the british media speculates on kremlin involvement in the suspected poisoning of a former russian double agent in the u.k. . u.s. halts a ground operations in eastern syria after its kurdish allies head to the north of the country to repel an incursion by turkey. and ninety nine days to his world cup team guides you through some of the host cities preparing for russia two thousand and eighteen. the stories you have to stay with us now from debating the prospect of a new nuclear arms race between the u.s. and russia.

hello and welcome to cross talk we're all things considered. the united states and russia have announced their nuclear weapons posture both countries are entering a new age of war the age of hypersonic weapons we are told russia's hypersonic weapons can render u.s. led missile defense systems useless can washington allow this to stand and are we now in a new arms race. talking hypersonic wars i'm joined by my guest george samuel in new york he is a fellow at the global policy institute of london and author of the book bombs for peace in lake jackson we have daniel mcadams he's the executive director of the ron paul institute for peace and. prosperity and in london we have married

a chef ski she is a columnist for the independent and the guardian all right cross talk rules in effect that means you can jump in anytime you want and i always appreciate mary let me go to you first here are the reactions to president putin's address to the joint some billy. parliament last week was like a thunderbolt for a lot of people and of course that was roundly condemned no context was given except for the russians are bad and aggressive behavior that's what we hear all the time but the fact of the matter is and i'm sure this applies to everyone here and many of our viewers if you look back at. for example in two thousand and two when the united states unilaterally moved away dropped the anti-ballistic missile treaty the very foundation of arms control speed up to the munich security conference in two thousand and seven read that speech read the speech that putin gave to the general assembly the united nations in two thousand and fifteen and then we have last week what i'm doing is connecting a lot of dots anyone that's paying attention understands perfectly well what's

going on here ok mary go right go ahead. well i think that everybody sort of thinks that they understand what's going on but one thing that they certainly didn't understand or at least i felt that about the british reaction was that they did not understand that putin is in an election campaign so i think you have to understand that this was a state of the nation speech given in the context of a russian election in less than a month's time and it's all very well for people in the west to say oh it's not a proper election no putin's bound to win and there's no contest and all that is probably true but the fact is that there is a campaign and putin needs to get his vote out and i think without that context the picture is incomplete but if we go back to the actual substance of what putin was talking about under of course the spectacular visual effects that played behind him

i knew i watched that speech live and i knew what the response was going to be as soon as he was talking i knew what it was going to be it was going to be about a new cold war it was going to be about russian war mongering and it was going to be about a new arms race and yet if you read very carefully or if you listened to what putin was actually saying he was talking about russian security he was talking about the american unilateral abrogation of the missile defense treaty and about how the united states had been developing that particular branch of weapons technology defense technology and russia had decided and had now achieved its aim of catching up very well i mean i don't think the election playing really has anything to do it is because the speech that he gave was supposed to be

given last december. but b. they were interested paving the nuclear posture review and they held it back so with all due respect to mary i don't think it has anything new with domestic politics ok but daniel the but one of the things is that i think and i've been watching president putin from the time he came into office he's not one prone to embellish or to exaggerate as a matter of fact it's very straightforward and to the point here and i think this is this speech was a reaction they digested all of these military and security reviews that trumpet ministration has put put out and well the russians are putting their marker down and i think that it was it was and then i'll agree with mary i mean after all of the broken promises all of these new weapons systems russia said ok we can push back and we will go ahead daniel. you know i think there is an element of electioneering and i think if it's not perhaps a somewhat more subtle but i can imagine that president putin has

a lot of his he has a lot of vulnerability in a way on his right for lack of better term people in russia russian voters who are expecting him to be a little bit more responsive u.s. provocations to nato provocations on russia's border to us occupying thirty percent of syria illegally i can imagine that's where his weakness is if he has any weakness among russian voters people saying why are we sitting there letting them walk all over us so in that sense perhaps that is entering into his mind but otherwise i mean if that is the case how different is that than any u.s. presidential campaign where they all try to outflank each other being more much more pro-war than anyone else you know it george the a no in my in my first question to mary i mean i kind of gave the lineage there it's really quite remarkable to me that how remarkable the response has been because if you're been looking at arms control and the u.s. russia relations over the last decade or so. you know russia is basically telling

the united states that your threats against our sovereignty stop now and we have the means to react in very forcefully and it's called defending your sovereignty nothing more than that go ahead george though this is exactly right and that's why he. brought up the issue of the united states with rolled from the a.b.m. treaty but there's obviously a more to it than that i mean there's also the nato expansion right to russia's borders and there is essentially now but the constant belligerent russian rhetoric now emanating from the western capitals and when you build up arms on russia's borders. and you start actually shooting at russians in syria and when you combine that with the russian hysteria.

