ah, i, i hello and welcome to cross talk. we're all things are considered. i'm peter lavelle. the you is in the process of finalizing what is being called the strategic compass for security and defense. this is shorthand for what may become an e u. army. this is not a new idea, and there is no guarantee it will ever come about is europe capable of defending itself in this competitive world? i cross sucking european security. i'm joined by my guess, michael maloof in washington. he is a former pentagon senior security policy analyst in london. we have andre walker. he has a political commentator in commerce and in edinburgh. we cross to john white, he is a writer and political commentator. i gentleman cross hoc rolls in effect. that

means he can jump at any time you want, and i always appreciate, let me go to michael 1st in washington. let me quote, the high commissioner for foreign and security affairs i, joseph brow, quote. europe cannot afford to be a bystander in a world order that is mainly shaped by others. why is he saying this now? that's been the case since 1945. i mean that he's suddenly having to pickney go ahead and d c. yeah, i think that what, what berella seeing is the reality of the, of the lack of us leadership and nato on the one hand. and so, and you have, and you have my crawl from a france who's also pushing for a and e, you army seeing the same thing because they can no longer trust us leadership. but frankly, they don't need us leadership in order to defend themselves if they so choose, even under the umbrella of nato. and the fact that they want to do this is, is, is, is crazy because they can't even afford to, to,

to meet their own natal commitments at this time. so in most cases, some, some are, but for the most part they're not. and that's not where their head is and, and i just don't see who the enemy will be. well, be recent. i don't know. you have this amazing ability to read my questions before i ask them, okay, let me, let me go. in london. i mean, michael brings up a really good point here. i mean a, be the idea having a european army is not new. we can go all the way back to the gall. he talked about these things here. but the fundamental problem is, is, who is the enemy? what are the threats and can 27 countries of this block define what a threat or even a friend is go ahead in london? well, i don't know whether you vosta question deliberately to lead me to, to, to a particular point of view. but let me tell you, the concern here is that they're going to embed their own enemy in order to create

themselves as a nation state. european union is desperate to be a country rich, desperate job, and so it's desperate job of flag and it's desperate to destroy individual democracy. and of course, a common security policy requires a common threat. and what we've seen go on in bella roofs on the border with poland . i think it's an incredibly dangerous escalation. let's just remind you as of all this taken place, germany invited everybody from north africa to come and move to germany. when does not cause to migrate crisis, it cause problems in multiple countries. whether that be grease on greg, but in the case of bell roofs, we have now shut nato troops to the border. i'm blame ballerina, i'm the deed russia for potential cause i. i 3rd world war, i think when you militarize europe in this way, there's an incredibly dangerous outcome that comes about. and i've always said that

the european union is much more similar to you because lobby that a few nice states of america on top a week on the stable on democratic international body like you're been union with its own military force. and they determination to be belligerent. now look, i'm going to say this job. you know, i don't agree with the russian government. i don't like vladimir putin, but i have to say it takes 2 to tango. and i think we've seen in georgia and ukraine. the danger of your foreign all is a tremendous thrice, such as this place now in, in poland. salaries i think is incredibly dangerous. ok, let's go to john. an admiral, i'm, well, since russia has been brought up, i mean, in the current draft of this, you know, the strategic compass for europe document. russia is not even mentioned, which is really quite interesting. i mean, what i draw from that is that the morale know is that if he throws russia into the mix of we mixed reactions to how to proceed. russia as a threat or

a friend or something in between here. i mean, this is the whole reason why we're doing this program because it's so muddled here and maybe andre is right. i mean, they just need to invent a threat. but then you, it's very doubtful. you'll get a consensus of what that threaten means. go ahead, john and edinburgh. well, russia is not mentioned in the operational gate written by mr. but out, but it isn't felt and is implicit an elephant in the room. you asked who the enemy is peter. and then there was a very router galindo, the market of fear, requires a steady supply of monsters, an elite when the lack legitimacy at home, the need to fashion a, stella enemy to try and fashion social cohesion. and we're seeing this for the e richest, who's legitimacy is hanging on on a face right now. and the operational gave written by mr. but out really does bear with him because it is a chilling document. and let me quote from it directly without going to question the principle of unanimity. it is creatively by activate, in certain provisions,

