is to focusing attention on the police department and monitoring progress and advocating for one kind of change or another that's reasonable. that would be very welcome. and because there are many other parts of the united states that i co, wat minneapolis has been going through lots of anti police campaigning, but also coupled with a writing crime during the pandemic that do you think that may be campaigns like yours to mal, do? trying to rail these deep on the police campaigns could be more successful elsewhere. yes, one of the reasons that minneapolis was so important to this, to the national movement that this group is a part of, is that it was a majority white city. and so it was a testing ground for a city of r, l g, which is most as a country to see how it would work here. and so i think that this significant victory, which is, you know, i think 56 percent to $44.00 suggests

that with all of the money poured in here, all of the efforts and persuasion and all the energy of people on this as a door knocking. they funded a lot of folks on the ground knocking on doors. that if it could not be done here, the city where george floyd was killed after for lando and then dante right, that it might be a strategy that needs change. and this was the 1st best chance, but also even if people have been changing their minds angry the police initially, but really also appreciate the protection that the police force is giving them even if they are changing their mind. jared, that it doesn't particularly alter the fact that there was that major coal for accountability within police force is that still needs to happen, doesn't it? that still needs to happen. and in fact, it was quite unfortunate that we ended up with on 2 sides of the one issue that

everybody agrees on which is we do need change. it was just a matter of a debate about how do we achieve that change. but both sides, one side was more singularly concerned about addressing police violence to the point of putting their they the rest of the safety issue at risk. and the other side was for a both and approach, which is the side advocating for which is yes, we have to take care of some rural police officers in a bad culture. but we also have to keep our folks as safe while we do it. and data, if you're doing road construction you, you have to have a little detour to get a traffic moon. otherwise people won't get around. and natal, i couldn't area, don't. we have to leave it that they were out of town. really appreciate you talking to us on our team dance. daniels minneapolis. thank welcome. that's the needs for moscow. for now, i'm calling bradley back here to update you on

a global development in half an hour. see you then? ah ah hello and welcome to cross top where all things are considered. i am peter lavelle at the moment russia and the north atlantic military alliance have no official links. now there is no official dialogue on issues that concern them both. and one of them is ukraine, washington's. we let this drive to admit ukraine to nato is a red line for mosque out. something is going to have to give, i cross

sucking ukraine. i'm joined by my guest nichol. i petro in kingston. he is a professor of political science at the university of rhode island in tulsa. we have jeremy whose motto he is managing, editor of colbert action magazine and in london we crossed to earns read. he is a political analyst, as well as a guest expert at the russia international affairs council. right gentlemen, crosshatch, rules and effect that means can jump anytime you want. now it's appreciate nichol. i let me, let me go to you. i mean, there's so much confusion in the air here for me. um we had a summit of sorts with zalinski and biden over the summer, and the read out was kind of a cool read out, you know? yeah, you make it into nato, but you know, there's no rush here. and then, you know, last week we have or the last a few new cycles. we have the secretary of defense. he goes to georgia, he goes to ukraine. he goes to brussels and you know, we're right on board for membership. okay. what is going on here? what is the policy about ukraine? is it just to keep it simmering?

or is there different factions buying for different outcomes? how do you read it? go ahead. nick, like i think the u. s. policy is objective is to obtain eventual membership for nato in ukraine. this has been part of a long term objective of separating ukraine from the russian empire, and thereby preventing any reconstitution of the russian empire or of the soviet union. but a, it cannot be done quickly because of the objection of other major nato members to this. okay, well jeremy, essentially the same question because we know like for example, when things were simmering in the spring, it was the germans and the french were saying slow down, everybody slow down everyone. they were very adamant about it. and then we had zalinski, basically throwing temperature temper tantrums,

about not being able to get in the club. all right, and now we have this late latest flurry of quote unquote, a diplomatic maneuvers here. i mean it and, and also, and nichol. i didn't mention it, but that there is the for knowledge that russia is adamantly against this. it has its own security interest to to, to take into consideration. jeremy, go ahead. i think it is a longstanding project going, going back to 990 in the fathers of the union that the united states has seen the opportunity to just branch power and influence in that region of the world and to try and weaken russia and ukraine is kind of key key prize and the u. s. has invest in something like, you know, just in a bind administration. $275000000.00 in defense are spending towards ukraine. and it's senior, the conflict seems to be re, re igniting in the, in eastern ukraine. so i think at the u. s. is heavily invest in ukraine and the project of nato expansions. and he said that, you know, the goal is to weaken russia, prevent the ro,

