easiest for communications and making greater use of artificial intelligence in return for the tech. amazon gets 1000000000 pounds over the next 10 years. now the u. k. government intelligence agencies and i was and i get a comment on this contract. we spoke earlier to professor prem sickle, who says it would be a struggled hold, amazon to account if anything does go wrong. this relationship is essentially a rosa because they do have divergent interest. this would mean that the security services are not in control is a private for profit seeking organization. and it, and it will have a basically all the intelligence material. and suppose the servers are down, suppose the servers are hacked, then what will the security services even be told that the amazon, the servers that have been hack? and though without really any explanation in parliament, there's been no discussion about it. we can see the government contract,

we don't know the terms. we don't even know the full amount. we only have some belief reports of the press. there are widespread concerns of the government has so far not come forward has not promised any statement to parliament. no minister has actually made a statement and we are still awaiting. and i am pretty sure that fairly soon, the defense committees and both houses security committees and both buquet houses of parliament will be asking serious questions, especially as so father ministers have not really been forthcoming with any anything worthwhile re say seen with us here. naughty who crosstalk up next, that as he my return in half an hour with the latest soreness again. ah ah, ah,

a ah. i kaiser's financial saliva guys. i don't buy hey, i buy only features of it friday unless i buy it from a teacher. so franco, watch guys replace ah,

ah, hello and welcome to cross stock, were all things are considered. i'm peter lavelle. does europe pappas strategic vision for the future? what kind of relationship will it develop with china? europe stands at a crossroads will remain dependent on washington as a junior partner or will europe opt to play the role of a great power on the world stage. i cross talking e u china relations. i'm joined by my guess i nor tango in beijing. he is a political and economic affairs commentator in prague. we have brad blankenship. he is a columnist at c g, t and as well as an rti contributor and in elecom that we crossed luc reggae. he is an independent journalist or a gentleman, cross ok, rules and a fact that means he can jump in any time you want. now he's appreciate, look,

let me go to you 1st here. i mean, it, you know, on the face of it, you know, the europe's relationship or more rather you relationship with china is very convoluted because major training for our trading partners, a major investment deal. i'm kind of stuck. but, you know, there's been, there's an understanding about investment and, and then we have, you know, nato, i'm saying, you know, you know, china is no different than russia. it's the same or threatening landscape. i mean, it's very convoluted. i mean, is there any kind of single message because if i were in beijing and we will go to our guests in beijing, i would be a bit confused. go ahead look. well, i'm, you said it. i mean, there is no european policy to which china, most countries starting with germany have very important trade relations, selling for germany, sending a lot of equipment to, to china, high tech equipment and of kind cars of course, and thinks of the kinds so, um, we also buy hugely, from china,

everything. and we've seen that during the pandemic, how dependent we were for certain industrial goods. so on, we have a dependence chinese not an enemy. of course, we have to be careful that there are some issues. so like taiwan and others. but for the rest, we not like america troll, we don't follow america that so when mr. salton birth, for example, the 2nd page on of nato in brussels, said that nato needs to project itself into the indo pacific region. i say what, you know, i don't understand this, this is not the north atlantic, is it? yeah, well i, it's go to our guest in beijing. i know i me, when i heard the same thing from the, the head of the, of nato. i mean, i was trained as a historian, modern european history, which includes the imperial period in colonization. and so europe wants to return to the, the pacific. i mean, the, it, you know, a history doesn't repeat,

but there is an echo there. i mean, if i were beijing i, i wouldn't like that again. sounds very jingo, a stick to me. and particularly since china is in what asia go ahead in beijing. well, nato has been looking for some sure destiny. in the absence, when the, when the wall fell, i mean they really, it's just plain inertia that they're still there. i mean, it's a real question about what they think they can do in such a place. i mean, it's not a naval power. it's a land power. everything was based on facing off with pressure. tank's artillery basis missiles is not equipped and therefore it would be a huge boon for the armaments industry as they try to figure out how they're going to get involved in asia. so it's, yes, it is. exactly, as you said, these are the echoes of gun boats on the see the, you know,

