literally call her ju innocent to face the full wrath of the law. it was an honor to support francis hogan today. she testified before the senate. i am privileged to work with a talented team of co counsels. thank you out front cnn for having me on this evening. i'm proud to represent francis, a courageous whistleblower alongside my colleagues at whistleblower aid, with francis halligan's unusual success story. many whistleblowers now probably wish they also had the kind of support that she does. but unfortunately, it seems, there revelations just weren't as convenient for the establishment. so all they got was prosecution and a cold shoulder at best. all right, that is a for me, this are i'll be back in 30 minutes with another look. stay with us or to international ah. the coin was created and invented specifically to kill central banks. it says selling genesis blind and they make

a reference to the bank of england when the bank of england started squirming, and they start whining that, oh my god, big coin is an existential threat to our existence. everyone who yearns for freedom in the world to day shit, let out a collective paragraph because we're finally getting rid of the worst actor on the financial scene for 300 years. ah ah, ah ah hello and welcome to cross stock were all things are considered. i'm peter lavelle,

russia strategic patience with the west, particularly with nato. and the e. u. appears to have come to an end. the west is hell bent on lecturing. moscow negotiating and dialoguing among equals has had been part of the equation for a very long time. the west is making a serious strategic error. i cross sucking rushes relations with the west. i'm joined by my guess. i've been eel in washington. he's a senior fellow at the independent institute and author of the book war and the rug presidency in london. we have charles shoe bridge, he is a security analyst and former u. k. army, an counterterrorism intelligence officer, and in brussels. we crossed to pierre emanuel solomon. he is a ph. d and geo politics, as well as a lecture at leon university. our gentleman cross lock rules and effect, i mean to can jump in any time you want. and i always appreciate. let's go to brussels 1st pierre emanuel. i noticed you have like 4 globes behind you. so you

really are in de geo politics. 0 guy. i mean, what do you make of the prevalence decision to, to sever official contacts with nato and in, at i could throw in to they don't have much contact with the european union, either severing this is it, a game changer is a continuation of something doesn't matter go ahead, i think is sir consternation vista, great power or rivalry? the configuration, actually herb it should teddy says something about the english have ceased and to day, but they cannot be any or improvement a mercury, lots of other negotiations if there is no accept sheets spatially older or, or accept teacher mercy port r o configuration and a as wrong as the west to nato, which she's representing a 20 v,

a american geopolitical priorities, which she's to try to contain buffer china and russia at the same time. and do there is no desire to, to, to accept emergency put a lot. they cannot be any dialogue on negotiations. and charles sienna, i'm times i've titled this program strategic impatience, because i think it's fair to say for a greater part of to 20 years. rush has shown an enormous amount of patients and trying to develop a reasonable, stable, reliable relationship at the west. and i think, and the severing the size with nato is, is basically a signal saying we've, we really give up, okay. we give up on those organizations. we can talk later in the program, but i'm dealing with independent individual countries in the e. u and nato, but his organizations no more patience. go ahead charles. yes, i think you're right to some degree a certainly a we've got

a lack of patience with what seems to be an a, an unstoppable chain of events that leads to tut tit for tat retaliations. in terms of it, you remember that russia actually made this announcement in the wake of the expulsion of a number of its diplomats at the mission on a ledge spy and charges center, which incidentally, as is often the case with these things, it wasn't accompanied with the release of any conclusive evidence that anybody was spying. but nonetheless, and we've seen this, a sequence of events going downhill and unfortunately has been downhill pretty much the whole way as she say. i think at cirque there's an element of us, there often is india politics, of course, of showmanship, here on both sides. both sides saw sending and use the word signal quite correctly . that this is a signal to night. a and a nighttime has at least officially announced its regrets over this move. i'm,

that's are the kind of actions that are taking place. nato would argue from russia, russia would argue from nato mean that it's pretty pointless, continued with what appears to be a sham relationship. let's not forget though, the context of this as opposed to, for example, the, a, you old, for example, a countries on an individual basis nitrogen organization whose very existence depends upon the notion of russia, modern days, russia not rochelle or soviet union for many years ago. but mountain de russia as being an existent shore threat to the member countries of nato, with st. very recently that nato's sake seeking to expand it so old bit to actually now be cancer in china, which of course the you don't need any of these. a globes in your office to know that that's a very long way from the north atlantic, which of course was the original thesis will reason rational behind i to itself. and so you've got a situation where it's almost inevitable. i thing an organization such as knights.

