ah ah, i don't think i know. as world leaders move on from the g 20 it isn't all smiles. the french president claims the australian p. m. was lying about that troubled deal for submarines while delegates gather and scotland for the un climate to summit with cause to have emissions. but there are cries of hypocrisy as round. $400.00 private jets are reportedly flying in vi piece for the event and in american pilot, using the anti biden catch phrase. let's go. brandon, over the intercom during a flight sends democrats and the mainstream media into rich. those are your headlines in about an hour's time. my colleague andrew farmer will be here with a full and fresh look at your new stay with us. this is archie international. ah, 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, isa podcast to read the goggle and can, which can be found on youtube and locals. and in also we have when these and he is profess sir, at the university of se,

or norway as well as author of great power politics in the 4th industrial revolution. hi gentlemen, crossed out rules and effect. that means you can jump anytime you want. and i would appreciate it. okay, let's go to glen in, in our slow, i'm going over the last couple of weeks, we're getting a lot of different conflicting signals. and let's focus in on that from the bite administration on foreign policy. let's focus in on ukraine here. um, as it's well known as the, the, the stop the worst part of the hostilities after the illegal takeover of power in 19, i'm sorry, 2014. um, we had the minsk records and russia is not a, a part of the conflict, but now we're getting from brussels in washington. now they've re interpreted these records in russia is a member of a party of this conflict. that's something new and very dangerous. go ahead. yeah, i agree and i got, well i have to agree that it's a complicated conflict. i mean, it was in 2014 the with roku and then the refuse to recognize the legitimacy and

then came last to manpower terrorist operations. so obviously the west is backing the government installed in the west in his cave and rochester, you know, giving support for intervals now as a bus. always a truly a conflict. and it hasn't been dealt with the western russia to deal with how to organize your team agreement, which is for minsk agreements in terms of how to resolving the deals with the internal conflicting parties. so keep on 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 6 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 bust out. everyone signed this agreement runs in a consensus. now the problem is that the west and it says that if nationalist support

and they wants to honor it. but at the same time in work source undermining, it's a he mentioned the the us but we recently have the same case now. you as well. so, you know, the macaroni, france, and germany as our medical of germany, the coal, moscow, and the fully firm their support for the means agreements and says keep must abide by it. which means talking to the bus which to have refused to do. and the, and also recognizing that russia is not part of this deal. that however, thereafter, i mean even needed to have her after the u. s. meeting with philips give you the hailey for how he has carried out. 1 of legation of the game agreement, then that you sign a common statement, naming russia and aggressor, those effectively reject thing, been taught in 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 internal issue between human bus instead percent as a conflict between ukraine and russia to deprive you know, on legitimacy,

away from the bus. and the, and this is their direction, we're going and meanwhile the target means to be means as throw out the window. so no rush us quite a bottle. who, what is it supposed to do? i mean, they haven't done followed to the commitments of the previous agreement. and now that you suggesting, we have to move forward with what the really things are build on the past. they're saying must throw at all agreements. and let's begin with an entirely new script. so if they're sending oldest, very conflicting messages. so it must was beginning to see the ear up beginning assisting you more and more in a somewhat unreliable partner, because they're not doing what they're promising. what the saying in the same time they're encouraging kiff. ok, george. i mean, this has been the fundamental problem, because if you look at western analysis in analysis, in western media coverage, what's going on and ukraine, they always conceptualize it as a conflict between russia and ukraine when in fact that is it, in colonel conflict that needs to be resolved and rushes up 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 a very destructive way. so essentially, it can't be resolved except for maybe through conflict which, you know, this is something that the russian side says, i don't want in all other parties to one degree. another kid is in a different category, but europe isn't 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 was overthrown. and the people who had both of the government with the people in the dumbass rejected the illegal regime. but as far as the mens 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 rich ending them somehow. russia is a party to the company. and that this, 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, the how the united states presented. alan as glen 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 of the lindsey was threatening and offensive against the dom bus. i,

the germans and the french suddenly got very anxious that this would provoke a conflict. and then yeah, they have 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 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 now 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 in that side because 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 on

what nature's response or what was the russians who started it? ukraine is being acting defensively. so ukraine is making a 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 that means we're gotten down to a game of playing, playing chicken or bluff. so that is, that is that is the recipe for an explosion. busy 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 love it off. he said that this couldn't spell the end of ukraine. the in those are not words spoken likely. i mean, you know, we, when we have the defense secretary, us defense secretary go, he was in,