resurgence of russian empire. and to dominate that region of the world and control the resource, including the oil and gas resource of central asia. ok, well, or is we already heard from nikolai, we heard from jeremy. so it's all about russia. it's not about ukraine because that's what we keep getting all over again. i mean, i find this really extreme. what, what, what about democracy? you know, what about protecting other members of the law? no, it's never that it's always, you know, that this is a way to hinder russians now. so security interest, this is what this all about. go ahead, ernst. i got the brand list. i guess the reason why it's why taking control of the brand us will be killing several birds with one stone, but it's getting closer brushes, borders, engineering surrounding russia is the grass specialist wasn't unique. so general

security in english, please read off. yes. one of the main reasons why russia, once in 2014, i was the last e fleet is u. s. was in the us, where to go in crane there and then rushes. lexi lease, which has made russia one. so there's, you know, lexi reagan, i mean that's russia would no longer be of any importance. let's see if we just look at a map s u. s. national law. how romania will area they have to as well. it was the middle of holes isolates. getting all the train would have been amazing bus in 2014, following the true care. russia, the great rushes escal and crime in guidance happens and then the resistance and don't pass region. and that has last us of these very frustrated as

mom i always hear said at the u. s. invested lawson, money in 2014. i believe it was before a newland who has voiced the sample. i thought us, which was yesterday with the 5, the 5000000000 was from the, from independence all the way to 2014 nichol. i let me go to you. something that you've written about that i think is so important that our audience needs to know is that the way it's presented in western media, the way western analyst present, the situation with you is they present. it is a conflict between ukraine in russia when in fact it is an intro ukraine conflict. so they, they obviously, and intentionally or frame it in the wrong way. because this is a conflict with in ukraine here. and there seems to be very little interest on the part of the western powers between the united states to actually make the government in care of resolve its own internal problems. before it starts talking

about russia, go head nikolai. i actually see this conflict as a nested conflict, a, which is a conflict at several levels. there is a conflict between the united states and russia. there is a conflict between russia and ukraine, but at its heart, there is also and this is often forgotten and conflict within ukraine itself, between uh, the more western oriented galaxian part of ukraine and the other eastern part of ukraine, which is historically been known as marcia and, and as a result of these 3 conflict role interlinked, not addressing any, any addressing, any one of them individually will not resolve the conflict, but you cannot leave any of these 3 components hours either. okay, well jeremy,

i mean, what the cynic in me says, cuz we, you know, we considering what nichol i said, and what you said in the beginning of the program here. i mean, at the u. s. with its policy objectives at the very least will be dissatisfied to have a cold conflict that is just a headache for mosque. i mean that is acceptable to them because it's really actually at low cost. ok. so i mean they, that the, they, they have a ra, a wide array of objectives, but just keeping in a frozen conflict is, is good enough. i mean, that's what it says as a cynicism would tell me, go ahead, jeremy. so i guess it bogs the russians down, i mean it's also good for the weapons makers and it gives justification for, you know, huge military spending and another, a conflict with them. and so i think this is an intractable conflict. i mean, as he pointed out, that the people of eastern ukraine are more oriented towards russia and they're going to continue to mean they're not gonna give in. and, you know,

i think the ukraine military, it's been something a quagmire for them, and then ukrainians don't want to fight their own people. that's why they've had to rely on these private militias. and many or you know, very unsavory far right when groups and that that's something that doesn't get along immediate attention at all. here is the so you know, raw, neo nazis and the far right in fighting in the eastern grain. you know, earth, it's very low. it's a very, i rarely talked about nichol. i talked about it, but i mean, it was, it's a form of what form of nationalism is acceptable in ukraine. and as he pointed out in his previous answer, there are radically different interpretations of what the, what nation who had means of for the people in power. and it's very exclusionary it, exclude it excludes people on the in the don bass, for example, and obviously alienated the people in crimea. the what the reason why they left ok, that's a narrative that the u. s. continues to push here is that there's only one definition of ukraine and of being ukrainian, which is not true. go ahead, ernst. as

a possibly a recent joints. you asking brains, did he are statements and then released patterns. and sandra, one of the one closest respects and nurse, and fighting for i think law, the rice o everyone, no matter what gender race and so on, i think is xena phobia, a and so on. fortunately, it, the events we can see last, the rising russian speakers have been trampled on the or the jewish taurus and taurus as well as the main things on grace all over was answers for issues as well. you grands of all other minorities in me, even in western boston, so it's not a well, well, a nickel. i mean the,