i am in terms of its becoming not just a defense patch, but also a political force in its own right will invariably seek to always ramp up. many would argue saturate the threat from russia and ascribed to russia actions often without evidence which of which it may not be guilty. and so consequently, got a situation where, what's the point, i suppose russia can say, of having a relationship with an organization whose very existence depends upon the demonized ation of russia. you know, it's going to wash and i've any, we had a bizarre event, at least it is for my taste. and we had victoria new and visiting moscow last week . and we've not really sure what happened. okay, there was no read out just frank discussions. the usual stuff here, and then we have the secretary of defense going to georgia coin do ukraine and then going to brussels. and it's all about nato here. i mean, if they, if they to, i knew and was sent to try. deuce get a dialogue going on the, the actions of the secretary of defense say something completely different. i mean,

no wonder russia is through its arms up in the air. i mean, is there a coherent policy here because it doesn't, it's not coherent. why have a dialogue go ahead? i've been in washington. well, of course if you were you wanting to contradictions and maybe that's the purpose of the policy. maybe to show a little tough this because i even if you're practicing the diplomacy, newland is probably not the person, the sand. ah, you know, on a diplomatic chip and that part of the country is if you want to improve relations . so perhaps it both the defense secretaries visit van and new and visit are, are designed to show toughness. i'm to russia, at least initially, and had to my mind our policy when you're talking about the recent development, which of course you do for sure like this, but i think you have to go back clear back to, you know, post the end, the beginning of the post cold war era where nature expanded after the cold war

ended and it expanded clear to the baltics to the borders of, of, of russia. and that's a threat because nato was a hospital and during the cold war. so why would russia, you know, appreciate that this is the opposite of the approach that they took after pulling artic wars where they brought mass. you know that i all the countries together again. and they had a piece for up, up from major world for a 100 years. so, but, but we took the opposite approach. you took the world war one approach after the cold war. and i think a lot of these, i had to say a lot of these problems, i think resort, resulted from this expansion. and if you're talking about china, you know, as you point out, nato still ridiculous expanding to areas. they're trying to find an order miss. you for the organization expanded mission, but you know it,

china is far away from nature, but sort of the baltic. the baltics are very far away from the united states and we've agreed to defend all these countries. and i hope they certainly don't go planned to go any farther than that, but that all these problems have been caused, you know, by that, by those actions that have been yet, let's go back to brussels, appear in many, well, what, what does nato want from russia i mean, what in the world. ok, it's very difficult to understand. i mean, and it's, it's been pointed out on this program already. nato. if you like it or not, if it's, you know, the quiet part said out loud, they need an enemy and rushes, the most convenient one. it's on the border. ok. i mean, what dialogue is they can they possibly have right now if they're looking to continue expansion, particularly george in ukraine, which rush has already made. clear is a severe red line. go ahead in brussels. what if the we look at a maps of awards actually are in v,

so configuration of great power, right? are we are united states on it's may know you're been out east with the atlantic vision. they would like to contain both are china and russia, and are vague folk who small and will on china, but at the same time, or they need a too low contain russia as where, why imagine if or russia would be on the side of, of natal member states against char, i know that's would be maybe a proposition from some are on the least in washington, all browsers. but it's not possible because a russia doesn't want to evan. you urge you much got fracture true valuation country against a china of us not to in its interest on 2nd. if they were not to be a confrontation, any more between nato on russia. russia will be in not e e,

e e goods, china, or ne, to didn't know a job any mo. and they will be herb, little cooperation between germany and russia for us. right. me just with franco german russian axis. and of course, that's not in the interest of united states with, right, because, or they want to maintain ne, to as a way to, to, to control europe on to divide. you, you rule i, let's go back to charles here. i mean, i, i find it really whimsical to think that, you know, china is going to play a major role way in kane containing china. i think that's very rhetorical. i don't think the european polities want to spend enormous amounts of money. do you know the, contain russia? oh, i mean, no one's proven. it's actually a threat. but china, i mean, i think it's almost to the point of laughable. ok. the u. s. wants that the, the, the nato to be about as part of its flank. but it doesn't really expect nato the do very much. your thoughts, charles?