in georgia. he was in ukraine, went to brussels and then we end victoria newland show up here with a very bizarre meeting here. is it a game of chicken that there play glen while it is? because while it is kind of problematic, because on one hand, they have to tell the russians, you know, we are by the agreement. but at the same time, the end of the mission will go on as to keep it popping up. you're going to push it towards that are changing the 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 weakening, trying to weaken russia obviously didn't go aston hope and that same time popping up grades. and then at some point, they should be able them to change the power balance and then being able to renegotiate amounts of this was supposed to be back in april and you know, your credit again, mobilizing his troops, are along the border as you know, the west comes with stern warnings, nato says, do not there to do anything. russia. and then russia mobilizes an ups. you know,

get alternative to means is more. so then have to step back and say ok we, we will follow it, but nothing changes this deal with your credit. and this is kind of in the post cold or experienced between russia. they don't all along, it continues to, to rush, you know, i'm going to expand and insure we're not going to put the new troops in eastern europe and then gradually to 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. let's you know, let's deal with the person. and this is going to why russia's kind of a fed up in the also doesn't seeing more it completed is. so it doesn't want to start to renegotiate from scratch from all the old agreement. so it's kind of drawn 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 this little when, why should they? i'm, if you're going to constantly be changing your mind and what is the,

the value of your current position at this moment? your george, what interesting 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 zelinski. 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 status to see better relations with russia, zelinski would have no choice, the records, the landscape, things 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 point, you know, that that's the europeans position that they keep pushing and pushing and pushing. and then, you know, when the russians say, hey, we have an agreement, you know, we, we signed this agreement as well. that, that's all 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 go much of that nature 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. hm. but that's kind of the way they're operating now. and i think that zalinski now season, you know, he makes us quit, that your brain is increasingly becoming a de facto member of nato. you sort of say if we continue with this, then at some point they goes article 5 who come into operation with the scary thing is for you is that they put themselves on the front line. they want

to start to come like they're going to be on the receiving end, a bit more than anyone else here. again, this is playing with by hearing that i'm paying now to conflict. i hardly anyone wants except maybe the ukrainians are 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 mistakes are ah with it's been 30 years since the soviet union collapsed. mom, miss caldwell, the little chill, the one to walk up on the top. so shown where you swore, trust them with all of them. ukraine was one of the independent states that emerge from the ruins of a super bow. i'm doing awesome. when you get on google greens, come a little more surely, a

lot of the past 3 decades been likely ukraine. eye witnesses were cool. the events . this will be more or less of judiciary with what i knew about that order. i'm not sure. but about 4 months with no idea what else, what other forces were at play, the producer to whom you show engine mushy in you? put in the kid what it would occur when it shows up in the most of the versions only. take a look at ukraine, 30 years out, the gaining independence with unity recorded live with

a little too much with with welcome to crossed out. were all things are considered. i'm funeral. well this is the home addition to remind you were 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 to 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 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, just in the last few days, secretary blanket is saying that be the taiwan should have a higher profile in, in you and institutions and things like this. this is 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 since they recognize that the united states recognize the government in beijing. it's work for everyone. and then 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 dummy bob, his mouthpiece global times, recently referred to the bite administration as the most degenerate and incompetent

us history. so much hope 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 it. so to going to war on behalf of one of the 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 promote russia. so you know, the, it, there are times when they thinking, well, what we need to do is to do a kissinger and reverse. we need to align ourselves rushing. it's trying to get separate the 2 great powers. and then they go back and i would prefer to confront russia and china together. let's have our global democracy summit in which we can

feel good about ourselves, that we are now dead set against the on democratic enemies. it is a policy that is guaranteed to create a, you know, doubt in the mind of the chinese leaders. and therefore, it is extremely dangerous. and that goes along with milly's 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 like you, i promise, i'll give you a phone call ahead of time. so the chinese leaders really don't know what washington is doing. and i think that's why there is furious as they are. you know, kind of what i find really perplexing here is this policy of strategic ambiguity is actually work for everyone. type one has everything but independence. ok. it was agreed that there is a one china policy, the west,

pretty clean united states recognize that which actually means that they recognize that pie one is part of china, though it has a special status unspoken, but it obviously exists here. so it has worked for beijing, ok, they and, and as much as they may, rhetorically, last 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, the cynic in me, in my mid, we can talk about this is a, you know, the intelligence that happens community, they want threatened 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 the, is the change of the distribution of power. now, washington, obviously don't want more with china, but not 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. those are part of

the main problem with taiwan is the status of the china. so for more than 40 years, us more than 40 years, i was like that the youth accepted the so called one china principal, and it's very, very clear. there's only one china. taiwan is a part of it and is capitalism aging. so this is more 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 was economic incentives or however it is fun, but time is on china side. so really oh, as a result in the use it's time is mostly on the fives over the past few years to see it's beginning to chip away them are the one china policy upgrading official status . 1 referring to morrison and state, also the from boldly the taiwanese to maybe to seek in the most. so if the govern dependents, this is the one scenario where china will intervene. let's. so if you want to

