that's bellicosity and using either military or the threats of military or economic aggression or sanctions as the way of this imploding or policing the new post world war and now post or order i and that's very interesting you know mike when i read the report i found it to be very defensive about defense ok because i what really disturbed me was the lack of using diplomatic tools and i really very much agree with what brian was having to say here i mean particularly china i mean we've seen this in history over and over again a rising power either you you know back off and let it happen you deal with it or you have a war ok and it seems to me out of the three options here this administration is actually telling us get ready for a confrontation i don't think it's really necessary but that's what it looks like go ahead mike. yeah peter so thank you let me focus like you just did on china for a minute i thought it was a little too strong the report in terms of how it talked about china i think there

should have been a statement to acknowledge just how far china's common how much progress it's made and and the order of the international order that you and brian were talking about did help make it possible so it was american strategy in conjunction with other countries including the soviet union but also our allies that created a un system and then in the west that created an economic system that facilitated china's rise so whatever china's rise has become it was partly our doing and partly our hope now there are problems in the u.s. china economic relationship and i think we do need to take those very seriously but i agree with you that the tone overall is is too negative you know right now we have security concerns about china but that is to some extent inevitable with a rising power and i think overall i have worries about china too but most of its military activities that we don't like are in the uninhabited islands of the south china sea and they're not attacking other countries that are not doing things that historically you know rising powers that at the beginning of the twentieth century

for example you know the should have been a little more measured not mike let me say with you here i mean. put yourself in the chinese position in beijing and they read this report here and then they hear from the american white house sort of state department why don't you help us more on north korea i mean if i was sitting in beijing i said well what are you talking about these are your words this is your official policy and you come to us for help i mean it's really quite remarkable the same thing that actually can be applied to russia i mean bellicose language towards russia but then they say we need your help or you're not doing enough to fight terrorism in i mean i do if you're outside that bubble it's really kind of. odd rhetoric coming out of this government in thirty seconds i'll stay with you mike before we go to the break go ahead. well i would treat russia and china very differently and i'm i'm sure will come back to russia it was interesting that in his speech in his speech president trump did not use negative language especially about russia in fact he talked about the phone call he

and president putin had thanking each other for recent cooperation and so that was a distinct contrast the speech was a distinct contrast to the written report ok gentlemen i'm going to jump in here way to go to a short break and after that short break we'll continue our discussion on trump's view of the world staying with. corruption soul and i think that the risk of corruption is liberalists our national interbred of liberalism. over the most important reason it's raining corruption could not cure it because. liberalism. is the poison.

hello my name's peter and i've been living in bush for about seven years and this is a film about just some of the crazy things i've got to. get . along on those or do. i still get. through. join me every thursday on the alec simon show and i'll be speaking to guest in the

world of politics sports business i'm show business i'll see you then. welcome back to cross talk where all things considered i'm peter bell to remind you we're discussing trump's view of the world. ok to continue discussion where michael flanagan he's the guy going to join us he's the president of planning and consulting and he's a former congressman michael it's good to have you on the program as we entered the first half year we were talking about the this report that the president has put out and we're talking about russia and china and michaela also in washington he pointed out something that you know the tune well both negative to both countries is slightly less negative towards russia i know what that's all about and i'm going

to say before i ask you a question that train has already left the station i there's always been a suspicion here our hope that you know you could do divide russia in china to have . to slow down their kind of growing alliance strategic alliance and i think that's a pipe dream now i think that is over and i don't think the russians are going to be enticed back there are not enough sticks and they're not enough carrots for that after what's happened over the last few years you know we talk about that a little bit there because that's a strategy that people want to have happen but it isn't going to happen go ahead i'm not sure trump wants that to happen i think it is the just of this this document i think is it and you have to read it in the main from whether the discussion that i've heard so far is is is is parsing the exact words and that's a wonderful thing to do it's appropriate but in the main i think we're seeing a movie in strategic views of the world by the united states that puts america

