantic trade organization, treaty organization and certainly not over the United States unless it becomes a nuclear war, in which case we can also goodbye the civilization as we know it. So in that sense, I think the stakes are very high for Europe. But at the moment, France and Germany are in transition politically. One, we have just a new government in Germany and they're going to go back to the Merkel position, which was Germany trying to play an independent role, also looking at its energy security, which is closely tied up with the basically gas from Russia. So whether they will go back to the position or they will join the United States as well as some of the Baltic States, Poland, Romania, for instance, who seem to be much more hawkish and Russia. So what is it that they're going to do? France is an uncertain territory because again, elections are pending in France and we don't know if there is any universal acceptance of France's trajectory. We have a presidential hopeful who has actually talked about how Europe should chart a new course for itself and get out of NATO. There is no reason why NATO should continue as a treaty organization. So all of this is the background. So I'm going to say, I take Stoltenberg, who otherwise is not known as a dub, his position that we can start discussing missile deployment in the Baltics in Eastern Europe. We can discuss the return to the INF Treaty, which the United States had walked out of the Stoltenberg put the responsibility on Russia. All these things are also happening. Of course, there are the nuclear sanctions or what would be called the economic sanctions which the Senate of the US Congress is preparing, which they might start imposing even before a war, in which case, of course, you will really precipitate a much more serious crisis. So I think all these things we'll have to see at the moment, but you know, I'm not really pessimistic about getting into an understanding. The fact that the issues that Russia has raised has come on the table are being discussed in a step forward. The question that I have is, even if both sides don't want to get into war, and Russia seems to have clearly indicated that it is not going to go into a war unless the status quo in Ukraine changes, Russia could missile on Russian borders, which will give for five to seven minutes, missile time before missiles reach Moscow, or the Donbass region is attacked and the autonomy of the Donbass region is threatened, in which case also Russia I think will then can or will or can intervene over there. So I think these are options that Russia has put on the table, but they're saying they will not discuss forever. You don't have to think of what countermeasures they can take, because if NATO really does expand to its border, it's a question of strategic survival in the sense that you don't want missiles five to seven minutes from your capital region. So I think that is something which is very serious, but at the same time, the fact that discussions are taking place, even with all the noise about how, you know, discussions are going nowhere. Now, you know, Russia is preparing for various attacks every day in the western media you hear about Russia doing a B or C. I think all of this has to be taken to the great deal of salt, which of salt is probably an understatement. And given the fact that the US has invaded so many countries, it's talk about others trying to invade, which is there's no record of such for a very long time for any other country I think is something which it cannot find, we can't find very credible. So probably like you said, some of the demands raised by Russia are apparently being considered or the West has shown interest in addressing them these include the issue of military exercises in the region around Russia, the question of missile deployments even but apparently the one issue the West is really unwilling to address seems to be of NATO expansion itself. So slightly going back maybe why is we understand what Russia's concerns are regarding NATO's expansion, but why is NATO why does NATO seems so determined for for instance to have the option of including Ukraine and Georgia, which really seemed to be the sticking points in this discussion. You know, whatever reports are coming from the US sources in pinch of salt is that unofficially undertakings have been given the next 10 years we're not going to include Georgia or Ukraine into NATO. Now of course, all of this can change the new Trump coming in, or the old Trump coming back everything is open up for negotiations, or up in the air as I say, so we don't really know what the status is, I do not think they will give a guarantee publicly to be humiliation for them to give a guarantee, we will not include a or B, but for all practical purposes Georgia is not going to be included in NATO in the foreseeable future, and Ukraine currently also doesn't look to be a country which should be inducted very easily into NATO, even if Ukrainian public opinion now is more in favor of NATO, for a long time the Ukrainian public opinion was also not in favor of NATO, but having the Donbass region going out of Ukraine effectively. There is this that numbers left in Ukraine may be remote towards NATO, that is the Donbass region was a part of Ukraine, or if it is counted to be a part of Ukraine so we'll have to see, but certainly, it doesn't appear that this is in the near future, you're likely to have NATO inviting Ukraine to join it. What can happen and is happening and this is also what Russia is pointing out that NATO in the guise of training, in the guise of training facilities is building bases in the UK facility which they're saying is not a facility, training facility, it's a really a military base, and also giving armaments to Ukraine and also sending soldiers about there again in the name of training. So all this are quasi-NATO like gestures in the sense they're not really as innocent as they appear to be, and therefore Russia is concerned. What are the arms that they're giving? What is the so-called training consist of? Are the trainers going to stay? Remember that the US sent in Vietnam, essentially people to train the Vietnamese soldiers and then it expanded to a task force that the US had in Vietnam fighting what they called not Vietnamese