somali people, this is final, the arab leaves, the bridges immediately requested by somebody and supported by 12 hour countries will be said by morocco. the deal has potential to feel uncertainty and instability, and they will read you tablets, continental and maritime space. of the home of africa. sedan is in the goods of a devastating civil war field is recovering from its 3 year long civil war. and there is no in these sites for the current war in gaza, the opiates emissions for regional primacy add another dimension to this evolving strategic dynamic. a massive explosion has occurred in south west and nigeria report said the several people were injured and buildings were damaged . and the investigation is underway. level douglas told be harry reports from the scene with most one you. some of the images might be disturbing. this is the well, the clothes deluxe,

the call to the internet to get all the calls. listen, football is the 1st for the 1st, the 6 it father, the company thoughtful for your ledger, all the rest of the home because we do see that all the possible possible things from quite a bit already the best we do. so once you physically, chanel not wrong, yes, because there's a big cost of information that region also possibly go wrong. uh the last 4 to possibly sold to sign on my god it's cold, but it's not posted me my the rest of the dispute too many points waiting house. oh, so the road is probably the story was yeah, because the government oh is it doesn't lock you list the did you want to address

it or could you say that the fix it just to disclose on the list? we get the list. we get the ball to the who disappear in some so we looked at what we do so on. so i must, which will cost to help them oscar device. and we do not find the file to change the time. but that's the update. this how i can get more details on r t dot com. i'll see you again in about 13 minutes. the hello and welcome to cross sides where all things are considered. i'm peter level.

for the lack of a better term. it is obvious. the west has decided to continue and or reconfigure a new cold war against russia. but this time, without so much idea all it, is this new cold war, more dangerous and destabilizing than the 1st, the cross talking the new cold war. i'm joined by my guess. richard software in country right. he is in america is professor at the university of kent, as well as the author of the last piece. how the west failed to prevent the 2nd cold war. and in budapest we cross the george semi while we he is a pod cast where it the guy go, which can be found on youtube and locals. i don't think cross talk roles of effects . that means you can jump any time you want. and i always appreciated quite a bit of a slight change of pace and format here, george, my partner at the gabble a pod cast a is a agreed to co host this program with the professor. and as such of george, you can see it off 1st question richard, i really enjoyed the,

your book, which is the coolest the piece. and i guess my 1st question would be, you know, that the, the, the onset to the question you was, who did lose the piece, because at the end of the cold war, there really shouldn't be any conflicts. that's all dividing rusher and the west. the one on the logical complex to another territorial complex, the one that we can on a complex. so what happened, how, how come we're in this situation to? yeah, absolutely. it's what are the big mysteries of our time? how fast did we manage to squander what was clearly a historic opportunity? and then we took a piece, the sort of piece i have in mind is what kennedy and others would talk about. a type of positive piece that is a piece focused on development on co creation, on allowing institutions working to work above all those based on the united

nations and other words to use the vast human potential of technological achievements of a ton of costs interface. so for ecological and that's a developmental issues, that was a moving forward, what i call a positive piece, instead of which as you suggest, a negative piece became established and of course intensified to the point of a hot war today. so why it's a 65000 beautiful question. i keep going on about that and can i, i don't get too long answer, but i'm good, you know, have to, because like i'll give you my latest thinking on this. how we got right. in short, i think i would argue that in the postwar years since 1945, we've seen 2 arms of the west develop. on the one side, you have folders, relatively positive elements focused on the west, but nevertheless benign and elements of development. this is the so called

liberal international order based on democracy, human rights, multilateralism, the united states, up to 1945 embedded. it's a government, it's dominance in a multitude institutions including a bubble for united nations. and the next little the up to 1999 was then effectively globalized. and we had this, you know, globalization, which as it delivered huge public goods. so that's the one side of the west, which is, you know, it's got its own downsides, but it's called is upsides as well. however, a 2nd west took shape, often 1945. this is what i now guys call the political west. this is the militaristic west, this is the one that was condemned by eisenhower and his farewell speech, the military industrial complex, what some people called the tumor night state focused on fighting communism. basically, some 13 democracy is if they turned out to be