first and it's not about america over japan over russia over europe it's about america we're going to take care of what we need to take care of at home before we give away. sovereignty money work or whatever else we need to put ourselves in peril for some other external need and i think that's what's being said here and i just came back from a conference in india where the same confusion kind of reigned among internationals who really didn't understand that america first is a common doctrine in every country what country would not want its own government to put its own people first internally and then xterm only do its work for it so i think i think we had a kind of a base understanding of it to begin with secondly you're seeing a huge emphasis of using trade and using economics as foreign policy and more so the united states has done it maybe one hundred years and i think that's a lot of what's at work here the tough language with russia china it's in your yes it's in there and and i too i join the panel and wish that it were not so tough but

then again you have a nine diplomat in the oval office you've got a guy there who speaks very plainly and also is the art of the deal so there's always there's always a certain given taken what he says does he really mean this does he really mean that in the main he's being honest with you but the emphasis kind of goes back and forth well and so i wouldn't live and die on particular words or phrases in there you know and i think that's a really extremely good point and i've already mentioned in the program what the report will import addresses that were gracious they immigration and trade i'm pretty much in agreement i mean and that's what he ran on and that's what he's been doing as president here but brian in you know taking on board what we just heard there i think they want it both ways because i do see donald trump's fingerprints on this but i see you know thirty years of neo conservatives their fingerprints all over it as well and that's an gannett that's what makes the kind of difficult read to try to figure out how to glean through what's really happening here because i mean look at the emphasis on on israel and saudi arabia and then of course you know

when we ran his mention is iran is described as the scourge of the world i mean what kind of serious documented scourge of the world i mean we all pretty much know where that came from go ahead brian. yes i consider this document while still representing a lot of continuity in u.s. foreign policy and of course it's partly drafted by national security council and the joint chiefs in the cia they all get a first image the first drafts. there is continuity but i think this represents a sharp shift especially given the fact that the joint comprehensive plan of action the so-called iran nuclear arms deal for instance could have been the precursor to a new sort of thaw in relations between the united states in iran in the middle east i mean they're cooperating in iraq they have the same enemy in some ways in syria or at least they say they do but this is

a sharp reversal of any sort of possibility for that the confrontational language with china or and with russia which goes against would trump was sort of suggesting which during the campaign and afterwards like why not have good relations with russia doesn't it make sense this document adopt a strategic orientation that goes in a different direction the america first of a sort of a sort of a combination of campaign sloganeering and still you know some differentials and trade policy and immigration but in terms of foreign policy orientations towards russia china major players it doesn't it's not the same and i think that we're going down this is the embrace of the new cold war in providing the logic for the new cold war and if anything it means trump is not only just a capitulated not just surrendered to the cold war years in the neo cons but he's enthusiastically embracing it he wanted to do it he's the first president to

actually articulate what's in the document at the time of its publication bush didn't do that obama didn't do that he wasn't required to do it he wanted to do it and that's where trump is heading ok but you know mike one of the things that's interesting to me is that i mean we. we still have and i have already invoked. the attack on iraq where you know it's all about american hegemony and i know people don't like that word but i mean this document is basically saying to assure american agenda me where there is no rival power that has many in one of the great regions of the world here in this is a strategy to make sure that doesn't happen here ok i could i can understand that but i don't understand how that makes america great again i mean look at all of the catastrophes u.s. foreign policy has experienced oh it's since the end of the cold war particularly in this century here and i did and and i give a hat tip to brian i say i understand what he was saying about some of the differences but at the core it is still making sure that no other country in the

world can rival the united states but that the unit poland moment is coming to an end why doesn't the united states articulate a policy where it works in unison with other powers we're not in the we're not always going to agree on things rivalry is not always a bad word competition is good but i don't see foreign policy elites in washington understand this you know polar moment is coming to an end go ahead mike well peter let me hold on one specific issue that your broad point raises which is nato expansion and i'm going to make a hopeful comment here i did not see the national security strategy reiterate our longstanding commitment to further nato expansion you may recall that i wrote a short book this summer in which i advocated that we no longer expand nato provided that president putin would agree to resolve the territorial disputes to mutual satisfaction with ukraine and georgia and also allow those countries sunday to join the european union if they're invited and so wish that would be the new security architecture i propose nothing in this document rules that kind of idea