such as constructive abstention or article $44.00, which allows for the creation of coalitions approved by the european council. what does that mean? that means that this is a policies charter. so any coalition of states or member states, but then you can take it upon themselves. i try to multi deploy without any democratic oversight with the approval or 27 member states as a chilling document. indeed, i don't know why i'm even married. i was reading my notes. okay. i was just, i did say that, but i are there. you want to jump in there before we go to michael, go ahead. i absolutely did want um pin and the reason is we all remember what happened in the 19301940, but actually at europe coming together and becoming militaristic, has gone back further. you can look at the napoleonic wars, i genuinely fixed and i used to work in europe in parliament. the european union is interested in creating legitimacy, just as i think out, john just said they're interesting crating legitimacy. i'm part of that is creating

the paraphernalia of a state i'm that paraphernalia in of itself can be incredibly dangerous and incredibly difficult. and i think that when you talk about who is the enemy, my fear raise as a european union citizen, cuz i'm a jewel sets of with the republic of ireland as a european union said, so my concern is the enemies don't. people are holding great people that are not happy with being invaded by migrants. michael, if somebody located and doing some research for this here, there are, there are countries within the european within the block that are more afraid of fellow members in the block than they are in the united states and this disinterested attitude. i mean, if that isn't really a sad prognosis of how to move forward here, and this whole issue of article 44 a, b, e u treaty. yeah, this sounds like a number of countries within the european union can gang up on another member. i mean, this is not what i think burrell was trying to envision, or maybe yes, i don't know. go ahead, michael. well, i think that that's the, that's part of the,

that's the crux of the problem. as i mentioned earlier, is, are they going to react to a turkey, greece, confrontation who, who makes the decisions by under, under nato, you have to have unanimous consent this document that you read, read out it. there is no such thing. it's just, it's a country issue of the willing that might want to join in. i'm saying up somewhere like it, like in libya. likely. so maybe i don't know which, which i thought was the beginning of the end of nato. and frankly, i think that that's going to be the problem in the future. nato even does defining its its own mission for the future. or you want defense in defense, defense of certain states coming together. let's remind ourselves something about the european union european union, consistently size that is prevented war in europe. what

a load of rubbish. there's been a war you crime. there's been a war in georgia. there's been the collapse, i'll be because lobby and always remember when pictures in america, we're talking about intervening. in bosnia, the european union remained solidly again, states it was, it was no action to be taken when the largest genocide. so back and well, what was taking place and then when puts in came in to defend the cost of buttons, i guess the aggression of serbia, specifically slot down the last page. the european union was opposed. right. and so when you were talking about good faith actors in the world, you've got to remember the european union as a solid track record of the solar state. when it comes to international diplomacy, i saw a track record of winding up your appeal conflicts. admittedly, along with vladimir putin as well, are they solely track records of opposing people intervening to prevent genocide? you know, do you want these guys to be the key decision maker on the safety and security in your i would say no. okay, well, let's talk about decision makers, john. i mean,

who ultimately defines what a threat is and who to ultimately do defines go in taking action against the threat . i mean, who are these people and elected bureaucrats go ahead? john will induce the computer cache oversee, they're both stopped in the support of emmanuel macaroni in particular and also the anglo american who she's no longer an office. these are the train, new version of this initiative and always have been. but we have to understand that we had mentioned the invasion of utah by my ignorance, the real enemy of the peoples of europe for travel and play with jesse don't travel and things of course needed to eat and or the english channel is western foreign policy is responsible for the magnet crisis. and this document just illustrates that this foreign policy is going to continue. no lessons learned from libya. no lessons of been learned from afghanistan. and this is redolent over european union that is no longer fit for purpose as if it ever works. and it does not to leave for them that need to know is seen as

