i know a lot of people who are looking for creative ways to get home. but also. the ship. it was suggested. and a fairly strong. well respected scientists. do chemicals that the advertising. really increase the risk of cancer. known to infuse damage in the. wrist is true by independent scientists.

my time as was the others why is that i me to be. doing if you want to learn more you'll get a. lot of you. back. big business against health. hello and welcome to crossfire all things considered i'm peter we're here in southern russia in salt attending the ball by discuss. and our topic is u.s.

russia relations and the state of the world. my guests are emma toll even he's a professor at georgetown university in qatar as well as author of several books including america right or wrong we also have richard stark well he's an expert at valdai discussion club as well as author and professor at the university of kent and we have james sherk he is an associate fellow at chatham house as well as author of hard to plough mostly in soft coersion russia's influence abroad or a gentleman to start our discussion about the first go to end a toll a lot of people them and the current tragic. situation with us russian relations i mean with good reason but does it matter it is so much as it used to should we lamented so much because things go well all of it certainly highly regrettable and in my view largely unnecessary but exactly we do need to keep in

mind that compared to the cold war where you had soviet forces in the middle of germany you had nuclear forces on trigger alert and you had to genuinely clash radically clashing world ideologies this is a much much smaller dispute but at the same time the me if you look at mainstream media the threat level seems to be equal if no worse well you were a journalist i used to be a journalist to do newspapers television advertising has to be so what journalists have a major name playing down a problem more or a conflict but in my view i mean the areas of dispute local imperial problems in the former soviet union of a kind which we've seen in formal western them as well and they are of course disputes but what if you heidi. to an extent limited disputes in the middle east

given the property seen our greatest enemies in the middle east sunni islamist terrorism are in fact the same. james speak that is u.s. relations that important with war because i mean if you if you look at all of the numbers you know russian defense spending versus the united states and nato i mean they're not even comparable i mean russia's actually cut down on defense spending people focus in on that looking for a conflict when there really isn't there peter first of all russia u.s. relations of enormous importance to russia the united states remains russia's significant other and despite that discrepancy let me present you with another discrepancy if you look. at the balances of military power in the areas where actual tensions are taking place and where differences of interest are most acute the statistics are tiley the opposite of what you have

presented no will be you're looking at russia's border here not looking it broke water is also the border of europe now on the border of nato and in this sense this sense alone the situation is more dangerous than a cold war because then the line of demarcation was not only far from the russian border but from the soviet border it's now on well that's a very good point you know richard but it's nato that went into russia's border wasn't russia that went in there was nowhere that was lost to go and it was there that they can for russia there is a continuing discussion about need to expansion is not a big issue in those let's go to richer it matters but not in the way it mattered before before i think that it's not just the united states or us us in the relations it's the whole question of the atlantic systems. and the larger global shifts it was always the. the idea of the so-called us led liberal international

order being as it were a global system yes it was but the same time there were always exceptions former soviet bloc and china the third world a nonaligned movement and so on but today the context is still. google shifts have taken place in which that relationship of the nato system as you say which includes not just the united states not just nato european union as well the whole system as it were has a specific logic to it and that logic is opposed by china and a number of others and that logic is expansion enlargement its enlargement not just physically but also ideologically the view that it's as it were positive values a virtue and so is that is that the new terrain and terrain anatole of the i don't like using the word new cold war because as you said earlier it was something very different and it's not the same again but there is an ideological trend to it i

mean the neo liberal order believes that it's destiny it's you know it's messy it's like a kind of messianic message for the world and russia obviously doesn't see it that way but nor of course do as richard said a very large number of people around the world including of course many western allies in the middle east nobody agrees with this aspect of the west from agenda it's not just opposed by iran but of course in a different way it's posed by saudi arabia the largest democracy in the world as they constantly remind us india is now ruled by a government which strongly wishes a close defense alliance with the united states but absolutely rejects western liberal secularism as an ideology and rejects ferociously and the right of the us or the west to lecture india on this subject but of course i think you know what we're also seeing and i think that perhaps this also does explain some because styria. in the western indians is the very appropriate word i would say well that