in in washington in london in other capitals then you've got a very serious situation and i think you're absolutely right peter when you said that putin is not one to rhetorical flourishes he's not one to exaggerate to bloviate he's not donald trump so he is a very serious person and i think he was putting down a marker and say stop this now before it gets out of control because we mean business exactly if you carry on like this it is going to end badly you know mary the over the years when they were before the negotiations with the iran nuclear deal the pentagon constantly was telling russia that all these in these anti-missile defense systems in poland and remain were many they have nothing to do with you it's all directed against iran and then when the deal is signed they actually admit to that well we still have to keep them there is it because of russia well yes because ok i mean this is the kind of relations and partnership

russia has with nato you can't believe what they say ok or they talk out of both sides of the mouth at the same time with russia did with putin did exactly what he promises has promised the russian people that a war will never be fought on this country soil ever again and he's making sure that happens go ahead mary. well i think that there is a perpetual problem between russia and nato as to who is on defense and who is on oftens and who acted first and we saw this most graphically and most recently with ukraine but we've seen it all before with the expansion of nato and we've seen it since ukraine with the strengthening of the nato presence in the border states in the in the baltic states in poland where it said that this needs to happen as a reassuring defensive all nato is part because of what they see as the increased

threat from russia and then of course you go to moscow and russia says well we've got all this sort of advance present suddenly in the new countries of nato and we have to defend ourselves against that at which point nato starts talking about you remember the big or maybe not quite so big russian military exercise last summer which was completely hyped by nato spokesman and western ministers which turned out to have been a fraction oh they were too and of course mary these things these exercises are player now and still in advance they were made public observers are allowed to come again this hype here i mean also daniel you know what i'm also on top of it here you have lethal weapons being sold to the ukrainians if you look at the the pentagon's nuclear posture review it discusses the possibility of a first strike this is throwing away his entire history of arms control not

only did they rip up the b.m. treaty they're actually even going further there's no interest in the west about a new start to intermediate weapons and they're no there's no talking about that ok again this is one of the reasons why putin said what he had to say go ahead dan you . you know i think the the anti-ballistic missile batteries in poland and romania that you referenced earlier was also about enabling a western for a strike prohibiting retaliation i think president putin said it many times before this is not about defense this is to enable offense but you mentioned earlier you know hysteria and i think the u.s. is is under such a cloud of mass hysteria that it's palpable you know this past week in italy there were elections where the non mainstream parties did very very well and someone joked how soon until explained on russia well into today already has just a day later played on russia by none other by samantha power by samantha power and

here's here in italy are parties that were elected on an anti immigrant anti immigration policy why might it be concerned about immigration because samantha power herself was in favor of regime change in libya and syria and elsewhere that created the refugees so no matter what happens no matter the fact that power is behind this problem no it's all russia and that's what's happening in the u.s. it really is a mass hysteria in this country ok twenty seconds georgia mean no matter what the president of russia has to say has to say it's going to be taken into a specific context go ahead twenty seconds before we go to the break. yes always specific context been because it's always assumed that russia is an aggressive power in it because it's the that is the propaganda trope and therefore there is no context whatsoever in which you know what is it that what the west to provoke

this very different resources let me jump in here how we're going to we're going to go to a hard break and after that hard break we'll continue our discussion on russia's new weapon state with. jamie diamond no matter how much you try to talk down big oil the matter how much you try to. get his buddies in washington and out while big guy and it mean the fact is he's lost he has lost the battle of big time he's got it now come crawling back to the market and say you know what the whole banking industry has been fundamentally change we need to adapt. some is not is not quick place is not good country. true.

but mr bush. loves. music that's what this is all this is glued. to the culture. ok let's. check in. just a little. slow moment of oneself to be. played almost anything for the members of the. last second hour that john said i'm based on on my show that's right no one can i do not. like this from happening tonight i have. and i'm ready to. run the show. tonight fuck man i can use someone i know now with the fuckin on it. this is ridiculous when i was going to show you this is about all of us going to this is another. course as in this is the one of the street. and i'm about i got to go to this.