policies are trying to set off asian neighbors against each other between india and china. and also just this whole colonial. busy is ation act it's, it's really is erie, how many people are in the u. s. and also you about the subject brand. i mean it's a, it's a truism that the u. s. arms industry always needs an enemy and it always needs threat inflation. and of course, china's in line now here. ok, i get that. ok, and the jingo is think, attitude you get on cable tv, about the time, the threat and all that. but when i look at europe here, i mean, how does europeans feel out way? i mean, they want to really sell out a lot of money for armaments and things like that for an enemy that doesn't even exist in geographically for them, at least all the way on the other side of the world. i mean, if they don't want to cough up money for nato to confront russia, why would they do it for china?

go ahead, brand. i think for europeans, this is a really open question and, and then the next few weeks we will see exactly where the european union is going to stand on the issue of the emerging cold war from the united states against china . because the foreign policy chief justice burrell is working on the so called strategic company. and this is actually really important because it should be agreed upon by members member, which comes ahead of the next nato summit in 2022 when they're going to revise their strategic concept that they've actually been working on the non revise one since 2010, and that one doesn't even name china as a threat. in fact, the last week, nato defense ministers had a meeting and none of the working groups actually focused on china. so as the one gets mentioned, the policy is really at a standstill. but i think that as we've seen, actually from the defense minister meeting france has gotten

a concession united states to develop a complimentary european defense to nato. which in my mind is them saying that they want to pursue strategic autonomy, like they've been saying. but also it shows that nato's become actually less relevant to the countries that it was designed for in the 1st place. you know, look, it's very interesting. as you know, we talk about nato in europe is being synonymous. but that's really what the problem is here because they shouldn't be synonymous. all right? because individual member states have different we, even with russian, look at hungry, for example. ok. of the trade relationship between germany and china has already been mentioned here. it seems to me that nato is it gets, is what gets in the way all the time of real strategic thinking. because when you met, when you invoke nato, you have to check with washington. how can that possibly be in europe, that the european union? i'm saying europe's strategic interests go ahead. look. well, you know, a manual. michael sat down some time ago that the alliance that was brain dead on.

if you put that next to the fact that a few days ago, president anteriano thought turkey. oh, wanted to expel 7 name to ambassadors out of turkey, out of the 10 that he wanted to push out. i mean, these are lines within the military alliance. it's song, it's very strange and also the way the americans lately have push europe, especially germany on gas. you remember also that term on the congress in america didn't want germany to finalize to complete the o. oh. and also came to pipeline. i mean, this was incredible. it arrives in the island, reagan, which is the constituency of mrs. merkel. so it's a slap in the face of lady merkel. but of course she didn't say anything, but i'm sure she thought of some things about her american ally. so we have real

problems with the nato to, to be in the lions. it doesn't represent europe at all, as you say. he represents some wishy washy allies that doesn't know exactly what to do since the war. so back just appeared. i know it, let's go back to you in beijing. i mean, can you explain something to me or maybe it is not explainable. i mean, how can, from a europeans perspective specifically, you know, make the claim that china is a threat and all, by the way, can we get back to that investment deal that, you know, they did, you know, it's is frozen in the european part. i mean, how can you talk about that in the same conversation? i mean, a day. so that's why we're doing this program. i really don't understand it. you know, you know, you're, it's redwood absurd arms that we're going to go halfway round the world. and you know, we're the to improve our trade relations. how can you have both at the same time? go ahead. well, if you haven't seen it, there's a marvelous skip that has done. it shows the australians, somebody asking. so who's our biggest trade or who's the biggest threat?