a us. i us project right. you to p and project. i know i didn't go further than that. i would go further than that. my on human chase with this i think actually when you were talking about the disastrous interventions in libya, when you're talking about the disastrous interval in iraq, isn't they stoned to make things worse? not better, because at least nato was interested in channel. i'm sorry, european security. what is this is about your pin, your flexing it's muscle. it wants to be a superpower. that doesn't bother me particular, but the fact that the way it will, the weight will generate its reputation as a superpower, is to intervene militarily in its neighbors. and that could make what has been a disastrous period for foreign policy, even work well. well, you know, we, we have to wonder, you know, if there is a problem many european union country are that, are those people that country get a wealth in a welcome german troops without their say, i mean, that's

a very big question. history matters here. all right, gentlemen, i'm going to jump in here. we're going to go to a short break. and after that short break, we'll continue our discussion on european security. stay with arctic blue, blue, blue with . so i

thought join me every thursday on the alex, summon sure. i'll be speaking to guess of the world politics sport business. i'm show business. i'll see you then. mm. i saw a message from an unknown account. it had a selfie with my passport as its profile major. i saw pictures of my documents. it was they also sent a credit contract if i had just 3 days, you know, comply with their demands. if i didn't send money and they sent us an online hate campaign that i was supposed to be a very dangerous man. ah, welcome back to cross stock. we're all things are considered. i'm peter lavelle to

remind you we're discussing european security. ah okay, let's go back to michael in washington. michael, i mean we can go back decades in any time. there's a talk of a european army separate from nato. washington ends up throwing cold water on it in a disappears. okay, i mean, what was it? a few you into 2007 that europe was talking about battle groups. that sounds quite threatening their battle groups, but nothing ever came of it. and it was a lot of pressure from, from washington to let it go here. what, what is different now? and as you've pointed out, i mean, if the nato countries don't want to pay their quote unquote, fair share, why do they want to spend money on $5000.00 troops and nobody know who's going to be training them and who's going to be commanding them? go ahead, michael. well, that's just the problem. where will the central command reside? who will be the, who will, what will be that structure so that she don't have

a countries going going that are going their own way and acting, acting crazy. but i remember that ultimately they need a, some kind of ultimate leadership, which they all tend to look to the united states for, which is a bizarre, under the native structure. and i remember back during the bosnia days, all those countries were trying, trying to figure out what to do. they were getting involved, but it only took the united states to finally come in and bomb bomb the crap out of them. and then and then what happened was that it became an american war as a consequence. and the whole natal concept just evaporated. and so i think that this is, this is what we've got to be very, very concerned about is of countries just going their own way and going, getting out of control. and, but i mean for themselves what the enemy might be when in fact,

it may not be and we've, it's, you need something where there is consensus and where there is a final decision making process. go ahead and jump in. you may, you may that you made a point about call staying. i think it's incredibly important. and people misunderstood establish, being a member of nato. what respects incredibly shaped. i mean, if i make that point is because the other 2 percent commitment to point 5 percent commitment is not actually about you giving money to nato. if you spend the locally look to know what the royal yachts will be counted as nato spending, whatever you spend on your military, you're okay with. and i think that the kind of idea on spending age, but they still will pay the 2.5 percent of gd pay. but what they'll do is they'll put their forces under the control of the european army. and so in theory, it shouldn't actually cost any extra particularly to individual member states. but

of course, you don't ask yourself, well, i'm going to 2nd, if you fail to pay your, your commitment to nato, how serious all you about security. and i actually think that they are serious, but the people, the all serious other people in brussels. and i think that they are serious because they're interested once again in flexing their own muscle. and i just think when you have all the hangover from the for from the collections, the soviet union, 30 percent of lot bins are not citizens of lot the us as a result to be and i think russians, i just think they feels like a dangerous situation i think, but now it's with america and all the mistakes of america involved actually makes a great deal more sense than having these guys using their own bench if you're like . yeah, but it's ok. but andre, on the other side here. and why should the entire european continent defer to the united states in the united states? that really doesn't take nato very seriously at all. ok, it's more of