i think sunny firm us, china is a major threat. not necessarily a military threat unless the us pushes it to that point. and we've seen a few a sign that there are many of course as always within the establishment, the military establishment. or rather, we should say that white a defense establishment, including all the arms companies who appear to be willing to push it to that kind of fat limits. but of course, from an economic and geopolitical perspective, there's no doubt i think the china is the biggest threat to america. hitherto, i, germany here. i mean, america is the world superpower. it's soon going to lose that status. and of course, as often we say the case with declining empires, when that declining, they tend to lash out a threat. and i think we can see more of that in the months and years ahead, miss no doubt whatsoever. i think for the u. s. is dawned on them. charl charles, i want you to continue. the thought that we're going to go to a short break. and after that short break will continue our discussion on russia's

relations with the wednesday. with our team we have always been able to push that in sort of a far dark corner of our conscious because they will know when it in once there are alternatives, you can no longer do that and you have to kind of accept, oh yes. for that, an animal has been killed and oh yeah. as greenhouse gas emission. and here we have essentially the same product. um same price, same quality with none of those features are yet made in the line. and that in the beginning is scary. but in the end it's not oh, is your media a reflection of reality?

ah, in the world transformed what will make you feel safer? isolation, full community. are you going the right way or are you being that somewhere? direct? what is true? was his faith in the world corrupted. you need to descend. ah, so join us in the depths will remain in the shallows. ah ah ah, welcome back to cross stock. we're all things are considered. i'm peter le belt,

remind you we're discussing russia's relations with the west. ah. okay, let's go back to charles, get shot. you at starting. you started a point before we went to the break and i want to add a, develop it a little bit more. charles, i mean, you know, when we're looking at these blocks, you know, the e, you were looking at nato, but i mean, you already alluded to it. i mean, i'd, china is very important to germany as a trading partner. very, very important. and each individual country in the european union, some countries have normal relations, i'm sorry, with nato. they have some have normal relations with russia like hungry here. i mean, isn't it kind of farcical to kind of put it into these block organizations here? because the minutia is a lot deeper and it's a lot more complex. okay. and again, it makes nato look even more superfluous. that it is. go ahead. charles. yes, exactly. i think us to partner that nato has some going back to what i'm saying b,

i to start with m. china, of course, is a big economic threat for the u. s. there's no question about that, but other people don't see that way. even the united kingdom, which of course is, is one of the closest allies, arguably one of the most subservient allies of the u. s. and of u. s. foreign policy is cautious when it comes to china in terms of not wanting to, or if you like, burn its own economic bridges, which i know because of the potential for the future relationship there. and so you've got a situation up with nato, especially nato, for example, wanting to expand into this sir asia pacific area. and it may not be that that's particularly welcome from even many in the united states. those in the know would realize that just as when britain announces that it's going to expand its operations in endo pacific a ships if an area that of course this rate raises some hackers or alarm bells because these are former colonial powers that are now wanting to be seen to be asserting themselves again in that area as opposed to just sticking to their own regional interests,

legitimate defense interests. and so it might well be that the perception of countries like britain or nato involving themselves or will alienates other countries, america would like to see as either allies against a china. we don't mean in the military sense for in a st strategic sense. and so you've got a situation where i think nato is constantly seeing itself as under threat as a geopolitical entity of its own accord that it constantly has to reinvent itself in terms of dealing with some kind of threat. and if that threat doesn't exist, or if it exists, but it's only a marginal threat than there was seek to crate or exaggerate that threat. and i think the problem we've got is that so many of the incidents which poison relations between the west generally and russia in particular, are of debatable provenance whether they are actually manufactured incidence. we can talk about ukraine, of course, that would take an entire program and i know we have that many programs, but in so many other issues. so is an avenue case. and so when one does the extent to which behind the scenes sees

