ah, ah hello and welcome to crossed out. were all things are considered. i'm peter lavelle . can you make heads or tails of biden's foreign policy? ukraine is a good example. does washington in brussels want piece? the same applies when it comes to china. where are the stable and predictable policies we were told about? ah, to discuss these issues and more, i'm joined by my guess, jordan, samuel in budapest. he's a podcast to read the goggle and can, which can be found on youtube and locals. and in also we have these and he is professor at the university of southeastern norway as well as author of great power politics and the 4th industrial revolution. hi gentlemen,

crossed out rules and effect. that means you can jump any time you want. and i would appreciate it, it was good to glen in our slow glen over the last couple of weeks. we're getting a lot of different conflicting signals. let's focus in on the, from the bite administration on foreign policy. let's focus in on ukraine here as it's well known as the, the, to stop the worst part of the hostilities after the illegal takeover of power in 19, i'm sorry, 2014. we had the minster courts and russia is not a part of the conflict, but now we're getting from brussels in washington. now they've reinterpreted these records that russia is a member of a party of this conflict. that's something new and very dangerous. go ahead. i agree that it's a complicated conflict, i mean wasn't 2014 was cool. and then they used to refuse to recognize legitimacy

and then came horse and stem anti terrorist operations. so obviously the wisdom backing the government has stolen the wes in his own cave and russia said it all is giving support for intervals now as a bus, always a truly a conflict and has to be dealt with at some point b, the western russia to deal with how to organize your bucket came agreement, which is in minsk agreements in terms of how to resolving the conflict deals with the internal conflicting party. so kevin bon boss is very, very explicit. i saw and this is the foundation for how to solve it. and not only about the agreement, that means is quite explicit, but it makes clear. and this was written 60 years ago, more than 6 years ago on bay one. he was also established dialogue with don't boss and to work towards a certain degree of autonomy for them. but now everyone find this agreement that runs in full consensus. now the problem is that the west, it says that officially supports it and they wants to honor it. but at the same time in work stores, undermining him. a he mentioned the,

the us but we recently have the same case now of the you as well. so, you know, the macaroni, france, and germany as our medical germany, the coal, moscow, and the fully firm their support for the means good agreement and says, keep must abide by it. which means talking to the bus, which to have refused to do, and that, and also recognizing that russia is not part of this deal. and that however, thereafter, i mean, even needed to have her after the u. s. meeting with cylinder give you great. the healing for how he has carried out. 1 of legation of the game agreement, then that you signs a common statement, naming russia as an aggressor. those effectively reject thing, been taught him these agreements. it is quite extraordinary. so the next step now for you is pushing, including to meet with zalinski to old agreement forward. but again, this is only a way to remove it from the eternal issue between human bus instead percent as a conflict between ukraine and russia to deprive in on legitimacy away from the bus . and, and this is the direction we're going. and meanwhile,

the target means to me means as throwing out the window. so no rush is quite a what is it supposed to do? i mean, they haven't done hello to the commitments on the previous agreement. and now you're suggesting we have to move forward. what are the really things of build on the past? they're saying must throw out all agreements and let's begin with an entirely new script. so it's sending all this very conflicting messages. so, you know, most was beginning to see the year beginning assisting you more and more as a somewhat unreliable partner, because they're not doing what they're promising. want to saying in the same time they're encouraging. give ok, george. i mean, this has been the fundamental problem, because if you look at western analysis and analysis and western media coverage, what's going on in your grade, they always conceptualize it as a conflict between russia and ukraine when in fact, that is an internal conflict that needs to be resolved and rushes because it's on

the border because of the ethnic makeup of the dumbass, primarily russian. they've had very little choice, but to get involved, a particularly after up to 14000 people who have been killed in the dumbass by the key of government. so it's the conceptualization of this problem, that is the fundamental issue here. and it is, it is being framed in the very destructive way. so essentially, it can't be result except for maybe through conflict which, you know, this is something with the russian side says, i don't want in all other parties to one degree. another camp is in a different category, but europe has sent the same thing. so, you know, glen glen is right here, i mean, the, me, the contradictions here create uncertainty. uncertainty gives the potential for conflict. go ahead, george. i completely agree with you because as you say, this isn't conflict with in ukraine, between here and, and the dumbass and it flows directly from the events of february 2014.