welcome back to cross talk where all things are considered i'm peter lavelle to remind you we're discussing some of russia's new weapons. ok not to go back to mary in london and i'd like to ask all of you basically two questions in this part of the program are how the russians implicitly at least acknowledge that there is a new cold war and very importantly mary you said you watched it putin did reach out his hand to say there's still time to sit down and talk instead of all of the bluster ok because i think we are in

a new cold war i think we're going to find a new term for it because it's not ideological it's like more like in one thousand century great power struggle but at least in those days you recognized and had respect for the other powers that's not the case today so those two questions are in a new cold war and can the west reach out its hand and sit down with the russians on these issues go ahead mary. well my personal take on this is that actually we're not in a new cold war we're in something rather different we're in more of a sort of psychological standoff i think and i'm quite reluctant to refer to what's going on as a new cold war but i think implicitly you could read into what putin was saying and his approach that from russia's perspective it is treating this at least a bit like a new cold war and one of the things that i thought was so interesting you pointed out that he was calling for talks and saying you know there's still time for talks but one of the one of the things i found quite telling about that was that

he accused the west and the americans in particular of refusing to talk after the application of the a.b.m. treaty and. numerous russia said. expressions of interest in holding talks with the americans the americans said no we're not going to talk and there's that clip of putin speech which was broadcast which was singled out a lot by russia watchers including by me where putin says well they didn't listen to us before they'll listen to us now. and i think that was in a way it was. it seemed to me that it was less of a threat than it was an expression of being very keen to be seen as an equal player to want to sit around the table with the americans on an

equal basis and that the development of these new weapons a new entitlement to sit at that table and that the united states had to listen you know well daniel i mean you're in russia is a very important nuclear power let's all face it ok we have an entire history of arms control agreements because because of the possibility of. of a mistake a miscalculation that's why we have these agreements but they're running out running out in two thousand one hundred twenty twenty one and then we will have none of these things here so i think it was prudent to reach out. but will the united states do it because considering the environment particularly in the united states i mean. trump has his hands tied i mean this is on these issues he cannot do anything go ahead danny. well i think you know certainly a brilliant move by the neo cons they put in put him in a box they have prevented him from fulfilling any of his campaign promises if he

moves or even says putin without spitting. there he goes again he's on putin's payroll so it is a disastrous to the question of whether in a new cold war i would almost say i'm not the first who said this that we're actually in a new hot war during the cold war. the better minds in washington were doing their best to prevent an active conflict because russia is literally a threat as you point out because it has nuclear weapons in this new hot war with russia where russians are dying by the way you have people that are pushing usable nukes we need usable nukes in europe to fight another war with russia this is it's no longer the dr strangelove that would make fun of these are the people that are in power now so i think it is a far more dangerous situation than it was in the sixty's because george in the during the original cold war there was a code of honor you don't fight each other you use proxies and as daniel has pointed out we maybe we'll find out the truth because the pentagon is pretty

economical with the truth will find out if they are actually intentionally targeting russian contractors in syria you know george let me ask you something. i know the americans would hate this idea but why don't we have a global arms control agreement on nuclear weapons so you bring in the chinese also bring the nato countries that have the bomb india pakistan israel it doesn't it admit it but it has it in everybody does know that and even north korea now see the way it is global and everyone knows the rules of the game but the americans would never allow that to happen because in the case of the neo-cons negotiation is appeasement go ahead george yes yes you know i think that's an excellent i date oh it was always a very strange that the only participants in these nuclear disarmament. negotiations were used to be like the united states and the soviet union whereas britain and france and china or the other nuclear powers they were just of. out of

it they were they weren't considered but i and i just going back to what daniel said i think that. he's absolutely right i mean that this is a more dangerous situation than was the case during the cold war because during the cold war i mean there were the crises in berlin there was a crisis in cuba but other than that it never looked as if the united states and the soviet union would actually get into a shooting war i don't think that one can be so blind as a today the situation in ukraine i think is is quite serious and the americans seem quite happy to escalate this they are in syria again situations where it is a dangerous there americans are shooting at russians any one of these could spiral out of control so the front lines of this new. cold war are now much closer to