what about what about minority writes here in place? it's very rarely reported, but there is a huge assault on freedom of speech in ukraine, primarily russian speaking russian language outlets here. but it and, and there even people in the admin her administration that applauded, you know, you know, this is dissimilar, this whole, this information mantra that people are using. but they're, they're, they're, they're applauding the, the crashing of freedom of speech here without any kind of uproar. go ahead, nikolai. yeah, i think that's of a serious problem that will reverberate in the united states eventually. but it has to be addressed and brought to the attention of people. unfortunately, that's not the case, particularly with the u. s. administration. and that's because the focus, as you rightly pointed out of this policy, is not ukraine itself and not the well being of ukraine, including, i would argue,

even the, the integrity of ukraine. that's all incidental interest of containing russia. well, i mean nichol i away in the 2nd part of the program. i really want to talk about that because some very interesting scenarios out there. but as you point out, have absolutely nothing to do with you. great. but actually can be to the detriment of ukraine and even of a sovereign ukraine. so we're going to go take a short break, and then we continue our program or get continue. our discussion on ukraine, stay with r. t coral, driven by dream shaped banks. concur, some of those with

dares sinks, we dare to ask with ah, welcome back to cross stock where all things are considered. i'm peter lavelle to remind you we're discussing crane. i can go back to jeremy in tulsa. i think we would all agree on this program is that there's a, there's a, a lack of information about what's actually going on in, in,

in ukraine because there's something that all of us take for granted. but it's hardly ever mentioned that there is a blueprint, a plan out there to end the internal conflict in ukraine, and it's called the minsk accords. okay. and it's really simple. we could put it on one page. okay. um, but there's scant reference to it. okay. the ukrainian government, what i call official care of signed off on it, but they've never fulfilled it. okay. and then if you read what western news accounts of what's going on a ukraine, you might, if you get lucky, they'll make reference to the men sc agreements. but this is something the europeans have sign on to russia is a guarantor of it, but no one wants to go into the minutia of it. but that's the way out of this, of this a situation in tight of ukraine. jeremy, go ahead react. oh, as you suggest yeah, the us doesn't really have the best interest of the cranes at heart. so they're not really pushing for that. you know, solution that within this conflict and,

you know, i think part of them it's record offers lago autonomy to the eastern provinces. and that would, you know, wed them more towards russia. and that may be something that ukrainian government and united states doesn't want. and maybe they want an opportunity to cut this is the opportunity to strike a blow at russia. so they want to sustain the conflict. i mean that might be a cynical interpretation, but there's, i think, grounds for that sense is, well, jeremy, i think there's a whole lot of cynicism going off near. i'm glad you mentioned it, or it's the same question too, because this is a way out here. we had to push ankle government to pay lip service to it. and then the lensky running for president paid lip service who have and then it suddenly disappears into the ether here. but this is the way out here. and again, shame on the europeans for not pushing this more. okay. because that, that is a way out here. but that tells me that the reason why they don't do it is they don't necessarily want it to be resolved. okay. they like the status quo, actually go ahead. ernst unfortunately has. so i thought easily said

there is a matter of cynicism. we live in this world, or is it was the case and the u. s. companies that benefit from it. so that was the case in your sins or a 99 sees in the us also very much broader and it's, it's the case here once a once again as you, as you may know us and you knew grant me. he said he lost class. i think all this new military industrial complex in ukraine, which is going to cost more money. and the u. s. as in some of the announce even minds you literary audience. so there's a lot of money against the main main. simons off, as ross,

very profitable. and of course, it is not good for us have polio grain, years if you for the music agreements, that means that you have a certain amount of money. so the currents machines in, in don't last long. last and that he's asked graham will know with lots in reference to getting some a so because don't pass within the crime owes me lucky. and sam's cranager names are just like it is blocking only it's scholars at times. it makes it worse in this way. so it's not good for, for the u. s. a implement was misgivings because then they will, they will not be able so much control they like and also about a, which is not

a major interest. ab maintenance in looking europe's sense. so control at its own security, i wasn't sure whether it was francis jeremy's. you mediators as one of the c o. c, or send me away seized martin, why i asked the u. s. nichol, i, i think the nightmare scenario is the following. is that considering the, the rhetoric that's coming out of care of, with being very frustrated, not getting into the nato club is as fast as they would like. i, i think they just, that nato nations are just dangling that in front of them. however, he may want to press the issue and that's the nightmare scenario. but this how it, this is how it plays out. is it, there is a military conflict. rushes read lines are across, there is a conflict. ukraine is a left in tatters. um,

and maybe even potentially broken up into smaller pieces. but it, what is a loss for ukraine is also a loss for russia, because this is a way to cut russia out of the europeans architecture forever. forget at least generations here. this is one of the things that the people in washington want and what you and what at the end result is, ukraine is the biggest loser and they win their policy objectives. so actually ukraine is the cannon fodder for this object objective. go ahead, nikolai. well hi, think you've articulated as you said, the worst case scenario. this would clearly not be in the interests of ukraine itself. it would mean the end of effectively its sovereignty or its division into a region that would be very difficult to reconstitute. i would like to say about the means, go courts that are, they haven't gone anywhere. they remain the same show