when the legal, legitimate government, it was overthrown. and the people who supported the government with the people in the dumbass rejected the illegal regime. but as far as the mens go go go, russia is one of the guarantors as is germany and france and the germans in the french know is that everybody knows this and you know, they go on attending the russia is a party to the conflict of what's going on in the dumbass is a conflict between russia and ukraine. and so that's all to see how the media presented us all the how the united states presented as glenn points out, the europeans go from one to another. so, you know, when, when the last april seemed like it was going to be an explosion in ukraine because lindsey was threatening and offensive against the bus and the, the germans in the french. then they got very anxious that this will provoke our

conflict. and then, you know, they had the telephone conferences with and, and make play. yeah. we're right with the board. we believe that the minutes because it should be supported and then you know, the very next day they go. busy back on this, but what is happening now is that ukraine is in effect, if becoming the fact. so a member of nato, when you grade is not taking part in nato meetings. so in fact, the, the billing here, zalinski good. i have a good reason to saying, hey, we keep pushing this on pushing a little bit further. eventually, nato is going to get involved. and i think goes increasingly major is getting involved on this side. and so, you know, it's in their interest to keep escalating the conflicts last week. they use the drone that they purchased from turkey against the don't last. and

what, so that's nature's response lake as well. okay. well, he was the russians who started it. ukraine is being acting defensively. so ukraine is making your calculation that you know, we can keep aggravating and aggravating sooner or later. they're going to come in on our side. well, glen, that is a, a preposterous proposition because the, it, that means we've gotten down to a game of playing and playing chicken or bluff. and then is that is, that is the recipe for an explosion that we saw in potentially happening in the spring here. so the russians have made it very clear that there are red lines here and the consequences. i'm paraphrase the russian foreign minister loved off. he said that this couldn't spell the end of ukraine, though the and those are not words spoken lightly. i mean it, you know, we, when we had the defense secretary, us defense secretary and go, he was in what, in georgia he was in ukraine, went to brussels and then we had victoria newland show up here with

a very bizarre meeting here. is it a game of chicken that they're playing, glen all it is because the role is kind of problematic because on one hand, they have to tell the russians, you know, we're buying by agreement on the same time. the, the do, the mission will go on as to keep it popping up. you're going to push it towards that are changing. that means agreement. i mean, the policy or the specific nears, has really been pushing that in this direction. so over the past 7 years, the west coast all is anti russian sanctions and weakening, trying to weaken russia, obviously didn't go ask them hope and at same time popping up your grades. and then at some point, they should be able them to change the power balance and them being able to renegotiate. and this was supposed to be back in april and you know, your credit again, mobilizing his troops or along the us border us, you know, the west comes with stern warnings, nasal says do not there to do anything. russia and then russia mobilizes and a is more. so then i have to step back and say ok we, we will follow it,

but nothing changes do. push your credit. and this is kind of in the post cold war experience between russia. they don't all along, it continues to rush, you know, we're not going to expand and insure we're not going to put the new troops in eastern europe and then gradually they have all this agreements. but then they begin to make incremental changes on the ground and step by step and one day the saying, well, these agreements belong to reality. that's, you know, there was the person that was going to why russia is kind of fed up in the also seeing more it is so doesn't want to start to renegotiate from scratch on the old agreement. so it's kind of drawing as clear red lines. i mean, you can agree or disagree with the russians about, but this is kind of, it is not going to move any more on this because you know, when, why should they i'm, if you're going to constantly be changing your mind and what is the value of your current position of this moment, you're george, when the dangerous thing is,