russia and. another much more dangerous so and i think which wasn't true during the cold war the original cold war there is a feeling among policymakers in washington that russia is basically very weak and that in any armed confrontation between america and russia america would win pretty easily and that the then the russians would have only one resort which is to escalate and you clear weapons but they're there they already think the russians would risk doing anything to so foolish and therefore awful just simply back down and accept the u.s. had germany and realize that there's no way in the world that they can ever rival the united states and i think this is very danger there is some kind of calculation like this going on in the among policymakers in merry way in on that because you know you know i get maybe i'm just way too close to it because i. lived here and lived here for a long time. and i you know i go and see the victory parade. commemorating the

end of the second world war it's very moving it's very real and it touches everyone in this country and my sense is that in reflecting on what george had to say. if the americans press hard enough the russians will defend itself by all means available that's not a bluff and and no president i don't care who it is of russia would stand for that whatsoever this is you know it's really you know we've talked about this involved i think was two years ago is that there are so few real russia watchers left because when the cold war came to an end they defunded it then you became i can eat you specialise in arms control specialist but you know not no hard core russian one and now i see people in western media talking about russia they have no idea really what they're talking about that it's all. exaggerations or character churches and i

these are the people that are influencing policy this is scares me because the russians don't bluff when it comes to existence go ahead mary. no i agree with you that russia doesn't bluff and i also agree with the other two contributors that. there is a sense in which the situation today is more dangerous on the ground in conflict areas such as syria such as ukraine because of the absence of the sort of rules that existed during the cold war. but i think in two respects things are slightly different one of them is that the scale is so different and the feel in the two in the two capitals is so different even in washington you have this incredible frenzy against russia but it's against russian interference in all sorts of things in a sort of cyber dimension in a propaganda dimension it's not really about assault or really disappoint tart

really and i think there's something else that i'd like to add to this which is that yes congress and the cold war republicans in particular have contained donald trump they've limited his room for maneuver in the most effective way they've been able to do that but i still think that if you look at the responses from donald trump in person and bloody near putin in person when they talk about each other they still retain i think at the back of their mind the hope that one day it will actually be possible to have proper talks and to have an improvement in relations and you can see that all the invective on both sides at least until now has been delegated to if you look on the russian side it's been to quite warlike members of the duma. and people are are the ones who make the

warlike comments against the united states and there's something similar happening from try. team as well so that at the moment i would say that trump important have held themselves quite effectively above the fray and also communicating which with each other quite regularly by phone now obviously there are a lot of people who don't like this. and the publicist before it is. is not huge but i think that still there's just this slight that could be an improvement ok danny let me go to you know give you the last word here with these new weapons and weapons coming from the united states and russia the time for a leader it used to be you know up to five five to fifteen minutes to make a decision now it's getting down to a minute or so and so if the americans are so terrified of you know leaving the light on it night and looking under their bed for russian spies it doesn't give me

hope at least in this environment that we're any safer go ahead. it is astonishingly dangerous and measure of previous speaker pointed out americans seem ready for war look at lindsey graham the senator from south carolina said just a couple of days ago hey war with no north korea attacking north korea not a big deal it probably be worth it the worth of reminds us of madeleine albright when she talked about five hundred thousand dead iraqi children he believes a million dead north koreans and south koreans would be worth it this is the mentality of people ok i'm going washington i'm not very good fight along on wary depressing note to get i did have the impression that the inmates have taken over the asylum many thanks to my gets a new york london and lake jackson and thanks to our viewers for watching us here at r.t.c. next time and remember. the

new global economic war is unfolding in the realm of education the right to education being supplanted by the right to access education low high education is becoming just another product that can be fortune sold but it's not just about education anymore it's also about running a business where you know most of the regime look good it's also. fairly good image. which is the place of students in this business model before college i was born now and i'm extremely bored high education the new global economic war. join me every thursday on the alex salmond show and i'll be speaking to guests of the world of politics school business i'm show business i'll see you then.

i think his. if he's. sick sick. sick. sick.

the small amount of gives up. on the team is the. job he. take. because. if and. if. it is in the years later a level of something was in the making headlines i might just make an end thanks because afghanistan is not its is not dark and good place is not good to gentry and i always feel that i'm dying in afghanistan because it's not safe place and i'm not so if you know. much. at all snug little. as a.