a blueprint. but what has happened is that ukraine has systematically attempted to redefine them in a manner that is inconsistent with the original wording. and as a result, it wants it both ways. it wants its new interpretation, but it, it doesn't want to effectively renegotiate, be the initiator of the rigor renegotiation, because then that would put everything on the table again, let me add just one more thing. while the medical records has 12 points and seems, at least if not easy to fulfill, at least systematically able to be fulfilled. there is an even simpler way to resolve the ukrainian crisis, which has been put on the table by russia both at the outset and continues to be it's, it's essential position in the matter which is this any, as

a president bush and has said, any agreement that the regions of ukraine can reach between themselves is fine with russia. or what is that actually mean? it means that the government in care of and the rebels in on boss need to negotiate directly and whatever they can agree on a map between themselves. ah, would russia would find acceptable? okay, amendment jeremy, i think, you know, it's a pandora's box and i think it's already been hinted to here because the downside of the minsk accords and away is that the don basket special status. then the people hadn't caught a couple say, well, what about us, okay, and then go lead. see, it says the same thing. and so this creates a cascade effect. that's one of the reasons why cab is so hesitant to do this

because they see it is a slippery slope. okay? because if one region gets preferential treatment, all the other ones will ask this for the same because as nichol i have talked about personally when we've met is that you know what, we're, they're pushing a nationalism on a, on a country that doesn't have a nation. and per se, okay, and so the, once you open up the pandora's box for some, everyone else will want to go and then central authority and cab will dissolve. jeremy, your thoughts? yeah, i think he makes of the points there. i mean, you know, i think we have to go back to 2014 and, you know, i think opened up this pandora's box and, you know, the, the interference by outside powers. it's, you know, it's kind of crazy. this real massey situation that's will be difficult to resolve a sh, but i mean, i think ultimately, you know, i mean there is hope that you know, the men's record would, would solve the situation. and i agree with what you're saying and i think and then

you know, you have these extreme nationalists who seem to be dom name, ukrainian government, it's not clear how far they would go so well young people cannot hear and i say some germane nichol. i go ahead champagne. yeah. ok. federalism is not a danger for ukraine properly understood. federalism would be ukraine salvation if every region could determine it's local cultural policy as it wanted, it would feel great. her attachment to the center, this is the than it does now. of the problem is one created artificially by kia. this has been the history of federalism and federalist systems throughout the world . and ukraine really needs to learn from that experience, a global experience. okay, with drawing upon what we're nichol, i said he earned say, but does that do the people in power want

a win win situation because his whole conflict is built on creating the other, creating the enemy. ok. what nicolai's says makes perfect sense. but as to mom has, as too much blood been spilled too many problems created for them to say, hey, let's all sit down and sing, combine. because i can tell you that the u. s. that definitely doesn't want that to happen. they don't want a resolution of this. go ahead urns a futurist united states and in the diesel resolution maintenance, there is no interest on the currents ukrainian means. so is always a ms. green has been going back to go east agreements and they were all the no nobody, nobody for mass meetings. but even though those meetings go back,

a lot of 2019 was the one to not seen where the land skied, man, man, man. so we're pretty moto wrong in paris in 2019 initially it agreed based on the agreements about putting back troops on the line of contacts all the way for the whole lot of trucks. and then the next key on a day says an extra, you know, what i'm going to go with that actually is all the, i want to get all the troops from 3 locations. and later on i didn't do that. i wish to show that the currents ukrainian regime not only is not all the knots. a gentleman we have brought out of time. we just have to avoid south us at the august 2008 situation. everyone knows that i'm talking

about many thanks. so my guess in kingston, tulsa, and in london, and thanks to our viewers for watching us here, are the see you next time. remember, cross top roles move when i was nothing wrong. oh, just don't hold any new world yet, to save out. disdain becomes the advocate, an engagement equals the trail. when so many find themselves worlds apart, we choose to look for common ground. with

both breaking news on all t a pentagon probe has found no misconduct or negligence in the botched us drone strike on cobble. earlier this year, the attack lab 10 civilians dead including 7 children, the details on reaction and one minute also had the u. s. medicines watchdog backs pfizer despite a whistleblower report in the british medical journal, alleging serious flaws and the company's cobit vaccine testing. and us democrats suffer a surprising defeat and a pivotal governance election in virginia widely considered a major test for biden's presidency. ah hello good happy with us.