is that you're getting into a wag, the dog situation, i mean, is kept going to be determining nato's policy. and it's a very dangerous proposition. and i think, you know, the, remember, the adults were supposed to be coming back in the room. i mean, this is, this is, this is a very, very dangerous path because it is a wag the dog situation. and i wouldn't put it past the zalinski. this is the way to turn the corner. he'll do it. yes. yeah, i think that's right. and it's clear that had europe made clear zelinski at an early stage that you're the only possible it is for you to abide by them in support . to change the constitution to give the dumbass special state to see better relations with russia, zelinski would have no choice. the right as the landscape thinks that he has a choice that he can just continue to aggravate the situation means a recycling. your hasn't told him that and as glen pointed out, that's the,

your installation that they keep pushing and pushing and pushing. and then, you know, when the russians say, hey, we have an agreement, you know, we've, we signed this agreement as well. that's, that's old news. you know, let's get on with new use. i mean, they use the same argument whenever the russian said, hey, you made all sorts of commitments to gorbachev. they would not expand these words. and what happened to that was a, well, it wasn't on paper. we never wrote anything down, is it any kind of an argument? well, i know for you, for believing us as a, but that's kind of the way they're operating now. and i think the zelinski now season, you know, he makes is that your brain is increasingly becoming a de facto member of nato. you sort of say, hey, if we continue with this, then at some point they goes article 5 who come into operation ga, ga. the scary thing is for you credit is that they put themselves on the front line . they want to start account like they're going to be on the receiving end,

a bit more than anyone else here. again, playing with buyers, hearing that it's a conflict that i hardly anyone wants except for maybe the ukrainians or gentlemen, i'm going to jump in here. we're going to go to what you're breaking up that short break. we'll continue our discussion on some real mid state. oh wow. you know, things are, of course, playing out as we've been protecting they would. we've got a very central banks putting on their kabuki costumes and getting ready to go out on stage and perform their ritualistic not to the need to raise rates, followed by their ritualistic denial that they are able to raise rates, followed by massive quantitative easing. money printing and hyperinflation. once again. oh boy, it gets so entertaining. we're allowing ourselves to be more efficient,

more quicker with our transactions. we can make mobile payments from our stands. the truth is that every device is a potential entry point for security attack. i think a eventually there's malware on thousands, maybe sometimes millions each day. they use cyber, they use the technology as an extension of traditional artificial intelligence has not many main threat. this is due to the 3 laws of robotics. one of the things that the mini cyber plans right now, i'd be really, really worried about a chip in my brain. so there has been a lot of progress from the hacker side using ai and using other advanced technologies. there has been on the defensive slide.

welcome back to crossed out. were all things are considered? i'm funeral bell. this is the home addition to remind you. we're discussing some real news. ah let's go back to george in budapest year. let's talk about some more ambiguous foreign policy. let's shift gears the asia. a lot of people, of course, you saw it in our view or saw it as well as that when joe biden had his town hall was cnn. and he was asked about taiwan the longstanding policy of strategic ambiguity. i seem to have gone up into smoke as it were. of course, later his handlers talked it back. but, you know, we're getting more and more of this ambiguity is not being ambiguous at all. i mean, in the last few days, secretary, blinking is saying that the,

the taiwan should have a higher profile in, in you, in institutions and things like this is just completely counter what was agreed to do exchanging diplomatic relations. this issue with taiwan interest teaching ambiguity. i want to be clear with everyone it's worked for everyone, essentially breaking the united states to recognize the government in beijing. it's worked for everyone. and now we have this administration fiddling with again, as we said in the 1st part of the program. this is playing with fire. go ahead, george. you're absolutely right. and you know, the chinese new spot is mouthpiece global times recently referred to the bite and ministration as the most degenerate and incompetent u. s. history. so much for america is back and you know, the, the foreign policy professionals back, you're absolutely right. i mean, not only has now the united states twice, twice on with biden committed itself to going to war on behalf of

a administration officials, including the defense secretary. they're also committed to going to war for these uninhabited rocks in the china sea. so it's very, very strange. what exactly the united states is doing here in provoking china. and at the same time, they're trying to provoke russia. so, you know, the, there are times when they thinking, well, what we need to do is to do a kissinger and reverse. we need to align ourselves with russia and china get separate the 2 great powers. and then they go back to no, no, no, we prefer to confront russia and china together. let's have our global democracy summit, which we can feel good about ourselves, that we are now dead set against the democratic enemies. it's a policy that is guaranteed to create a no doubt in the mind of the chinese leaders,