and so what, what you're saying is that we're going to spend our money to guard our trade routes against our largest trade partner, and the guy kind of nots. and that's the same thing. true for the u. s u in china, closing and not 600000000000 dollars and trade china is the use are just trading partner. now, it's a plan to the west. and now they're talking about how they can rain in china, how they can change china. i just doesn't make a lot of sense, this idea of having military tactics or directions against your largest trade partner. i think it just, it is from mixing. and that's, that's really what it is. but we live in a, you know, kind of post hypocritical age and i, you started thinking about it here in one sense we're about to answer cop 26. everyone's concerned about trying to, you know, making a commitment to getting. 5 you know,

co down and they are say they're going to stick to the long term goals, but there's a fluctuation right now because it's been on the other hand, your pin is, are absolutely concerned that china will not be able to supply enough of the title materials for cars, because why they haven't had enough electricity because they're not now having to burn coal. so on one hand, they say, oh, we want you to do these things on the other hand and say we want to do the opposite . and this is the problem today. there's no sense of irony or hypocrisy amongst any of the stations. they just simply say, oh, what's good for me is, is good for everybody. well, it, brad, you. you mentioned joseph burrell, i'm kind of glad you did because he's a rather odd fellow. ok, i mean, i mean, he goes, i mean, joe biden would blush with this guy's gaffs right here. i mean, the europe is entrusting his future to this in this guy here. because when he came to moscow, he made a come, he made a complete buffoon out of himself,

and then he had did as quickly leave me. the russians have no interest in talking to them. why we're the chinese be interested in talking to them. go ahead. brad. well i, you know, i think that from their perspective they would be interested in talking to him because he is the use foreign policy cheap at the same time taking him seriously at this point. you know, beijing, i think if you look at how they reacted to certain european parliament resolutions and various things coming from you, they're starting to take it less and less seriously and see that the, the you and i think anybody that lives in the you can agree is kind of broken at this point if you see how various member states are trying to undermine collect policy and some emerging pragmatism. for example, let's look at like lithuania in the czech republic. right now both of these countries are trying to take a cudgel to you. china relations by, for example, opening trade offices with taiwan, which it actually acts as

a informal embassy. so i think that brad, i have to jump in. i have to jump in here, but we have to go to a hard break. and after that hard break, we'll continue our discussion on you, china relation, stay with ah, look forward to talking to you all. that technology should work for people. a robot must obey the orders given by human beings, except we're such orders that conflict with the 1st law show your identification. we should be very careful about on personal intelligence. and the point obviously, is to create trust rather than fear a job with artificial intelligence. real, somebody with obama

protective own existence with kaiser's financial survival guy. when customers go buy, you reduce the price in health. well, reduce a lower that's under cutting, but what's good for food market? is that good for the global economy? ah, welcome at crossing. we're all things are considered. i'm funeral a bell to remind you. we're discussing e china relations. ah. okay, go back to loop. you know, i started out talking with our to our guest in beijing out the new approach. this new cold war as a era resemblance to european colonialism of the 19th century. but there's also an

echo of history here. and it is of the cold war itself after world war 2. and where europe found itself as a junior partner to the united states with the end of the cold war, the not the rise of china, but the return of china. um, it's the u. s. that is making everybody choose. you gotta be with us or you're with them. okay. and europe is the one in the middle. most of all, i am it completely baffled by a, the euro at will euro proper, you know, it has the into it well educated people industrialize, very modernized, are very innovative when it wants to be, it has the population size, it needs larger than the united states it has everything, it needs to be a great power, but it's not, and it probably won't be. and because it can't get its house in order on all the things i just mentioned there, it will forever be dependent on the united states and become irrelevant. i mean, this is why i said in mind production, this is

a crossroads. you've got all the ingredients to be a great power and a great power that can be part of a multi lateral world to keep the peace. not to be an aggressive one, but to be part of a peaceful one as well. but it's never going to come together. and if you listen to all these buffoons in brussels, you'll never understand what direction they want to take europe. you know why? because they don't know, go ahead look well, we are an international diplomatic and political dwarf. europe is where a great partner, economically speaking in all the phases astonishing with a lot of consumers, of course. and don, it's very important for china, by the way, to have good relations with europe and with and for europe, record relations with china. so you have a silk road issue. we haven't mentioned that, but that crosses are by land. i mean asia to come to italy and further to germany