a fig leaf than anything else. i mean, look, the nato countries couldn't even defend the couple airport if they had wanted to. i mean, the whole collective hub, all of the european armies, they couldn't do it. okay. so it's a big leave me, john, let me give you a scenario. let me get to jot and edinburgh, i mean, i lived in poland for 10 years. i did my graduate work at eastern european and russian studies. i know the reach and very, very well, and i know it's history very well. so under this article, $44.00 of coalitions of the willing so lot be as sonia and lithuanian, poland can say we're going to, we have, if i knew it were the threat and the entire block has to, because of ukraine would say that, ok, so they the small countries, smaller population, they can go be by vigilant and, and bring the entire european union into a potential hot war over ukraine, over barrows, against russia. this is insanity. go ahead, john. though as the saying goes, peter, beware of small states and these countries in eastern europe have failed to go over

the issues arising from the 2nd world war. visa be the soviet union, visa v collaboration and large part with the nazis edge from those countries. and they still see russia as a sort of union, which is 2, they are very, very great discredit. and on a more present level, if i me, i cannot myself foresee any circumstance in which any rate thinking german belgian dutch a tau in a friend saw to be willing to give their lives for the e. u. i cannot, i cannot foresee any circumstance in which any of those soldiers would be inspired to go into battle on the back of a speech. by you commissioner, a shallow vander lane, i cannot foresee any circumstance which enables soldiers. we want to rush a hill to save the integrity of the e u flag. and this really does get to the heart of the matter. because as already mentioned, the you has all the apartments is overstate without the substance because it hasn't, it has no emotional attachment to the new or that is old. i. i think i think that

that's wrong. i understand the sentiment behind it, but i'm still going to say it's wrong simply because that is not the way that the soldier operates. in reality, when your national leadership was deployed as a soldier, even if you don't believe in dying for the game, you're likely to go anyway. i think there's one thing mocking the you all may, but what you've said sounds to me like some implications might be some design. it's like, i just don't think that's realistic. i think. let me just finish. let me just finish . the biggest danger is that these people who know that they shouldn't be fighting will do it anyway. and i think that's really digest john. you want to react to that because i tend to agree with john here. i mean, if their national sovereignty is not being threatened, it's very, very, very unlikely people will say they're going to fight for something all the way across the condon. but they don't see it's a threat themselves. go ahead and continue. john. there's a difference between killing and the lane of duty and be different between willing to die and elaine of duty. and that must be made clear. i maintain that no german

french, belgian, italian or french soldier will be willing, in their heart to go the extra mile to die and sacrifice their lives in the cause of the e. u. because what is that cause is not cause of the peoples of you'd up. it is a union of the leads europe. nice soldiers understand that more than most. okay, go back to michael and in washington here. i mean, it seems to me, given the resources that you have, the rich block, i mean, it's very popular, it's very competitive in the world in almost every single way. i mean, why shouldn't the top priority be illegal immigration trafficking, terrorism prevention? i mean, a lot of these things here are much more, you know, they touch people on an everyday basis. here. the berella has these delusions of grandeur. ok. and he doesn't have the building blocks for it. and no one's asked anybody in the repeat union if they want to pay for it. go ahead, michael. well, this, this is the, this is the issue. what would be the target?

they need to define their target from within, as you point out, immigration, maybe countries can come together and work together to try and, and deal with this problem. right now, if nato countries are tending to do that, just that, but on a humanitarian basis. but when you do, how do you define what the threat is going to be? now i can understand countries coming together for humanitarian purposes. but when you want to, and you may need to bring in armies to guard guard the borders and, and, and form cor, doors for people to move through in the event of, of migrations from another part of our, of a war zone elsewhere in the world. and that's going to continue to happen. but it, this document on the, on the campus is just, continues to be clearly undefined as to what its purpose is and, and,

and it, it assumes that there's going to be some kind of armed attack. now, when you get into the more humanitarian areas that then will these countries come together and let's say give humanitarian assistance in africa for example, where they, well they, well, there's always great outside of the outside of the e u realm. we saw that we've only had one instance where nato reacted outside it. that was in the f. kennedy dan, and that is the only time nato has ever come together to react that way. and because of the con, the united states grad, john, and i just don't think of the reasons john, go ahead, jump in. i just made the point, devote humanitarian does not appear once in mr. but l document. but what does appear as the following passage, which i think is very regulatory and it, and it's, it's the delicious ship between this new petite to defense force. a need to seize this commitment. you need to should not prevent us from developing our own