and therefore it is extremely dangerous. and that goes along with millis, famous, or infamous, a telephone call to the chinese leaders during the lack of days of the trump administration. telling them, well, don't worry, we're not about to attack you, but if we do it at you, i promise i'll give you a phone call ahead of time. so the chinese leaders really don't know what it is doing. and i think that's why there is furious as they are. you know, glen, this is what i find really perplexing here is that small policy of strategic ambiguity is actually work for everyone. type one has everything but independence. ok. it's when it was agreed that there is a one china policy, the west particular united states recognize that of which actually means that they recognize that taiwan is part of china. though it has a special status unspoken, but it obviously exists here. so it, it has worked for beijing, ok, they and,

and as much as they may rhetorically lash out from time to time, at the end of the day, this current situation is working for everyone. why is the administration doing this? i mean, at the cynic in me, in mid we can talk about this is a, you know, the intelligence that happens community, they want threat in place and they want more money. they need, you know, budgets and all of that. we don't want to go to war. we just want to prepare for war. ok. what are your thoughts? go ahead. i guess the main change happening is it is the change of the distribution of power. now for washington, i was gone for with china, but up the record keeping disagreements by the same time they want to enhance their strategic justice against china, which means wrapping up disagreements. so they want on both ways. as part of the main problem with taiwan is the status of the china. so for more than 40 years, the us more than 4 years on the use except for the so called one china principal. and it's very, very, is only one. china. taiwan is a part of it and is capitalism aging?

so this is very explicit and this has worked for 40 years and from china's perspective, obviously it wants to have pie one back. but you can do this by peaceful means because it's power girls relative to us every year. so at some point they can, you know, gradually bring them in with comic incentives or however it is fun, but time is on china side. so oh, as a resultant they use it's time is mostly on the side over the past few years. you see it's beginning to chip away at the one china policy, upgrading official status. 1 referring to morrison and state, also the boldly reply one is to maybe seek independence. so if the govern dependents, this is the one scenario where china will intervene militarily. so if you want to the fuel situation, just the found china, you know, we will stick by the one china policy. and this is where the implicitly comes in because it's a button that he calls china explains, we're fully committed to one china policy just combo. but they don't repeat the rich rhetoric towards the international community. after getting off the call with

china, the americans begin suggesting by one must have an independent representation in the urine, which isn't just a stepping stone, but it's like the last that before secession. so this know it's a little bit like ukraine, you want to have it both ways. you say we're going to live by the agreements, but at the same time that you throw them away in order to and how's your strategic advantage? so it's very, how can you have diplomacy or, or is it must be very frustrated. well in it, but georgia, me, where's the, where's the gray hairs in the professionalism? well this, i mean, anyone that knows anything about american policy in the pacific is so p chicken majority that that's the corners the corner stone of it. ok. and that is before the quote unquote rise of china. it's been that way here. and it says if the these agreements never existed, this understanding never existed. our invasion, i be extremely nervous right now. you have mark miller making that crazy asinine

phone call. then you have bite and just say, you know, we will go to war over time. want, i mean it in beijing the most you think these americans must have lost their mind? yes. yeah, i think they up and i think that's why that's reflected in that global times. editorial. but this is a point usually why exactly is the united states engaging in this kind of pointless of blankenship on a matter that is really of no strategic importance to the united states. i mean, you know, i want nothing hangs on. i want one at the same time a no, no, no we, we don't want to co with join. i know we want good relations with china. and then when it comes to something like a on that issue, which actually doesn't affect united states. the origins of the virus that, you know, we don't know what's going on it, let's just put that on the back burner. so this is getting itself into unpleasant

conflict with china over a matter that isn't of any strategic importance to the united states. and it's a matter that's essentially settled, it is several. and that's why the so strange as to why exactly is suddenly brought this up. i mean, this is an app that really was no, it's not like china was frightening. taiwan or, you know, saying we're going to settle the matter at the, by the end of the year or anything like that. so this was not necessarily provocative and it created a conflict over an issue that is a no really united states. and as you say, it was just no need for this, you know, glenn, you know, you're a big geopolitical thinker. ok, i mean is if we step away in the 1st part of the problem, we talked about the frame. and now we're talking about china. mean, is this the american hegemony? it's an,

