so numerous questions that have remained onset for many years. watch on see the rebels attack a 2nd american own ship in the red sea of a washington simple to israel on strikes against the group is going shortly after the us designates. if you have any group, a terrorist organization, underwriting and tunnel is reportedly killed, and then that's i made a folder with the talk you stump us up to iran, said the bid stroke. that service group within park is donny territory from the numbers are huge, 6 feed much somebody's fridge, much raise allegedly to in the struck putting the engine, brushing outside of the strikes, killed dozens of french spices in northeastern ukraine. that's according to the russian ministry defense fund. based on middle to us, we need to stop supporting the killing of sauce. if this does not stop,

then waste last night brought up with brother. i think we will unite and will level west and europe to the ground as luck in europe and apartments, and then the ones that slavic people could unite a seat, pushes for and for the war and ukraine. something that he believes the west has no interest in. for those who are headlines at 3, i must go times do feel free. title was all t dot com for more on any of those stories. and if not, i'll be back in just under now is time the hello and welcome to cross software. all things are considered. i'm peter lavelle 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 g, 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 wes failed to prevent the 2nd cold war. and in budapest we cross the george send me while we, he is a pod cast where it's a guy go, which can be found on youtube and locals, right? tillman cross loc 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 should not 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 cannot make complex. so what happened? how come we're in this situation? yeah, absolutely. it's one of the big mysteries of our time. how fast did we manage to squander what was clearly a historic opportunity? and when we talk of peace, the sort of peace 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 type of cost interface. so for ecological enough, the developmental issues that was a moving for what i called a positive piece, instead of which as you suggest, a negative piece became established and of course intensified to the point of a halt. well today, so why? it's a 65000 google question i keep going on about that. i'm gonna, i don't get too long answer, but i'm gonna have to, because like i'll give you my latest thinking on this. how we got the right thing 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 all those 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 above all the united nations and the next little to of, to 1999 was then effectively globalized. and we had this, you know, globalization which has delivered huge public goods. so that's the one side of the west, which is, you know, it has got its own downsides, but it's got is upsets as well. however, a 2nd waste took shape often 1945. this is what i now the ice coal, 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, supporting democracy is if they turned out to be pushed out to the old leaving quick question. now critical of united states with all those crews in guatemala,

of, if you have, must have deck into on and so on. this is the political west. so we have these 2 systems at work, and so in 1989, we all believe di, certainly did that, that political waste could be pushed back, cut, secured to state the military years. and, and of course, it's one of his experience was nato. so that was the moment. unfortunately, the exact top opposite happened. that political west, consolidated, and extended. and of course, under the i do want to, to, of the end of history claimed to be one who was a, let's all pick up on that point here. i think one of the biggest problems and then i don't think and i don't even think academia didn't talk, talks about it enough. a certainly not a media is that there, there are conflicting interpretations on how the cold war came to an end. now on my side of the pond, the perception is but undergo but child, the soviet union opted out of the cold war and put um,

suggested in alternative with the west doesn't see that never did see that in 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 store. cool differences between the 2 sides. yes. and if, but i, you know, they will have voices in united states who accepted that document of course. but on the whole user side, the main stream, the so called globe, the establishment, the national security establishment, such as i never thought back to you. in other words, a claim to 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 other people who develop the new political thinking and associate union.

they believed that the international system established in 1945, the u. n. system could finally come into its own so garbage of never capitulated to the political west of the west in january to washington or anything like that. no, they said let's let the system work so we can all develop and piece together so unfold, but unfortunately ended up with a cold, well being continued by other means. i feel like if i could just follow up on that, is this the mistreat? which is why did 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 with the always c, e 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 uh, 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 with the why didn't they to define himself in opposition to russia? and it wasn't just put to it was a girl because i need both sealants in the 99 case. they will say that so under the coast, most of the russian establishment including many liberals because quite clearly a, a defense system expanding with the exclusion of the main force against which it had been established in the 1st price course and to lead to united a numerous difficulties intentions. 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 as a small this book by we have no pets, 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 comprehension, you all failed because all of them would be sent to washington. so you could say easily enough, the ambrose to maintain washington's dominance over its allies and globally. and that if that logic, of course that was the step and if they've been 90 way is a, had to be live with international loader. but as i said, there's 2 faces. i mean, negative face 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 job versus where you kind of see the 2 things at the same time i the

face. well, i mean i've hours or 2 faces. so exactly, it was the blindness, of course, they did do, attempts to mitigate with a pub med, joined counsel of 1997, the nato, russia council of $10.00 to $2.00. but they will highly attempts. they will just sticking plaster on the gaping wound. well in but richard, i mean, it kind of goes back. i mean, i, in my introduction, you know, reconfiguring the cold war rush, it had assumed that 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 the loop international west, not the political west. so it was this constant confusion between what phase of the

west would it try to enter a and this double face is double bottom to the west. ultimately led to the appear to ation of both. so yeah, it certainly wanted to join it. and the richard of your 2nd, 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 switch. you could say is all the power systems the couch themselves in terms of civilizing mission, like 19, essentially a benefit period and as of well at 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 balance because we 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 is just the male faced, but at what your costs on both sides and savvy the gloves off. i mean the battle is joined, but did you say, what's it all about? it's not, i do have a jeep. is it? then you could say, is it cultural civilizational values? is it simply the fact though, for, 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 dominant us again, any well and 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 19 century great power politics. the cold war was some kind of interlude as it was one, a 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. for example, today we,

