 Today we have with us Victor Kamsanov from International Federation of Peace and Consolation. Victor, good to have you with us after 28 years in India. Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to meet with you here and these days when we just had a very interesting international conference of the peace movements of BRICS countries. That is the specific context with which we wanted to engage with you. Russia has really come back to the international stage really after about 10-15 years. Do you think that at the moment the kind of positions Russia is taking it nationally as a part of BRICS and otherwise is much better than what it was earlier? For sure. I think that today Russia is trying to react appropriately to the development of the international situation. And this is not only in the interest of the Russian Federation, but this is in the interest of the peace stability in the world. In my opinion it's very important that today when we are speaking about the BRICS this is a clear cut reflection that non-governmental society, civil society and the political leadership and political parties are trying at least to intercommunicate and to find the answers for the common problems. And this is, I think, a sign of a new international politics. Geopolitically, United States after the fall of Soviet Union and the socialist block of countries has been dominating the scene. And we saw for a long time no resistance to the kind of policies the US was doing. Recently, starting with Syria, we find that there is some resistance. But do you think that a similar resistance could have been done at the time of Libya? I think that this resistance appeared earlier. The only problem was that the understanding within the movement, non-governmental movement and at the governmental level came a bit later because still the world was under the influence of the conviction that after the solution of the Soviet Union after disappearance, but I wouldn't say the end, but disappearance of the elements of the Cold War everybody was expecting that it will be much more easier to reach agreement on the acute issues of international situation. But as you are saying, the United States, they tried to create a unipolar world in order to achieve their own interest and they continue to behave in the spirit of the Cold War and it created the opposition in the mind first of the people and now we see also a certain opposition in the action. The US attempt particularly in what would be called Central Asia is to try and detach Russia from its erstwhile allies in Central Asia. The set of events have taken place but most of it seems to be geared to basically trying to detach Russia from its hinterland or nearby states. Ukraine is of course a part of it but so is also other countries in Central Asia. Do you think that Russia is now trying to stabilize some of these relationships? Yeah, I think that for Russia it's very important to stabilize this relationship and to come back to the areas which are natural for their geopolitical developments and I think that Asia in this situation is playing more and more important role for Russia because this is the emerging region, the region which shows a new dynamics and from this point of view it's very important that the opportunities for the communication, for the dialogue, for the exchange not only on the political issues but also on the development of inter-cultural relations it's very important and Russia is trying to do this and it elaborates its new approaches towards this cooperation and we see that there is a re-establishment of certain political institutions which were aimed at development of this cooperation. This is like the agency for the international cooperation which now reappears in Russian Federation and also we see a certain that say interest of the state in development of the civil society context and the cooperation especially in this area and particularly with the countries which are Asian part of the BRICS this is India, this is China and we see that there are opportunities for improving these developments. Uzbekistan recently seems to have moved away from Russia and is trying to build relationship with the United States particularly given the fact that Uzbekistan is important for Americans intervention in Afghanistan. Do you think this is again a part of the United States expansionist policies in this region? I think that this is a very specific element of the development of the post-Soviet space and this is a combination of the personal approaches towards the development of the international politics and the reflection on the international developments. And here you are absolutely correctly speaking about the situation around Afghanistan which in my opinion is a key element which develops the political behavior in this situation. Of course United States they tried to use the benefits which they got from the possibility to move into Afghanistan but the question is not of that say moving in and to create a strategic basis there. The main problem is how to stabilize this part of the world and from this point of view of course Americans being not completely sure that they are able to achieve those results which they put in front of them in Afghanistan they are looking for the regional opportunities to fix themselves in this region and from this point of view of course the fact that Uzbekistan will draw from the CSTO this is the fact which proves that the political enforcement is present in this region but at the same time I think that this is not for the interest of Uzbekistan and Central Asia if they are looking into the global future of developments in this region and at the same time I think that internal developments in the United States they also are moving in the direction which does not make absolutely predictable and sure policy of the United States in this region I think that we will see a lot of interesting developments here. The other interest that comes up is the issue of gas and oil and the fact that a lot of the Central Asian gas and oil go really through Russia and the United States would like to bypass Russia in this transit of gas and oil to Europe building of the Tbilisi, Baku-Tbilisi pipeline and Sehan pipeline and various other projects that they are talking of is all meant to bypass Russia as a transit for gas and oil from the region do you think that this is going to succeed or do you think that this is right now not succeeding? I think that here works mainly economic regulators for development of these infrastructures because you cannot construct a gas pipeline through Himalaya it's obvious and I think that