a plus style to the only quick question. now critical of the united states with all those crews in guatemala, of, if you have, must have back into your own and so on. this is that political west, so we have these 2 systems at work. and so in 1989 we all believe guy certainly did that, that political west could be pushed back, cut secured area to state the minute tourism. and of course, it's one of his experiences was nato. so that was the moment. unfortunately, the exact opposite happened. that political west, consolidated, and extended. and of course under the identity of the end of history claimed to be one of the let's all pick up on that point here. i think one of the biggest problems and i don't think and i don't even think academia didn't talk, talks about it enough. certainly not in media is that there are, there are conflicting interpretations on how the cold war came to an end. now on my

side of the pond. but the perception is but undergo but child, the soviet union opted out of the cold war. and i suggested in alternative with the west, that's it. and see that never did see that and called the victory. and that's one of the reasons why we have this historical mismatch. and with this mismatches added with a lot of military force, a lot of rhetoric and a, and a, and a, and many cases of cases where you can't control outcomes. so it's really, we could even add on the historical differences between the 2 sides. yes. and if, but i've been doing the voices in united states who accepted that argument, of course, but on the whole eastern side of mainstream, the so called globe the establishment, the national security establishment, such as they never thought back to you. in other words, they claimed the victory. what was that was totally spurious when gorbachev put an

end to the codle and above all, it was he and of course, all those of the people who develop the new political thinking in the soviet union . they believed that international system established in 1945, the u and system could finally come into its own so garbage of never capitulated to the political west to the west in general, to washington or anything like that. no, they said, let's let the system work. so we can little develop and piece together so unfold, but unfortunately ended up with a cold, well being continued by other means. so if i could just follow up on that, is this the mistreat, which is why didn't need to then define itself in opposition to russia? why did it exclude rusher from its security framework? i'm of this, the been just absent minded this. i mean there exists that the o s. c, that was the chopper of powers. in 1990, everyone talked about the in the visibility of security. everyone talked about the new year of co operation. so what happens is that why they need to then say, well,

we will bring in all of these states, many of whom we have the kind of a historic grievance against russia. but we wouldn't bring in russia. and despite the fact that russia wanted to be a part of some kind of a mutually beneficial security system, they continued to say no to russia. and this is something person important has said repeatedly that i, i set this up to suggest that many times the grocer should be within nato. and i was always rebuffed. why didn't they to define himself in opposition to russia? and it wasn't just put to it was a good tools and body sealants in the 1990s. they will say that so, and of course, most of the russian establishment including many liberals because quite clearly a, a defense system expanding which the exclusion of the main force against which it has been established in the 1st place course coming to lead to united

a numerous difficulties in tensions. so it was quite clear that we had an intensifying security dilemma. your question, why did they accept this logic? they yeah, and you said 6, clearly. i said there was, i'd say small, this book by william who puts it no place for that show endless attempts in nearly 9292 is to establish a different type of security architecture, you know, with some institutional innovation, bumping up the confidence and security and co creation you all failed because all of them would descend to washington. so you could say easily enough. the aim was to maintain washington's dominance over its allies and globally. and that if that logic, of course that was the next step and if we have been 90 way is ahead of the liberty of international order. but as i said, there's 2 faces. and then negative price, of course was the security side. and the people were perhaps looking too much on

the one side, the benign side, like a jew bins, jar does. where you kind of see the 2 things at the same time, either face or, i mean half hours or 2 faces. so exactly, it was the blindness, of course, they did 2 attempts to mitigate it with a problem that joined counsel of 1997, the nato, russia council of 20 to 2. but they will have the attempts that will just sticking plaster on the gaping wound. well in but richard, i mean, a kind of goes back. i mean, i, in my introduction, you know, reconfiguring the cold war rush, it had assumed that he had come to an end. and during the 1st cold war, i think it's easy to say it was about ideology, it's not about ideology anymore. so what is it about? why is russ who the enemy, you know, again, that's a, it's a one of those great mysteries. because even worse than that, you also want to to join the west. but it wanted to join that loop international