the international court of justice is in session and dealing with a case lawrence by south africa against israel's. uh well, i'm gonna have to jump in here. i think the others difference is that there are nuclear weapons right now that's a big into our, a gentleman. 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 in the late 189 two's french soldiers led by general to boot. i arrived in asia with the goal of expanding french control in west africa to the territory of mountain shot on sunday, i mean the custom issue around the cause of the duke shown the list to the tent, the food i on the east one of the most horrific campaigns of atrocities to have

ever taken place in the history of the continent. what is somebody i know the question, richard dental. hey, i'm philosophy farmed there. do some people do that? sure. most likely. multiple villages with devastated a numerous members of resistance groups with the headed olympic apartment for us to get the young investigator in search of his own identity and box on that you need to africa. feet traces general with eyes, blood drenched roots in an effort to establish how your legacy still echoes throughout the confidence. so my name is sam and i come from england. i was asked, i'm ready to find out more about the, the mission of the lake. and the history and the region, the

welcome back to cross stock where all things are considered on peter to about your mind you were discussing the new cold war the . okay, george, the baton is in your hand. go ahead. well, what are the questions that those arise and the 1st one, what to 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 code was uh over. we're not interested in finding it anymore. but for the west, it looked very different. they so russia as much weakened as a way for you, you have to raise the question. um, particularly if you are a russian, was it those the fatal decisions that uh the soviet union to a, from the is 1989 to 1991. when they presume they just simply dissolved the most so

pack. they signed off on the united germany within nato, that ink cartridge, the west to think that we have a very weak adversary. and this is a historical opportunity to take advantage of this very weak adversary. any really, perception didn't change too many, many, many years later. but during that time, the lowest, the one advantage of a week in russia after another is and it was just withdrawal from the abm treaty bombing, you this lobby. and you know, you can just name them, but the was we close the rushes suddenly. a sol, so do you think that contributed to a this is the new, the new cold war. so that's all it is. yes. so at the end of the code, well, we could use the number of symbolic dates, we could talk about 1999 at the end of the code. well, with all of that positive piece agenda on the, on the table, then we can talk about another signal, okay, 1991. that is integration of the soviet union. and of course

a continuous state and the emerging out effect. but it much weaker on wind tunnel economic collapse and social, this integration, 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. 1990 the yeah. eastern europe, which of course, these former soviet states and of course are so for most of your book, states had their own views. and for them, the weakening of the dresser of the soviet union wasn't what was over to new to 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 free state space now emancipated states, which of course then allied to those who say you go for those weeks, let's go for this week to as well and never allow gotcha to get much as i fear it

is a challenger advocate power i as, as peter suggested at a battalion, but uh yeah, so that, you know, so 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. net came as a bit of a shock to the, to washington for sure. well, so we're the new, 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 that in rush, cuz reacting to being targeted in a new cold war. okay, so it, 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. if indeed,

they should have found itself where they moved was 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 sort of 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 say that the west mismanage the piece that we ended up having a cold peace 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 whole and the voltage republics, 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 weren't coverage. do we know that by the u. s. embassy taken care of and so on, to prevent genuine deep and during the in ship between most concave. we all know the famous statement bug speaking to appear to indicate that with your claim

dresser is a they call, in other words, if it to us dominance without it, he remains the 2nd again to power. so these are these that, you know, we now know with 35 years experience that fundamental misunderstandings and indeed strategic perceptions which so different and let onto this conflict today. a drug. so, yeah, so or should, i mean, why then, do you think that the nato and the united states continue to ignore all the red lines? i mean, for years and years rush or had been issuing warning officer warning, but it's not good to go on accepting this a nato expansion indefinitely. i mean, we remember what happened in 2008. and you know, they repeatedly acknowledged them and was simply on 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. i mean they to allowed to do 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 native 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 illusion 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 god for democracy. it is our job to push it along, who game change and who does so co colored revolutions. we may well, well boost. i certainly do want to see the world more democratic, multi and bull. yeah. economically developed, but those 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 original a cold war,

the us 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 and that's a huge difference. coldwell has come home to roost in his homeland your because in the 1st cold pool it goes basically fault in the so called fluid world. today, tired talk simply the 3rd world apart from southwest agent goes or color start, and some other places. it's relatively stable, whereas it's your which is the dynamic for you and which of course we're at the beginning effect. we're seeing a huge nato exercise coming up in the next few months. the boil little monkey in the military as a. well, it would take one accident once to a real quick, you know, who knows what's gonna happen. another thing, but why this war is more dangerous? in the old one, it was the other tiffany 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 possession. 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 mcgraw. so from university of talked to justin just just heard that he has been detained by the estonian secret intelligence intelligence 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 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 a, 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 dumbass way like a take a house on and harko the still, the 80 percent of you 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? it's 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've got to see your opinion on the european powers acting as a responsible leaders. in the old days, you know, the coal in fact you and me to and we're all active at the time of the full with a bit and we'll wait today is the leadership. there's nothing except those which just are cheerleaders to the political west. so where you came, goes i, i, it's a few level conflict one as you suggest within you can itself some sort of deal. we have to try to establish a european gun mention, because ultimately you have 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 4th 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. it's so,

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 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, [000:00:00;00] the,

[000:00:00;00]

the, [000:00:00;00] the, [000:00:00;00] the, the sultan tells me you floated up to 15000 people in bed incoming your mess. the rest of 6 days. assault him says victims have desktops, the