you know in the era of trump in the era of the latest election results you know in europe it's by no means clear that i mean the ideological divide is in fact so clear cut and if one looks at the ideas that are driving trump if you can talk of your ideas we can easily as you. put it clearly these do not represent the the liberal consensus which has governed western policy for more than half a century in. there is a values element in this here because you know. russia is a very very conservative country and obviously the west isn't here and that's maybe the new clash of ideas let me first agree with richard about something because important i agree with richard about something. it's a very sweet boy bated breath put in what this has been about since twenty fourteen

in europe and i'm excluding for the moment the issues that on a toll raised outside europe is about there the jitter missy and the future of the whole sinking based cold war i don't think it's it's just vocal this is as richard said it is systemic no i have always thought it's not a new thought that if the west principle had been a bit different from the beginning we would have been in a slightly better place namely that russia's internal affairs are russia's business but the internal affairs of georgia and ukraine on not russia's business i think there would have been a clarity which has been absent for twenty five years because the west has allowed quite reasonably russia to connect all of these different approach acts with a presumed aspiration. to change the system of governance in russia itself and that

is what is made this whole issue so you're talking. you know only we can agree on so many things here but you know it can we can go back up to go back to the breakup of yugoslavia and the recognition of costs of zero and i can remember it very very clearly foreign minister said you know this is opening up a pandora's box and it did ok james you were completely agree the helsinki let's say aspiration about the post. world war two order about borders about. external influences and internal affairs of other countries when the cold war came to an end that started to fray and i think they did that everyone is paid the consequences. think is one thing if the context in which the principles of inviolability of borders human rights and so on is located the big thing as you say to yugoslavia is a symptom ukraine is

a symptom of the failure at the end of the cold wall to establish an inclusive and comfortable security and indeed political and value system of all if you decide inclusive this is the problem i have here we've had since two thousand. in the under i'm in bed and i think it's spoken in is it a new record that would include russia not as a hostile or not as a adversary but a mechanism they could be strife you know that they would be perfect and wouldn't be easy and it wouldn't be fast ok i'm being realistic here it's not quite the situation yes certainly the atlantic system was not designed or not intending to exclude go so that's certainly the case also it's a mitigation measures took place nato russia council and so on but i would just say one important thing between one thousand nine hundred ninety one when go bitch i was putting forward all sorts of ideas about appearance formation. the

international system that the end of the cold war would be a mutual victory for all everything like this we know that precisely at that moment after is fantastic speech is the united nations december one thousand nine hundred eight so as a common european then george h.w. bush came up with the idea of a europe whole and free now it's a fantastic idea but the idea was put forward to really gain the initiative away from the soviet union which was still a functioning enterprise at that stage and go but you haven't quite explicitly they said look guys go but you of moscow's getting the initiative and getting a lot of support around the world we now need to take the initiative so these ideas good ideas but they were embedded in the logic of enlargement of an existing atlantic system. let's say that's being spareness of russia. it was not designed to be the expense of russia but it was to make sure that russia knew its place and that it was going to its place and thank you for stating that it will say that in the middle east at the moment on the geo political front you have

a completely different lineup on one of the most important issues and threats you have britain france russia and china supporting the nuclear deal against the present well not necessarily administration but president of the united states who wants to wreck it this is not a clear stand off there are gentlemen let me jump in here we're going to have to go to a short break and after that short break we'll continue our discussion on u.s. russia relations stay with r.t. .

here's what people have been saying about rejected and i suspect it's full on awesome the only show i go out of my way to find you know what it is that really packs a punch at least yampa is the john oliver of r t america is doing the same we are apparently better than blue things but i see people you've never heard of love redacted tonight my president of the world bank hates it but he doesn't want me seriously he sent us an email and i'll go. get me no it's this sunday i'm going out to. get the last of the

feel i. just i'm just. used on the show for the sunday times and i was hoping to go much but i feel a lot of the behind of the out. on the she just that our she did the militia guy though. in a moment of it is the food out of this not just obey this that beat but i mean. good looking good yulia. gets to live it up with other.