west, not the political west. so it was this constant confusion between what face of the west would it try to enter a and this double face is double bottom to the west. ultimately led to the repudiation of both. so uh yeah, it certainly wanted to join the richard abuse. i think it's a double face, i'm sorry, i'm going to reinterpret it using mine. would that sounds like skin, so for any it to me as well, it's that it does have it's a double face, which you could say is all the power systems in the couch themselves in terms of civilizing mission, like 19 century, a benefit period. and as a product, the same time having a male faced in that development glove. so, and of course us, it was done and it makes solar opponents of course, of dollars because he never quite know which price is good to be presenting itself the benign face of a, our power based face. of course today,

we know that they both are collab has been field enough and it's just a matter of the 1st. but at what your costs on both sides and savvy the gloves off . i mean the battle is joined. but if you say, what's it all about, it's not try to do a legit. is it? then you could say, is it cultural civilizational values? is it simply the fact ofa, you know, defense of us again many dominance, they cannot allow any alternative. and of course this and that applies to china and then the other guys in power has been politically depend, if they do not accept you as dominance, us to get money. well then richard, the level of approaching the break here. so i guess, i guess it's kind of fair to say that we've gone back to 19th century great power politics the cold war was, there's some kind of interlude it was one huge difference that we have an international system based on the united nations established in 1945 and this whole

body of international law, which is becoming ever more, we're going to be fine. but example, today we, the international court of justice is in session. i'm dealing with a case lawrence by south africa against israel. so, well, i'm gonna have to jump in here. i think the others difference is that there are new killer weapons right now that's a big, i mean, do. alright gentlemen, i'm going to jump in here. we're going to go to a short break. and after that short break, we'll continue our discussion on the new cold war. stay with our team, the

welcome back across stock where all things are considered on peter lavelle to remind you we're discussing the new cold war the . okay, george. the baton is in your hand. go ahead to, well, one question that there's a rise in the it 1st and what i'm beat it was saying in, in the 1st part of the program, which is that, well, the soviet union did not regard that. it had the loss of the cold war. it just basically said that, um, uh, the cold was over, we're not interested in finding it anymore. but for the west, it looked very different. they so russia as much weakened as the left for you, you have to raise the question. um, particularly if you're a russian was in those the fatal decisions that uh, the soviet union to a,

from the as 1989 to 1991. when they presume they just simply dissolved the most so pack. they signed off on a united germany within nato. that encouraged the west to think the we have a very weak adversary and this is a historical opportunity to take advantage of this very weak atlas or any really the perception didn't change too many, many, many years later. but during that time being in the west, the one advantage of a week in russia after another, and it was just withdrawal from the abm treaty bombing, you this lobby. and you know, you can just name them. but there was little the week of the russia suddenly a sol, so do you think that contributed to a this, the new, the new coal wars? that's all it is. yes. so at the end of the code, well, we could use a number of symbolic dates. we could talk about 1999 at the end of the coldwell with all of that positive piece agenda on the on the table. then we can talk about

another signal to 1991 that is integration of the soviet union. and of course, a continuous state gotcha. emerging out effect, but it much rico on wind tunnel economic collapse and social disintegration which across to nowadays is a big debate about all of the 19 ninety's. but yes, it was much weakened because then we also have a middle level here in 1990 the year of eastern europe, which of course, these former soviet states and of course are so former soviet book states had their own views. and for them, the weakening of the dresser of the soviet union was absent. what was the opportunity for them to the game that freedom, which of course was much to be welcome to allow the states but unfortunately they then embedded coldwell, thinking into these 3 states phase now emancipated states which of course then allied to those who say you go for a week, let's go for it to as it was and never allowed russia to gain much as