and, and further up even so on and, and pop me through, through russia as well. so, um, there are things that are moving in and this economic diplomacy that so rose, creating of course, europe needs to be careful and a chinese non for having spied on certain things. so, you know, we need to be careful, but china must remain apartment. as for the rest, of course, we still diplomatically, very much dependent upon the us for our defense and dumb. it doesn't go well within nato at all. that's for sure. i know a, one of the things that i find really disturbing in the 21st century with the return of china and the scene in a very big way here is that the u. s. continues to rely upon military solutions. it's always the military, you know, more project, you know, the pentagon loves it. ok. but you know, when i look at china and, and i try to be objective here. i mean, china is a, is

a massive business trading partner, you know, a belt road initiative. and things like this, which the americans are terrified because they don't have the wherewithal to do that. but china is okay, creating prosperity, jobs, trade. all of these things of the world needs here. and it's because the u. s. is unwilling or unable to do that. i mean, you can't even fix its own infrastructure. good for goodness sake. ok. me that in the default position is need more missiles. okay. oh, and taiwan. all of a sudden taiwan is a big issue here. no, it's no coincidence. you know that it's suddenly, these are put on the agenda here because it's a gemini, they see. so in a country challenging, it's a gemini, and this is white reacts that we all the time with military force or the threat of milk and military 1st force. go ahead in beijing. well, this is a playground. you have somebody who wants speaking of the mountain and they see anybody coming up. they're going to say, i'm going to knock you down. i mean this, this is the,

the modus operandi. united states. we've always felt that we need to be in, you know, post 2nd world war. there is this idea that american exceptionalism was necessary. so to avoid a 3rd world war, us would impose its values on everybody, and thereby everything would be just fine. well, we've seen the results that not good afghan, a snow middle east, the number of refugees who are displaced on the number of dead. when did you think about 911? i don't know how they would feel about that. over 100 people for everyone that died in 911100 civilians have died since that time and more are going to. so at this point that you know, china in the u. s. are going out in different ways. china is talking about economics and the u. s. is always about security. but you know, i have a question. there's this idea. there was one of my compatriots there and said, depending on the us for defense, defense, what, who is going to invade europe?

who is going to invade australia? you know that over 50 percent of the people in australia have been convinced by the media that they might be invaded by china. i mean, anybody who knows try, sees what they have. it knows that that would be virtually impossible. second, there be absolutely no appetite for trying to doesn't want more people. they have quite a bit quite enough as it is. and they certainly don't want to go to foreign lands and take on the headache of ruling other people. that's not to say that they obviously the europeans took that challenge under their wing quite some time ago and that didn't work out very well either. so at this juncture, i mean no one can make abner chelsea. i understand your confusion. it just seems that we're on this kind of customer, this break in rationality. i'd say that it's a paradigm change that things are we thought we knew we don't,

we're not sure anymore. it's not a democratic capitalism anymore. it's. it's not socialism, communism on the other side, they're all mixed together. yet the metrics by which we measure things have changed, nor have the attitudes going back to you know, reads under the bed. joe mccarthy. you know, brad, 11, parents, the word it's been said paradigm ok. paradigm change. and there is a huge one in front of us right now. and if you look at your history and i look at this, how neo liberalism, like to throw around charges of racism and all of these kinds of things. you know, they again, this export of values, their values that nobody else in the world is particularly interested in. but mean what is happening with the return of china is that for the 1st time in 500 years, the west is being challenged. and the west doesn't know how to deal with that because they think that god made them the way they are to lead humanity. well,

it's not turning out that way. he doesn't work that way. and we already heard about american exceptionalism. these a leads don't understand the dynamics that they see in front of them, the rise of another great power, if you know your history going back to the facilities. great, great powers. why some fall all the time. i don't know why it would change of the 2021st century. go ahead. bred. i think what's, what's also really disturbing about this idea of containing china's rise of the fact that china's rise has led to the largest anti poverty campaign in the history . the human race and to try to stop that or stump that to me is just criminally immoral. the thing about china's rise and especially this is true for europe with the, with the comprehensive agreement, an investment languishing now in the european parliament is the fact that trying to rise because of the growth of the chinese middle class will actually benefit the world. and especially europe, if they're able to ratify that agreement, trying to consumer market will be the biggest one in the world. probably in less