a largely fabricated or at least very exaggerated issues in terms of undermining relations between the west and russia. and in that sense, of course, i think the role of natives important and of course, nature than justifies it's existence and the date, it's gross on the back of those kind of incidents. and i've been, i'm glad that charles brought up a ukraine here because if we have a severing of relations basically does, can't call your counterpart. of course, you go through the embassy and in brussels. but i mean, and to organization your organization in this draw and it's very ambiguous what's going on with washington thinking when it comes to the ukraine, that it depends on which department of government which think tank you want to listen do. but i mean, obviously if you have a situation where there is no contact and it's, it's very hostile. obviously the russian side is going to see any moves going on in ukraine is being a threat. i mean, isn't this the worst possible thing you could do a cutting off any kind of relationship, you know, no hotline or anything like that, that just upset temperature. i just find this to be so nonsensical,

the position that nato is taking towards russia. go ahead. yes, i yeah, it's always good to keep all the communication channels open that you can even with adversaries. and i, i think the real problem here is that ukraine is not really strategic to the united states are, are, that's not what our foreign policy establishment. thanks here, but it is to russia for obvious reasons that you knew that you're already well aware. i think we wanted to take a really broad look, a rising china and even that is sort of a questionable threat, i think, to the you asked. but if that's the threat, ah, then wouldn't we want to do a reverse next them in and try to improve? yeah, yeah. well, you know, relations with russia as a counterweight to china. well, of course, then we get back to where pierre said that there's,

there that this nate organization, organizations take a life on a life of their own. a native was a classic case of an organization changing its mission to stay alive after the cold war. you know, they went into the balkans, they went from defending western europe to defending more of europe than they went into the balkans offensively now to type back, you know, the middle east than china. and so this organization is actually an u. s. participation. and i think is actually running out counter to us interest. but because of his up, bureaucratic out, no running him. i really is go back to brussels, perry many, well, i, me, i've and just put it perfectly. i me do a reverse nixon goes to china here. i mean, as it is looking at it geopolitically and historically, if in europe, the european union wanted to position itself in a valuable place, it would be to, in to be in the middle of russia, the united states and china that, that, that has,

that has assets that has capital to it, and it seems to me there hostile attitude towards russia negates that they've just taken themselves off the chessboard. what do you think? go ahead in brussels. yes, exactly. then if you look to geography of europe, of course, or the idea positioning of the european project, it will be in better balance between do you atlantic a neural asian seekers and there are about so much was the position of classic was ation of friends. for example, from bush in our da gore era until then to leave it was a proposition former manual my whole to propose in you european security architecture. leave russia. reprogram east european union us natal. he's in organization. oh. was created during the cold war on east pardique.

my easy way of thinking. yes. cedar too much in the past and a member stay subdivided, or so the poor and barty countries, for example, vis gta, eric voss to take or against russia. they want to use both need to on you are to detach themselves from russia. we go ahead and book the united states. when france, italy, germany, them much. they like to have it better, or a corporation reef or russia, but not a to the detriment to u. s or, oh, e u relations. why? because or, for example, of france as he's no own or room m i t m, bomb and nuclear weapons. but germany does not have nuclear weapons where it behaves, but it cannot produce them each se, the share. originally the u. s. and they depend on the american gra, umbrella, a,

so they, they added a double truck position. they are a steel stick to nato, for our security and or so to keep readership we've sometimes tub european countries war a suspicious of russia at the same time, germany as an economic power. no perfectly that if you were on germany wants to be strong economic, you know, the need russian and a cas a. so there is a defacto audience between germany and russia, demps of energy. so there's a very complicated world where you can have different audiences on a jo, strategic, or g o economic or a traumatic event. oh, so you are a member states a fine long time. didn't have any responsibility for a security. will very few of it a where dependent of the u. s. and know it's very difficult to take more responsibilities and due to invest more in defense unto where they are own jeopardy