some of the inventions of the Americans were exactly to create something which intend to bypass Russia but economically it's not beneficial and we see the problem of this Nabuka gas pipeline which doesn't work at all and I think that here the countries they should think about the energy security in the world but not on the question of the geopolitical fight between the United States and the other countries of course I think that here also the Europeans they should think over what is going on with this energy situation because you see all these struggles on bypassing this is mainly that say has the influence on the European stability and the European economic development because the Americans they are not part of this energy consumption and here I think that the Russia is elaborating the policy which is aimed at increasing cooperation between the different investors into development of the energy security in the world and clearly that it should be done in such a way that anyhow the national control on the resources of the gas and the oil always it's a more stable element than the intention to create let's say virtual international cooperation it doesn't bring the profits for the people who are using the energy on the issue of Iran Russia could play a much more aggressive role to try and solve the problem and without Russia's help United States really cannot put the kind of sanctions it has on Iran now Iran has a right to reprocess fuel that's a right given to it under NPT the kind of sanctions we are seeing are really in that sense not you know in consonance with the NPT and particularly given the fact that the nuclear weapon states have not designed therefore their moral right to ask others not to do certain sort of things seems to be very limited don't you think Russia is actually allowing United States to isolate Iran and creating a dangerous situation for the whole world I think that the situation around Iran is really quite difficult in my opinion the issue should be that's split into two parts the one I think this is exactly what we were speaking before this is the security of the energy resources and Iran is thinking mainly about this issue definitely there are a lot of predictions that oil and gas it will be not the only one source of energy and thinking for the future the Iranians they also create some that's a secure spaces for the development of the energy supply in the country and in the region this is one thing and the second thing this is nuclear non-proliferation which is more broad issue and this is not issue of Iran only we knew the situation that we have five official nuclear members of the nuclear club and we have the examples and the situations when there is also other who possess this nuclear weapon and here should be the let's say a work of international community on the implementation of nuclear non-proliferation but nuclear non-proliferation cannot be without an international security and stability and that's why when we were speaking during these two days in this conference of peace movements of the BRICS countries we also touched on the question of the collective security issues and if these collective security issues would not be understood not only by the people in the region who are really looking for the opportunity to solve this issue but also for the Americans because this security is also vitally important for the United States which has their own internal problems in the developments I think that without this the question will not be solved and I think that anyhow the issue of the nuclear proliferation should not influence the development of the energy security and the development of the science and technologies because it is interrelated we are living in the world when we need a new technologies we need a new innovations in this field the problem of the security of the people that are directly linked with the energy and from this point of view I think that international cooperation also should be developed and in my opinion the activities of the BRICS countries also can contribute substantially to improving of this situation in the region and this is not only the issue for Russia this is also the issue for other countries who are closely linked with this problem Do you think that the BRICS countries should take a much more strong initiative on the question of Iran and try and resolve the issue? I think that yes at least they have the potential to do it and I think that the countries who are within the BRICS they have their own experience and have their authority and even sometimes right to speak for example we all knew that South Africa has its own nuclear program and they made quite a substantial progress in this direction and finally they stopped it and give up the development of their own nuclear program the same in you that the Brazil it was involved in these problems and it means that they have experience and they have the vision of this problem and from this point of view maybe exactly BRICS can be much more let's say comprehensive institution for solution of this problem than the quite tough and unflexible policy of the United States Last question, nuclear nonproliferation is not the only issue real issue is nuclear disarmament and on that we really have not seen any movement Do you think that the time has come to put back the issue of nuclear disarmament on the global agenda? I think that the nuclear disarmament is permanent on the global agenda since the appearance of the peace movement in this world in the late 40s our organization is working for this issue from 1949 when it was created but I think that nuclear disarmament is completely built into the infrastructure of today's world and into the security system of this world and the problem is not only in the nuclear arms as it is and we see that today the threat of the nuclear war is much more less than it was in the 50s and 60s because people have understood the danger of these weapons but at the same time it is interrelated with the development of the military powers and new military policies and new weapons of mass destruction which are not linked with the nuclear energy of completely other let's say origin and from this point of view I think that if we want to get a real nuclear disarmament it means that we first put the issue of disarmament as it is including nuclear disarmament So you think that basically it's linked to the question of security and the question of disarmament per se and it's not nuclear disarmament alone? Yeah, in my opinion it's like this Thank you very much Victor, hope that we will not wait 28 years to see you again in India Thank you