diffuse the whole situation, just just pound china and you know, we will stick by the one china policy. and this is where the implicitly comes in because that's what it calls, trying to explain. we're fully committed to one china policy just combo, but they don't repeat these rhetoric towards the international community. after getting off the call with china, america 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 if a little bit like your brand new on both ways. you say we're going to live by the agreements, but at the same time a throw them away in order to how's your strategic advantage? so, it's very how can you have diplomacy or is it must be very frustrated. well, in each but georgia, me, where's the, where's the gray hairs in the professional isabel this? i mean, anyone that knows anything about american policy in the pacific is so preaching ambiguity. that's, that's the corners. that's

a cornerstone of it. ok. and that is before the quote unquote rise of china. it's been that way here. and it's as if the, these agreements never existed. this understanding never existed. our invasion, i would be extremely nervous. right now. you have mark miller making that crazy asinine phone call. then you have biden just say, you know, we will go to war over time want, i mean, i think in beijing they must be 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 the point is 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, i want nothing hangs on. i want one at the same time, the white and people are then point that, you know, we,

we don't want to coal with china. 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, we don't know what's going on here. 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. it's a matter that's essentially settle it. yes, it is several, and that's why it is so strange as to why exactly is certainly brought this up. i mean, this is a really, was no, it's all like china was threatening taiwan or, you know, is it 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 has 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 if we step away in the 1st part of the program, we talked about the frame that we're talking about. china, is this the american hegemony? it's a, it's under threat. it's under pressure and is this by the u. s. is reacting the way it is, because when you, when you feel your strategic importance and 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 and your brain is ukrainian problem. we have the situation with 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 thinking in washington about its relative decline in the world. am i wrong? i'm quite comfortable in its own position in the world. that is the global dominance

of stable then obviously it wouldn't go in as dr. change and international agreements and risk or with major powers. as mentioned, it is the relative decline of the u. s. a feeling is 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 a reality on the ground. you know, bring the ukrainian to nato. this is to get independence for a taiwan. so you can use of permanence. or like an aircraft carrier which is on so, so this is the main goal is going for but, but there is no great genius plan behind this. i mean, because of the end of the day or, or russia, ukraine is next. substantial director for china is goes back, you know, to the opium morrison. this is how they were the day and the territory was split from them. i know taiwan obviously less of the revolution in 1950 but, but, but, but the point is, this is being essentially remnant of a, a,

with their power. so when interfering, and they're not going to give up their own territories just in or they, they made their peace with the fact you know this, they have autonomy. they sit there to govern themselves, but don't go for that last have go, don't try to seek independence. and if they do, china will, and that i'm a 100 percent sure of will use military force to get it back. and within that closer proximity of china, there's nothing that you can do to really when i like all scenarios to just the china will come up. so it, there are, this is not a great plan. this is going to hope that you're not going to win it when rapidly running on time. george, me, glen, brings up such an important point here. ukraine because it's the location is very important to russia. taiwan, because of its location in history, is very important to beijing, but the ukraine and taiwan are of marginal significance of true teaching value for the united states. go ahead. yes, exactly. so there is,

these are both of great importance. those do do great power. and in the united states, that is provoking a conflict over something of that of no importance until the united states. there's getting involved in ukraine who isn't, has no other strategic purpose than to antagonize or russia and the same with di, one. there's no 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. how was in your interest to antagonize rival great powers? and that's why the policy is both a foolish and dangerous containment. oh, that's the one interest. that's why we call the program. let's get some phrenic, joe. ok. that's all the time we have, gentlemen. and i want to thank my guest, maslow, in budapest, someone thank you for watching, and c, r t c. so you next time, remember crosstalk rules. ah,

ah, ah, russia, this class of car was discontinued more than 20 years ago. even though say more than a sort of can you sell it to proposal this deal with just important practice? it took 5 years to close the gap on the world car industry from the drawing board to the 1st finished model scripts. so will over certify excellent controls. key of dealing with political machine. ocean's miss latonya williams for shift of commercial video. lucas crockett. the customer with us or i

ah t she ah. below to mirror zalinski. born on january 25th, 1978. comedian, producer and screenwriter supporter of euro, my dawn, he supported punitive expeditions by the ukrainian army and nazi military formations and gone boss, yahoo guy. oh, but hold no rod. the voicemail was gleick. i knew with his 1st actions zalinski managed to revive the public a little to begin with. he took up foreign investment. i actually spoke to.