hey, a bitter split is exposed that an e u summit as leaders demand to poland obeys european rulings, but warsaw insists the pluralism is respected. moscow says it is not surprised by aggressive rhetoric from nato states after germany calls for nuclear weapons to be deployed near russia's borders. people's tribunal in london tries the alleged u. s. crimes in an act of support for wiki leaks was a blower. gillian assange, who washington want extradited from the u. k. sites editor in chief says allegations of a cia plot to kill assange prove his case has been politicized. the recent revelation shows without any adults through the political elements of the case. we've got a studio sounds well, we have all human rights and civil liberties organization of any married

to team up together and highly vulnerable patients are at risk in the u. k. as doctors, confusion grows over the difference between a 3rd dose of a coven vaccine and a booster along with what is the correct order to administer them to people giving this injection needles, to sacred nor knocking about a counter getting about with the stuff i'm feeling. i'm feeling it the route that the information is not being given out correctly. was there headlines? i'm done for the day, but that doesn't mean you're not going to be without news. kevin no, and my colleague will be here in just under an hour's time with a full and fresh look. say with us this is art internet with with

ah, hello and welcome to cross stock where all things are considered. i'm peter lavelle . rush is 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 have been part of the equation for a very long times. the west is making a serious strategic air. i cross sucking rushes relations with the west. i'm joined by my guests, ivan elan in washington. he's a senior fellow at the independent institute and author of the book war in the rug presidency in london. we have charles shaw bridge. he is a security analyst and former u. k. army and counterterrorism intelligence officer and in brussels. we cross to pierre emanuel tom, man, he is a ph, d and geo politics, as well as a lecture at leon university. art gentleman cross like rules and effect,

that means you can jump in any time you want. and i always appreciate. let's go to brussels 1st here in menu. i notice you have like 4 globes behind you. so you really are into geo politics here. okay. i mean, what do you make of the prevalence decision to, to sever official contacts with nato and 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 he is sir, consternation of mr. great power, or rivalry, the configuration of to any herb. it should. teddy says something about the english have ceased and to day, but they cannot be any or improvement a merchant ought to water 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 as sequence of events going downhill and unfortunately has been downhill pretty much the whole way as she say i'm, i think it's circ. there's an element of, as 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 night's house at least officially announced its regrets over this move um, that are the kind of actions that are taking place nato would argue from russia. russia would argue from nato mean that it's a pretty pointless continued with what appears to be a sham relationship. let's not forget that the context of this as opposed to, for example, the, a you all, 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 existence your 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 nato, and in terms of it's 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 demon possession of russia. you know, is go to washington. 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. ok, 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 i knew and was sent to try to 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, and if it's not coherent, why have a dialogue go ahead? i've been in washington. well, of course, if you were, you're pointing to contradictions and maybe that's the purpose of the policy made it to show a little toughness. because even if you're practicing diplomacy, newland is probably not the person to send, you know, on a diplomatic chip. and that part of the country is if you want to improve relations, so perhaps it, but both the defense secretary is ms. amanda and the new and visit are, are designed to show toughness to russia, at least initially in to my mind, our policy, when you're talking about the recent development, which of course you do for show like this,

but i think you have to go back clear back to, you know, post the, at 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 that nato was a hostile 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 all the countries together again and they had a piece for a, 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 that are trying to find an order mission

for the organization expanded mission. but you know, 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 a plan to go any farther than that. but all these problems have been caused by that, by those actions i've been. yeah, let's go back to brussels up here in menu. 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 it, 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

a so we look at a map of award. 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 china and russia. and are they focus more and more 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 o nato member states against char? i know that's would be may be a proposition from some are analysed in washington o bras her so, but just not possible because a russia doesn't want to avenue road your prescott fracture. true valuation country against a china of us not 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 have no job any mo. and they will be herb, little cooperation between germany and russia. france right. it just the franco german russian axis. and of course, that's not in v interest of united states with right, because are they want to maintain ne, to as a way to, to, to control europe on to devalue you rule. i, let's go back to charles here. i mean, 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 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 are signs 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 they're 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 with your break and after that short break will continue our discussion on russia's relations with the wednesday with our team. ah ah, it's been decade since the fall of spain's fascist regime, but old wound still haven't hailed your and you can go into them. i'm just waiting for this, because only from an out to you, a michel fee, to marquee able to miss a bowl, said cutting me on the bus at the 6 me note that i understand, they think ultimately no thousands of newborn babies were torn from their mothers and given away in fullest adoption, that only bought about i used young for faster than my old robot. affiliate almonds it to this day mothers still search for grown children,

while adults look in hope for their birth parents. ah, ah, welcome back to cross talk. we're all things considered. i'm peter lavelle to remind you we're discussing russia's relations with the west. ah. okay, let's go back to charles, catch 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, a china is very important to germany, is i 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. and i think us to partner that nato has some going back to what i was saying be a to start with china, of course is a big economic threat for the u. s. as no question about that. but other people don't see that why 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 he has fallen. policy is cautious when it comes to china in terms of not wanting to or if you like, burn its own economic britches with china 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 india, pacific asia pacific 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 region or interested, 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 g strategic sense. and so you've got a situation where i think nato is constantly seeing itself as under threat as a geo political 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, and all 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 authentication. 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 nato's important and of course, nature than justifies its existence. and the date, it's gross, on the back of those kind of incidents. and i'm in, i'm glad that charles brought up a ukraine here because if we have a severing of relations, basically dis, can't call your counterpart. of course, you go through the embassy in, 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 thank 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, hot line or anything like that, that just upset temperature. i did 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 you 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 and china. and so this organization is actually, and us participation and i think is actually running out counter to us interests. and because of his up, bureaucratic out, no running him, i really is go back to brussels, we're very many. well, i, me, i've,

and just put it perfectly, i me do a reverse mix and goes to china here. i mean, as an edge in looking at it geopolitically. and historically, if, if europe, the european union wanted to position itself in a valuable place, it would be to, into it 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, or until then to leave it was a proposition for me and money and my whole to propose in you european security

architecture. we've 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 say subdivided or so the colon barty countries. for example, vist, you'd have a aero voss to take it 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 intone, 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 him 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 leadership. we've santana, just of european countries. war was 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 very, very complicated world where you can have different audiences on a jo, strategic or g o economic or a traumatic and 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. charles, another thing that we haven't really mentioned here, because i think i'm a pure raw geopolitical thinking, is it system 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 e. 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 off told 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 its 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 interest of its members and ideology. a problem with that is it can be so easily hijacked for further it's of specific, a 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 lie is that for many european countries in for argued before, oh, you can order 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 corporate in, in some degrees, despite the politics are cooperating when one thinks about issues such as covet or the environmental issues or the for 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 arguably, 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 this earlier, this suspicion that many of a point switch divide the west and russia, europe,

and russia in particular, tend to be those that have been exaggerated or wrapped up, or even manufactured. arguably, yes, he poised not relationship. and therefore, you have to ask what the motivation off those people are that are doing that. and often that comes back to nato and its existence. he has an international truly interesting, you know, the way it finished out here. there's so much hostility from the west towards russia, but it's very little hostility from russia go directly 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 at our tea . see you next time. remember possibles? ah ah, ah

ah ah ah ah ah.

ah. a ha ha. i know one motion one and i need i

. well yeah, you know measure it here. oh, i think the people who were adopted or afraid of losing people were very scared of rejection. not now is there a no secrets with adoption but when the worst secrets and lies, there was no family relationship. was a wall between us, the strange coldness that i don't feel anymore. so as a father i compare myself to my father with our biological family. we have branches i'm like a tree with lots of leafy fruit filled a branches. but below.