out there is not the traditional commitment to further expand nato to the east which i don't think is directed at russia's expense but if i were a russian i realize i would look at it perhaps quite differently i realize most russians do look at it differently and i think we've gone far enough. that logic luckily than the national security strategy does not endorse further nato expansion at least not explicitly and i hope that creates some room for maneuver on that issue so your big broad points that raises a lot of stuff well. i want to hone in. i and i know the thesis of your book here and you know it's worth a conversation i agree ok we were very far apart on this here but you know we just had in the last news cycle the trumpet ministration is going to sell lethal arms to ukraine great you know that's that's just plain stupid or just plain stupid ok and that's the but that's a topic for another program let me go back to michael here with you because i want to make sure you get a little bit more time on this program here i mean michael how does how does terms

of foreign policy make america great again. that's a great question and i would i wish this were a three hour program because i packed with your your guests have said i mean this is this is a great program peter you're not wrong but let me let me maybe focus your emphasis just a little bit aside again it's a non-diplomatic president it's a man who doesn't have a career in public office and it's also a man who believes that personally interpersonally he is going to be able to deal with foreign leaders on a one on one basis he enjoys a terrific relationship at least on the surface with the premier of japan with with the prime minister of japan with the premier of china with mr modi in india and other places as well and in the in the in the recent past they've had very positive personal conversations with mr putin about things of interest to both countries even after this document or while this document was being being promulgated. so the

document this national policy yes of course it's there's nothing in here that's alive certainly but there's nothing in here that you need you have to take to the bank and nail to the wall and say this is absolutely going to be how it's going to be because it says so here that's diplomat talk it's government talk i think you've got a guy who's going to work it in a way that he sees it in the x. and she of the moment in the larger period at the end of this doc michael michael let me go to brian here rapidly running out of time here i mean you know again you know where is the diplomacy all this and let's look at actions i mean you have nikki haley i mean she said disgrace gentleman she's a disgrace that kind of behavior and at that forum here i mean basically we're going to take your name and watch out we're going to remember you i mean that this that's is bullying it's very primitive there's no professionalism there i mean that this isolates the united states i mean it it's really truly an embarrassment on a national on an international stage go ahead brian. yeah indeed but it's not that far different from what trump is doing right now this week threatening the member

states of the u.n. we're we're going to pay attention we'll cut your aid we don't care language like that. i think what we're witnessing here is i think the trump orientation was to sort of retreat from the world stage and i think trump's policies are contributing to us contraction from the world stage and its influence you can as you said in the beginning peter say paying in china we really want to work together we love you we have a great relationship you love us and by the way we're going to mention you twenty four times in our national security report and discuss you in the most bellicose aggressive way and then and then expect china to be like oh that's great you know china was shocked by this report china was stunned if you read the chinese media this week they were taken aback they did not expect this to come and they don't really count that much on the primacy of individual relations this is an

institutional document even if some of it is just whatever language the language of annual reports nonetheless the chinese see in this report something that they did not expect they were very hopeful and i think the russians were earlier hopeful that trump would mean something new something less oriented towards aggression and towards regime change towards unit polar domination that america for ok gentlemen now that we've been around it looks like it doesn't i have to jump in here gentlemen we'll find out if this report actually is a blueprint for the future many thanks to my guests in washington and thanks to our viewers for watching us here at r.t.c. you next time and remember. how does it feel to be assured the greatest job in the world. it's as close to being a king as any job there is one business model helps to run

a prison now we just do it on like a nobody over the case and i don't know what comes into them or we don't have to serve them anymore is cost effective that's what they want to do that knowing they don't give a damn if you do the chores and that they're actually paying us to put it back and look at the louisiana incarceration rate is twice as high as the us sam bridge what she could is behind such success. and welcome to world apart a russian stand up comic once remarked that russia is