at that point of time. So given all of that background, it's not surprising that the Russian political analysts as well as Putin and his associates are skeptical about US's claim or NATO's claim. They're only there to provide training and support. I think that those are the, shall we say the gray areas which needs to be resolved that it's not a question of joining NATO, but all the investment NATO is making into Ukraine, what do they really mean? And I think those are the kind of issues also which is holding all this up. I would think as still that the likelihood of NATO joining is not there in the Middle East future, but NATO will not give or the United States more correctly, will not give such an undertaking because it would be a huge loss of face for them after having made so much noise that this is something that is left to us. It is not for others to dictate if they want to join, how can we prevent them kind of stuff. So all of this, I think again we'll have to see how it goes, but I do not think that NATO joining of NATO is in the cards at least for the next 10 years. This is what the so called experts in the United States seem to be saying. And apart from the public posture which is of course who the hell they are to tell us what to do. This is what they seem to be saying that there is really no prospect of that. And probably finally a quick question since we talked about NATO so much. This seems to be yet another attempt to sort of resurrect an organization whose fate has been of fate and future has been increasingly in doubt in recent times. So do we also see like you said NATO coming out of this even weaker maybe or in the same position. You know, the problem that has always been there, post-Soviet Union, that what is NATO's existence for? Is it for defence? Is it to act as the global gender arm, the gender arm of the United States and the Western powers? And Western powers in this case really mean Western European powers to be exact, the ex-colonial powers. So is that the purpose of NATO essentially to be the sword arm of the global hegemon and its close associates essentially Western European countries which had really colonies all over the world. So this is not something which has been resolved. When it comes to the Eurasian land mass, NATO's sword was directed of course clearly at Russia. When the Soviet Union fell, the Russian government under Yeltsin really allowed the United States to expand NATO right up to its borders. So you have military incursions near its airspace, 13 miles of the airspace of Russia. There has been strategic bombers, flights taking place. You have ships coming into Black Sea again doing various maneuvers. All of these are militarily provocative, but NATO seems to direct itself against Russia. And if you take that as the basis, then NATO's existence seems to be more with Russia or defence against Russia, they would like to put it. It's marched into Iraq as well into Afghanistan, of course was not that it was NATO was going to act as a sword arm as I said of this past. Now if that has failed and it's failed disastrously in Afghanistan is obviously also failed in Iraq, what is NATO's future. And that is something which is not spelled out if they say it is to protect European countries. Now protecting is true. For protection, you really want to put your tanks, other forces, missiles and Russian border is that for protection. Those are questions NATO hasn't ever answered. The purpose of NATO really has never been answered post the fall of Soviet Union. There have been very serious diplomats, diplomats, analysts who have said NATO should have been resolved at that point of time. That's a mistake we make. Now the real issue is what does Western European countries, primarily Germany and France do about it. The Kingdom has hitched itself to the US skirt, so that is taken for granted. But what about Europe, Germany and France, who think their independent powers economically as well as militarily at least France does. So I think that's going to really though that is the question that has to be resolved. And for Germany it's very important because its energy future depends on this relationship with Russia. That's where it gets its natural gas from. So what does Russia, how does provoking Russia to war really help Germany, I don't see. So all of this to me is that the Europe still seems to be in a state of flux and Western European countries do not know to be put to be blunt whether they're coming or they're going. And the United Kingdom is very clear, it is going with the United States, the Eastern European countries are willing to go with the United States and they're willing to give their territory for that, but they really don't bring much to the table except territory. So what is Western Europe going to do is really the crucial issue. And United States is whether it's a question of Lithuania, Lithuania against China, it seems to be egging on Eastern European countries much more into this, and using them to ratchet up measures on in this particular case Russia, but also against China. And I think that is, if that is the NATO's reason for existence, increasingly it's going to bring up at least European past that what are they interested in doing. So I think that question about NATO's existence itself is to be the primary issue, which the world has to face, because increasingly whether it is West Asia, whether it is Central Asia, whether it is Africa. The pendulum is swinging again to the regional past being able to resolve their issues by themselves and not having outside past come in and tell them what to do, and they provide in turn military basis, which is what the United States has been doing. And let's not forget it's not only NATO, United States is 750 to 800 bases all over the world. And if that is for defense, who are the defending against. So I think those are all the questions which have to be addressed. And I think the Russians have done us one good thing. They have put with the expansion of NATO all these questions on board. What is the role of NATO. So for me, we'll get back to this question in the coming week as well as in the future as tensions continue to escalate and discussions at the same time also continue to take place. That's all we have time for today keep watching.