welcome back to crossfire all things considered to mind you were discussing u.s. russia relations. ok ed i want to go back to before we went to the regular toughing about. western perceptions global perceptions of president trump's. decertification or the move to sort of the iran nuclear deal go ahead and remember this is easier said well whenever the republican party in congress is not just a trump thing but the point is that here we have a completely different lineup i mean as it would be seen i think in western european capitals as well as in beijing and moscow all of responsible powers working together for a reasonable international agreement and to avoid yet another potentially disastrous conflict in the middle east against

a roll of the wild out. the united states or at least the republican party of the you know it's global perceptions of the united states as well i mean if you look at the syrian issue of course people are all over the place we have you know iran and turkey israel and turkey still quasi allies with their own policies in america with its policy in russia with its policy and then of course we have the europeans as usual sitting on the sidelines wringing their hands but i mean i i think on the ideological front as well this isn't a case of communists you know the old communists opposing capitalist democracy in europe by far the biggest threat of visibly internal as a catalogue separatism you know new nationalism coming up the impact of the migration crisis on the european polity. yes but all of these are really this this

is what threatens the rebellion does want to clarify here with you and it's not russia's fault that can only go one seven hundred ok no it was it just wanted to make sure i'm ok no it was no one breaks it russia's fault you know the greatest players to the european union the potentially multiple threats to the european union in time i'm not from russia you know this fascination this hysteria and it was absolutely right i mean i'm in the media business i mean you want clicks you want eyeballs you know these sensational headlines i can understand that but policy that's not a policy for a country to have here and and it's all mentioned you know we have you know ship ships going on its way for example in india all the problems in europe we see some kind of game happening in syria and then we have iran is back on the table here now you have you have any ministration that is being forced to demonize russia for

reasons we don't really need to go into here but then russia is an important player in the iran story and that's kind of. a missed opportunity for the united states or europe russia to deal with iran dare i say something i think we will agree upon whatever disappointment. whatever the legitimacy indeed necessity of connecting values and interest in europe once you try as a matter of policy to transpose peace values out. into the wider world stage you would never believe produce have a can chaos and this is what we have see now to put trump into context well before the whole syria business blew up about not twenty eleven throughout all these years there was never a western policy about syria that was just another. that there was

a moralistic narrative about meanwhile russia in the external world when it has made mistakes but where its competence cannot be fault it has. had a very clear. consequentialist utilitarian limited even well limited often by its own means no what happened in twenty fifteen was perhaps even a belated response to two factors first the above of ministration for all sorts of reasons created great. tradition of. the middle east they allowed a power vacuum to emerge for all sorts of reasons which gave russia an opportunity and secondly. at that point was in trouble. this is an important ally of russia so in that situation you had both reason and opportunity to do what was dog and it was

exceptionally well done and the only thing surprising is that anybody else was supreme was exceptionally well done richard it was but there is no kudos for that is a matter of fact i see just the opposite ok then the the the media narrative on syria is beyond orwellian in the west in my opinion ok. james has mapped it out perfectly that was a perfect opportunity maybe on a maker scale russian the united states would disagree on many things but on one very specific thing they could have agreed very clearly in trump ran on that as a matter of fact to a point to a point on the one side as far as serious concern going to russia was indeed quite consistent whereas us policy was simply in comprehensible that was what you had to say if you are going to say i do in the defense department on going it is the traditional sense absolutely but that was only a reflection i think that since twenty fourteen in particular data with the

ukrainian crisis is that the old model which i suggested of these two narratives since the end of the cold war the twenty five years the cold peace it's now fragmented into all sorts of different shooting off in different ways in the middle east as one set of things in europe another and so on and what we witnessing is even began and. is a certain u.s. to be a treat it's not moving away from dominance primacy in the world it's actually interpreted in the way it's actually leading the world. is changing its forms and is confusing its allies like saudi arabia and. that's a very it's a fascinating point. how can the u.s. as a hedge a man lead differently or maybe it's too early to say. well in the middle east you see that things have been become so complicated largely but by no means entirely because of america's own actions but look at the issue of kurdistan you know of an independent kurdistan nobody really knows what to do with the sides are so