it's under threat. it's under pressure and is this why the u. s. is reacting the way it is, because when you, when you feel your shift each importance and, and in weight begin to dissipate, it creates a potential aggressive behavior. so it's looking for a conflict. we're really doesn't need it that we don't need a conflict in ukraine. it could be resolved in your brain, it's a ukrainian problem. we have the situation with parent one. the situation that was agreed to decades ago has worked for everyone. so it tells me it's a, it's a, it's a, a geopolitical, i'm thinking in washington about its relative decline in the world. am i wrong? go ahead. and the oil, if theorists was quite comfortable in its own position in the world, that is the global dominance was stable, then obviously it wouldn't go in the center change and of international agreements and risk or with major powers. as mentioned, it is the relative decline of the u. s. it feeling as time is not on its side. in other words, it will be in

a weaker position tomorrow than it is today. so it's better to start changing reality on the ground. you know, bring in ukrainian to nato. this is to get independence for taiwan. so you can use as a permanent, like an aircraft carrier which is sunk so, so this is the main goal they're going for, but there's no great genius plan behind this. i mean, because of the end of the day for, for russia, ukraine is next. essential director for china is, goes back to the opium morrison. this is how they were there in the territory was split from them. i know one obviously left off the dribble ocean in 9061. but, but the point is this is being especially remnant of a with their power. so when interfering, and the not going to give up their own territories just, you know, they, they made their peace with the fact. you know, this, they have autonomy. they sit there the government himself, but don't go for that last go, don't try to and they do china will and that's i'm 100 percent sure. will use

military force to get it back. and within that course, approximate of china, there's nothing to us can do to really when, like all some hours to just the china will come up. so there are, this is not a great plan. this is going to cost, but you're not going to win. it went rapidly running on time. george glenn brings up such an important point here. ukraine because this bridge location is very important to russia. taiwan, because of its location in history, is very important to beijing, but ukraine and taiwan are of marginal significance strategic value for the united states. go ahead. yes, exactly. so these are both great importance. those do great power. and if the united states, that is provoking a conflict over something of that of no importance to the united states, there's getting involved in ukraine, isn't,

has no other strategic purpose than to antagonize russia. the same which i want is the reason for any of this other than to antagonize the chinese. and therefore, it seems very strange because it has nothing to do with the real us national interest. i was in your interest to antagonize rival great powers, and that's why this was, it is both a foolish and dangerous for containment, though. that's the one interest i will call in the program. get some frantic joe. ok, that's all the time we have gentlemen. i want to thank my guest now slow in budapest, one thing our viewers for watching and c, r t c. so you next time? remember across hospitals? ah, ah, it's been 30 years since the soviet union, a chill,

the one to what the talk, so shown where you will switch off on one color from ukraine was one of the independent states that emerge from the ruins of a super awesome would you also get on the ball greens come a little, i'm sure she was a watch at the past 3 decades read like the ukraine. eye witnesses, recall the events. this would be more or less. so just to shoot me a little what i knew. so now with that order, i'm not sure but it be about 4 months with no idea what else and what other forces were at play? yeah. producer whom you shows in shin mushy. in the same problem. the kid, what it a little bit when it shows up in them was a little versions old needs. take

a look at you 2030 years out the gaining independence. a phone with us. again, unless you mean like you to give it live, but a will. it could be issue lush williston holding still for a a a

ah, i don't think i know. as world leaders move on from the g. 20. it isn't all smiled the french president claims the austrian pm was lying about that troubled deal for submarines. meanwhile, delegates gathered scotland for the un climate summit with calls to have the emissions. but there are cries of hypocrisy as around. $400.00 private jets are reportedly flying in vi piece for the event and in american pilot, using the anti biden catchphrase. let's go brandon. over the intercom during a flight send democrats and the mainstream media into a rate ah, broadcasting live director of studios moscow. this is our t international.