a few inches of challenger advocate power as, as peter suggested at the battalion. but uh yeah, so that you also then must go was and began to be present at once. it began to assert itself that it would not be a legacy power, like united kingdom fiance. and of course the defeated powers of germany and japan . and that came as a bit of a shock to the, to washington for sure. well, where the need, that's exactly the point, richard. i mean, if, if we're working on the assumption and i think george and i agree with you, is that there is a new cold, more new cold war thinking. and russia is the target. so we shouldn't be surprised, wouldn't rush because reacting to being targeted in a new cold war. okay, so it either it is a and that is the preamble to the conflict that we have now when in ukraine, you right before, right. you said we have security demands and they were ignored because those security demands were a reaction to the new cold war coming from the west. indeed,

they must have found itself where they numerous the limits you could say. and of course it was highly provoked, but of course then the question becomes, does it have to do i so the purification, did it have a, what was this scope boom from the news? and that's where these huge debates take place today. that yes, we do see that the west mismanage the piece that we ended up in a cold piece for many, many years. but of course then we have these other actors emerging, as i said, the 1990 year. the 1990 act, as you claim is one of them, if you like the overland boulder, you're public's all of these with bits of grievances they could be managed. but unfortunately we've in these countries they were, if you're not incorrect, they were encouraged. we know that by the us embassy taken care of and so on to prevent genuine deep, enduring being shipped between boss concave. we all know the famous statement bug

speaking. they appear to escape that with your claim dresser is a said power. in other words, if it to us dominance without it, it remains the 2nd yanked power. so these are, these are, you know, we now know with 35 years experience that fundamental misunderstandings and indeed strategic perceptions which so different and let on to this conflict today. enjoy, so yeah, so or should, i mean, why then, do you think that the nato and the united states continue to ignore the red lines? i mean, for years and years, russia had been issuing warning officer warning, but he's not going to go on accepting this nato expansion indefinitely. i mean, we remember what happened in 2008 and you know, they repeatedly, he can all of them and was simply underestimation of a rush as capability. um,

why would they think that russia would just simply accept anything that was rammed down the throats? uh, you know, the just think that is forever 1990 and the rupture simply is due to week to be able to defy us. yeah. just like to elaborate what you say. it is a native loud tweet is obviously one of the key elements. but it was those large of biological security agreements, in particular, visa fee, you can add, which there is so even with ne, tired lodgement is a covers a multitude of sins if you're like in different formats, including now for example, the u. k. ukrainian defense alignment. but you're absolutely right, they today wasn't just washington, it's a political west, suffered from sugars and the belief that the they were on the right side of history . which meant that they were unable to manage the actual genuine history with which they were faced. in other words, tighter duck, sickly, often 198991. though, so to effect illusions, which you could argue dominated in the soviet union,

historicism the belief that we know the direction of history. and if we could push it along, the path escaped to the forgot to and the soviet union, but it came into the backdoor into the political west. and of course, once you have a politics based on religion and 2 types of illusions in new york on one that united states was going to hit was dominant power, which you must and show that no one else can challenge it. and of course, the liberal humanitarian illusion that now the world is got full democracy and it's our job to push it to a long game change in order. so co colored revolutions. you know, we may well, well obviously i certainly do want to see the world more democratic, multi and bull. yeah. economically developed, but there's that isn't the exact way to go about it in my view. you know, richard, what um i asked rhetorically. and my introduction is this new cold war, more dangerous than the 1st one. and, you know, one of the differences between the original cold war and the way you've

conceptualized that is that during the ritual cold war, the u. s. and the soviet union, very rarely avoided direct confrontation, seems to be different in the new cold war with this proxy war and ukraine is that one of the differences. so that's a huge difference. coldwell has come home to roost in his homeland, you know it up because in the 1st cold pool it was basically fault in the so called fluid world. today. paradoxically, the 3rd world, apart from southwest agent gauze or color start and some other places. it's relatively stable, whereas it's your which is the dynamic front, which of course we have at the beginning effect. we're seeing a huge nato exercise coming up in the next few months. we'll, we'll monkey the military as a. well, it would take one accident once to a real quick, you know, who knows what's going to happen and the thing, but why this war is more dangerous? in the old one, it was gonna come from