complicated you know we have allies in syria who are enemies over kurdistan but then again i mean as jim said we don't even really know who we are in this case because so i think that but on the other hand you also see which is perhaps one of the most dangerous things amidst precisely this. retreat because one should also remember that this is extremely closely militarily involved the u.s. strategy in the middle east is relatively new in this case after the cold war to some degree it came even after after nine eleven so one could see you know in general the retreat to a previous model but of course interspersed as we're now sees with iran we can. back it is the military correct tool it seems to me is too much of a blunt object it's that's a substitute for a much more

a more policy you know what they what each major power wants to do with cheap i would say james put it really well russia's syria policy was theory well defined what goals what assets they would put into it and if they didn't achieve goals at a certain amount of time using those assets it would make a radical reduce in not just double down double down double down like the u.s. and its allies did in syria with a situation for example in seriously and again which is probably even this is neither israel nor do you always has this idea of east of the euphrates fields and so on so there could actually be a direct military conflict we know that a couple of weeks ago two. days ago this left and colonel russian was killed and so on it will be don't ever circumstances but highly suspicious but in other words everybody's going to and this sort of type of dominant or victor at the end of what everybody's going to be ending up as a loser it could lead to and also the fact that has given the military in syria the

ability to act almost autonomously is exceptionally dangerous but the big picture again just to simply say is that we're seeing almost a type of under the defection of the united states from its own system that it established and so a lot of people who just support been doing that on the ground here i mean it's a long process so it isn't just a flexion of a long term tendency is that the view within the states is this burden really worth it is it in our interest is an important question such as gazing important questions the way he's doing it is a different. one has to wonder you know when so you mr trump is confronted with the kurdish issue he'll probably say you know the kurds now ok where are they really am i trying to which i'm not trying to diminish donald trump lose a limb by saying that is that the president owes you a long series of this you found yourself in a situation where it is so intractable it's so complicated and you don't know what

victory is that's dangerous or james you were. let me move all my metaphors the elephant in the room obviously is the trump ministration so to open the pandora's box metaphor because i think the stock you have to talk about it you know i think. we have to do what i think has been intelligently done in moscow it's time to draw a distinction between trump and his views and his inclination and the trumpet ministration particularly the national security coming clearly or this is a highly respected people they are they have they have a clear and very tough view of what u.s. interests sought. they're not fundamentally ideological by the way and they are very means ends calibrated. what is interesting is you know i think by the way they obviously have less of a restraining influence over trump when it comes unfortunately to wider global

problems like iran and north korea than they do with regard to russia where for domestic reasons trump knows i'd better not touch any of this ok but what i have seen i interpret what has recently happened in syria with the u.s. military strikes in a different way because what i think these people have at least decided is we're not yet in a position to know what the final interest and end game is but what we do know and we will have made it clear we will not see chemical weapons being used and we will not see syrian forces attacking those who are attacking isis and on each occasion when these red lines have been crossed they are backed and unlike the previous their predecessors they have not consulted with allies they have not known anyone they have just done it without warning now i think that has really registered in russia and i don't think the consequences i was bad as all that. i know i'm throwing

a notice on to believe that we're going no more questions than we did have here gentlemen or this part of the program we've run out of time on i think my guest here in sochi and i want to thank our guests and viewers for watching us here r.t. see you next time and remember. nobody's gaining any more and you say. it's the reality. of the russian economy. and i know a lot of people who are looking for creative ways to get better results. but also. it was suggested.

and a fairly strong one there were two thousand. and thirty. do chemicals that the advertising. really increase the risk of cancer. known to infuse them in the. skepticism they do know. this is true by independent scientists. industry. from my time as was the others why is that the meat lobby definitely didn't like what we've been doing and if you want to learn more you'll get a definite on the outflow the. back. is it big business against health.

how does it feel to be a share of the greatest job in the world it's as close to being a king as any job there is what business model helps to run a prison now we just do it on video visitation that. no one comes in to. give a damn if you. put a mark in. the louisiana incarceration rate is twice as high as the u.s.n. breach what she is behind such success.

halmos half a million people protest in catalonia as madrid decides to impose direct rule dismiss key officials and call for a regional election. r.t. has been under scrutiny with the u.k.'s foreign secretary boris johnson britain's the times newspaper and a european think tank all slamming this channel and insulting i'll get. the pentagon hales the liberation of the syrian city of rocket from islamic state by u.s. backed opposition forces though the city has been left in ruins.