capabilities and conducting independent operations in our neighborhood and beyond and beyond. and this is an peters project by any of them in the course. of course, you'll be able to point the point to make about that, as we say here in the united kingdom, is to say to ourselves on our, on the 2nd. given that we have seen a manual micro threats and richard shipping and threats and britches troll as an attempt to blockade, just a should we are united kingdom are being left. your opinion be concerned about what is a mine of fishing dispute? escalating into the aforementioned people from germany, from sweden, belgium being forced out to attack the royal navy. i genuinely think what you have such a poor decision making process, such a lack of democracy. i think something stupid like back could ask you a charge of control. i think as a say, i mentioned valerie salia, you know,

something like that could blow to control in the hands of what is effective like an electric dictates shipping brussels. you know, michael, i'm going to finish off with you. i have a feeling that the folks at the pentagon are just having a really good laugh. reading this document, watching all of the peasants squabble, you know, and then they'll get on their knees and they get a beg for our help. you know, that's exactly what's going to happen right now. it's really very shameful because the europeans should have their own voice in the world. and in serve as an example, okay. trying to emulate nato in the united states is the worst thing they possibly can do. finish up for us, my friend. go ahead. washington. yeah, yeah, i think i think that having worked at the pentagon i had at once i began to read this document. i thought, well what's, what's the point, what's the purpose? it's so i'm to find it. so generalized and, and it would creates more problems and it will solve as we have waited out this morning in our discussion. and i think that these are issues which need to be

addressed. but right for now, there are no responses and an adequate answers to, to, to deal with these problems that we've raised. and i think that that's why the, the, the natal structure will continue in it. and that's why you're actually seeing natal going all out to try to read it again. it's ok. yeah, well that's a different kettle of fish there. okay, that's all the time we have gentlemen. many thanks my guest and watch it in london and in edinburgh. and thanks to our viewers for watching us here at ortiz, see you next time and remember, crossed up rules ah, [000:00:00;00]

with people is noting the cops right on police reports. in december 2020, a group of anti finishes. fill out a film crew access for 3 months. so like if people, organization, if an idea that you must be opposed that channel out the gate while they may kill their faces. but they can say what they believe in. we believe in helping our community. we believe that fascism is one of the major threats to united states has gotten proven. this is a chance to see who and t for really are in order for me to extract my 1st amendment right and say that my life matter, i have to be on to the teachers that are all american. we can't charge the police, we can't trust the government. we can't trust anyone except ourselves to protect ourselves in

a machine. don't seem an official. and mr. hatch or someone at that the for the tech talk. yeah. but he's not a some demolish the discussion and want to see that they've gone yet, the makisha prescriptions. there's actually a lot of new besides expo i me at the what been another she usually said almost by you. so what i'm going to look up in cities, it took us mission lifestyle, right? yes, the queue mom and sich, she's leeway and she shared to proceed with. so form is double, membrane stretches which are like sex, which capture pushes aside, applies them and then deliver them to water,

the incinerator of the cell, the license for degradation. so that's what we'll talk with me. the postal service delivers a $155000000000.00 pieces of mail every year. approximately 40 percent of the world's mail right now. the us postal service is in the flight of its life. this bad financial shape now facing default postal service is a cash cow. and there was a way to pull money out of the postal service to put into the federal budget. there was a mandate that you're bringing a $100000.00, new revenue every month. the nature of privatization in the us postal service is very much hidden from public view. it's privatization from the inside out. why that's a

big business in money. it's not about the public and given them the service that they deserve. it's not about quality train workers. it's about with this our top headlines here on our t and 52 people, including rescue was confirmed dead. dr. thursday's cold by an explosion inside the area in the program. we hear from the widow of a minor who says repeated warning signs were just ignored. my husband came home and every time he wasn't lease won't and well talk, span becomes the 1st russian region to require covey to immunity passes with all codes on public transport. although nationwide the coven infections are on the decline, and riots in gulf, the capital up to dod as demonstrators denounce a military coup and demand, the return of the civilian government of senior correspondent,