than a decade, but certainly reaching parity with the, with the united states is the consumer market by that time. and this is an amazing opportunity for any, any block of countries or a country that wants to enter into the chinese market. and yet, as we've been saying this, and during this program, the, the european union is just, just stuck, doesn't know what to do. but at the same time, i think that some countries actually do understand the fact that cutting china out of the out of trade relations on certain products will just make it so that way china replaces them. for example, when the united states bar to google from using android software with why way, why we just invented its own operating system harmony unless they've replaced it. yeah, i mean, it didn't make any sense. yeah, it doesn't. it? yes, because there's the, there's no such respect for a competitor here. i mean, it, it's my question. you know, if i, after 500 years, they can't accept that

a different part, a different people in a different part of the world can actually be shakers and movers. and, and that's just the case here. i mean, i don't understand what people are so afraid of. i mean, china is not trying to export its ideology. what is china's ideology? probably wouldn't make a lot of sense to us, but that's something for them. but we in the west are constantly exporting our values through the use of force. okay. i think you get people had a choice though. it's an easy choice to make glucose. ahead and jump in. yes, i agree with you, but if you look at taiwan, i mean the issue is not you with dates back to 949 and that the patch of check a check. but time when the still there is to the thorn in the side of china and dumb, it's a danger because as you said, america is very much into security. and we've heard joe biden, a few weeks go out to say that job the way split the fan tally taiwan if ever attacked. and i see that there are, there is the only possible war issue that could to, you know,

explode in the coming years. that's the only danger for the rest between europe in china, i don't see any reason problem we have in europe. we need to re industrialize the come to a look. let me jump in here. look, let me just been real quick as we're almost out of time. i want to go to our guest in beijing to react to the taiwan issue because i want to everyone, i want this to be fair and balanced. go ahead. the issue of taiwan over the issue of taiwan is very simple. the u. s. has no intention and no capability of defining the island china actually went in, but they are, you know, as you recall from the generals, call to the chinese counterparts during trumps administration. at the end of it, it was the chinese were afraid that the u. s. is trying to goad them into doing some sort of military action against taiwan. so the u. s. the claim that, yes,

see china is the terrible over. we've always said it. everyone has to rally around us american exceptional lives forever. so i want to be very care or not another on other down the u. s. idea. re conjuring the world. ok, gentlemen. very robust discussion here. i'm sure we're going to see a whole lot more particularly in the issue of tie one, which in western audiences are being scared with here all the time. we have many thanks, i guess in beijing, prague. and i look on the and thanks for viewers for watching us hierarchy, so you next time. remember across tacos, ah, one of the worst ever mass shootings in america was in las vegas in 2017. the tragedy exploded a little of the real las vegas. where many se elected officials are controlled by

casino owners. the dank, has shooting revealed wet deal vs pd really is. and now it's part of the stand machine. most of the american public barely remembers that it happens. that just shows you the power of money in las vegas. the powerful showed that true colors when the pandemic hit, the most contagious contagion that we've seen in decades. and then you have a mayor who doesn't care. so here is caroline goodman, offering the lives of the vegas residence to be the control group. to the shiny facades conceal a deep indifference to the people who buys could have been saved if they were to take an action. absolutely, keep the registering and keep the slot machines. dinging vegas is a money machine is a huge cash register that is ran by people who don't care about people's lives being lost. a

european gas prices fall off the flooding of hooton's ells, russia entities you joined just from the rat suit up supplies you know, the headlines americans are losing faith and 0 biden's ability to turn the economy round off. the kobe with new polling showing its democrats who are becoming disillusioned with office also freedom or a possible 175 year prison sentence massages fate rests in the hands of the u. k. supply cord as an appeal hearing on a us extradition request gets on the way that the you orders. poland took off up a 1000000 euros every single day and it abandoned the controversial reform to its school system. as prompted warsaw accused brussels of blackmail. ah.