a superficial companies and versus capitalism. we knew what was, what this time it's much more pernicious and much more pervasive. it's a culture where we get production, for example, at universities. and if you start questioning and the sort of things which i've been doing, you know, you are liable to be condemned. can i just mention today the uh, my good friend slot uh, richard love mcgraw. so from university of talked to justin just just heard that he has been detained by the estonian secret, intelligent by the intelligent service, who allegedly, you know, doing work to undermine you. estonian security. i secretly working with a russian intelligence. i forget just absolute nonsense. i've known slot for many years, one of the finest academics in most professional academics. it has been my privilege to know, and today he's detained in jail in estonia. so that is a sort of, well i guess from part of the new coal drawers, you know, yeah it's, it's against the bad thing. okay, that's and it's come home. okay, i'm sorry,

george, i'm out of turn. go ahead. it is. but following on more to what you just said, which is very, very interesting, which is that the difference between the cold war and what we have today, which is that, you know, now the 3rd world is relatively stable. and the, the center of the conflict is you are a and that does make things very, very dangerous, because that really directly affects russian security. so that's why i wonder, how do you see this war in ukraine resolving? and so, because even let's say from russia is going to be the best case scenario they, they drive out the ukrainian forces from the done by se, uh, take a house um and how cool um the still the 80 percent of your brain. that's going to be left over nato is going to want to scoop it up. so how, how does this play out? what you're on the weekend is very dangerous. so i compensation. yes. and a lot of our discussion so far there's been the, the, the missing guest, is it?

well, i better so your opinion from the european powers acting as a responsible leaders. in the old days, you know, the colon satcher and me too. and we're all active at the time of the full little bit and we'll, where today is a leadership. there's none except those which just are cheerleaders to the political west. so where you came, goes i, i, you know, i, it's a few level conflict one as you suggest within you can itself sort of the do we have to try to establish a european gun mention, because ultimately you to take control of its own security and of course as the global element with the united states involved. and of course, you could ask of a floats level, which is multilateral institutions, united nations, hopefully perhaps with a goal for china bowl, brazil, and an india some of a disposable states in the so called global stuff. so in other words,

the solution of the opinion conflict cannot be in ukraine itself. so it has to be part of a much larger settlements or perhaps an international come skins. but of course, that needs goodwill. and i must grade to austin. goodwill is evil in the less well, it's the fact it's very interesting. is it? uh, 2024. it seems to resemble 1945 when europe was pa straight and it was outside powers that decided things. it's amazing. history doesn't repeat, but it certainly echoes as all the time we have. i want to thank my guess what kind of barry and in budapest and thanks to our viewers for watching us here at our dc and next time. remember, across the, the

part of our executive and i'm here to plan with you whatever you do. do not watch my new show. seriously. why watch something that's so different whitelisted opinions that he won't get anywhere else. welcome to please, or do the have the state department, c i a weapons makers, multi 1000000000 dollar corporations. choose your facts for you. go ahead. change and whatever you do. don't marshall stay main street because i'm probably going to make you uncomfortable. my show is called direction, but again, we don't wanna watch it because it might just change the way you a rom just don't have to shape house and engagement equals the trail. when so many find themselves will to

part. we choose to look so common ground the pakistan demands that nearby you run, prove that its recent past soul dry compact is tiny territory, was indeed targeting entire it's true 1st that middle to us, we need to stop supporting the killing of sauce. because this does not stop, then we slips will heat, noise brought up with brother. i think we will, you nice will level west and your to the ground a member of european parliament ones that slavic people with united states specialist for the crating and complex to and something he said, the wife has no interest in somalia is prepared to go to war with neighboring, if you will be a if the country recognizes the break away. katara retreat of somebody lined up in the.