of i think my with that. but that creates a very, very unstable alliance. if you know, if your member nations are not taking responsibility, joining in with the security. i. charles, another thing that we haven't really mentioned here because i think i'm a pure raw geopolitical thinking is it systems been dismissed because it should be in play right now. and the reason one of the reasons may be the most important reason is it ideology for the u tops. geo politics, which is ridiculous city deal. politics is about national interest. i fully agree, e you, national interest is very difficult to define sometimes because of the adverse diversity of the membership. but ideology is blue, a is a in play here, and that hurts europe's g. a geopolitical positioning. go ahead. charles. yes, i think this disconnect between ideology and the am a precise interests of member states of the e. u. nato. even

a is the main reason for the disunity that we say, of course and, and that's to be of the, to be expected. after all, as you say, geopolitics is about the national interest of countries or interest groups a such as nato. and the problem is when nato's interests, for example, are not aligned to it. it's member states. and, and of course, if it's main interest is its own self promotion and self existence. then of course that's very rarely going to aligned with a, with the national, especially economic interests of its members and ideology. a problem with that is it can be so easily hijacked for further it's of specific or more pragmatic causes, for example, to poison relations. i think what's very important hits, remember, as a backdrop to this program, perhaps is a bit more context and something that also has a bearing on this issue of where national interest lies that for many european countries in, for, arguably for all your pin, all of the west, it's got to be remembered that a very many areas of, of, of,

of international politics. and the wide it spheres, economic and, and so on. other spheres where russia and to west can corporate and should be cooperating in some degrees despite the politics are cooperating. when one thinks about issues such as covet or the environmental issues or of the fight against international terrorism. or the surprise energy, for example, very coming up at the current time. and these are areas where the west and russia have interests incorporating and all to be these are far more important in far greater interest, fog far bigger interests than those that divide. and that's in a way why i've mentioned it's earlier this suspicion that many of a point switch divide to west and russia, europe, and russia in particular, tend to be those that have been exaggerated, wrapped up or even manufactured. arguably, yes, he point not relationship. and therefore, you have to ask what the motivation of those people are that are doing that. and often that comes back to niter and its existence. he has an international truly

interesting, you know, the way it finish it out here. there's so much hostility from the west towards russia, but there's very little hostility from russia. go directed it to west. it's very unbalanced. that's all the time we have gentlemen. i want to thank my guests in london, brussels, and in washington. and i want to thank our viewers for watching us here. are to see you next time. remember possibles? ah ah ah. it's been decade since the fall of spain's fascist regime, but old wound still haven't hailed you and you can go into done with us. because when we find out to you, michael feed him, okay. give me a bowl. said calling me on the bus at the 6 me note that i just think ultimately no

. thousands of newborn babies were torn from their mothers and given away and forced adoption. they don't really bought about i used young for faster than my old robot, a fellow elements it to this day mothers still search for grown children, while adults look in hope for their birth parents. the coin was created and invented specifically to kill central banks. it says phone and genesis blocked and they make a reference to the bank of england when the bank of england started squirming and i start whining that, oh my god, big coin is an existential threat to our existence. every. the urine for freedom in the world to day should let out a collective koran because were finally getting rid of the worst actor on the financial scene for 300 years.

with a bitter split is exposed at an e. u summit as leaders to ban to poland obeys european ruling spot. warsaw and since that, floral ism is respect in moscow says it's not surprised by aggressive rhetoric from nato states after germany calls for nuclear weapons to be deployed near russians. borders. a peoples tribunal in london tries alleged us crimes and an act of support for wiki leaks. was the blower, gillian assange through washington wants extradited from the u. k. the site editor, and she says allegations of a cia plot to kill us on to prove his case has been politicized. the recent revelation shows with any adults with political elements of the case with those

2 songs and all we have old human rights and civil.