a country with an unpredictable past pointing to its recurring after is to redefine itself through the reinterpretation of history but less than three months to go until the presidential election and all candidates including the incumbent calling for change while the discussion of the future finally replays the debates over history to discuss that i'm now joined by russian philosopher and public intellectual alexander dog and mr dog it is great to talk to you thank you very much for your time with asian now one of the most common descriptions of you in western media is something along the lines that he sas what putin thinks i'm sure you wouldn't claim that to be the case but i wonder to what extent do you believe your ideas about russia and its place in the world its place in history all overlap with the ideas currently prevalent in the kremlin i think that's. explaining. what sort of the else is because our. so my.

mind. doesn't the whole rush months so. it's. the liberals who. for being not so much. spect. to western way of life so. well that may be unproductive but i'm not sure that the your interpretation or true of the of what russia is always even with people who don't describe themselves as liberals for example i consider myself a patriot but i take an issue with when you set for example that russia's recognition of the universal declaration of human rights was a mistake that in russia we understand human rights as putin's rights or our rulers

rights do you think that putting would actually agree with such from not is not the problem of. the reality of our society i'm sociologists. have written many books on sociology or offer us from. this current that there are. more or less. and there is the fall. of the reality and that profound. society deep russian society to work with call it is quite different from what political. image and i think you may be contradicting yourself big because you said before and i heard it on several occasions that what putin is is not necessarily what he wants to be but what the russian people is required to. well projecting.

this. oh expectations oh dreams is that sometimes in. response to that answer so they're. not so very important i have written the book. so my idea that there are two points there is to put an individual. person absolutely let me. ask you about putin as a function because i think blood you put into recent speeches especially since he announced his intention to run for another presidential term i some of the most liberal in his very long political career for example he talked about rights and freedoms in russia as being values on par with patriotism not laugh he talked and i'm quoting him about liberalizing the russian legislature to broaden economic freedoms he may not identify himself as a liberal but he's conceptual apparatus is found a liberal than it was even

a few years ago how do you explain that do you think the russian society is actually asking him to be more liberal no absolutely we don't care about. the liberalism because that is message directed. at this kind of diplomatic step or think because we have double hermeneutic or. the wars for example we are speaking about what for example human rights first of all the concept of what is different in the west. the most basic human rights the right to live through the right to be treated equally and fairly by the law he would actually claim that the russian people do you know given the last there is a huge gap between the low and the troops that is the. there's del lol. never represents the truth moral truth

think. mr you can i think this is not what i'm asking you about various you may say that the law doesn't raise up to the morality that's not what i'm asking you about how there are many people who are concerns that the law is not practiced fairly so it's not only not rising enough to the morality but that they way it is applied is corrupt it is often not very just and so on and so forth don't you think that at least on the basic level the rule of the lawyer ease the russian people. has nothing to do with liberalism because liberal or a low low order and withing that order is necessary order is necessary in strong order and. absolutely not was this corruption that. is becoming huge now in russia but nothing to do with all that because if it is the

law below should burn a speck that. is. the situation is that the law isn't respected so deep in the corruption so i think that the reason of corruption is liberalism because liberalism. is was the reason to introduce speculation to. really has to have to do that i. don't feel i mean is the theft capitalism is absolutely just political system. and to social conduct for the founding father of liberalism absolutely clear that the first individual. personal profit individual profit is the consumer. to be the basis all good for

a public good so personal. what you telling me is that when people steal or when they demand a bribe or when they channel money out of the state budget they actually think that they are benefiting they're doing that for ideological liberal reasons rather than all of us liberalism. liberal has opened the way for that because that's what that was a rehabilitation of the individualism and only. right and the individual should pursue its own agenda and profit so it leads to corruption in our situation because we have forgotten one of the other points of mind because western liberalism is first series all for personal profit wisdom responsibility and we have forgotten the second part of the responsibility and accepted all one pot.