technology should work for people, a robot must obey the orders given it by human beings, except where such order is it conflict with the 1st law? show your identification. we should be very careful about artificial intelligence. at that point obviously is too great trust rather than fear. a very job with artificial intelligence, real summoning with a robot must protect its own existence with a

ah mm. with with with hello and welcome to cross stock were 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, 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? ah, cross talking 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 generally cross hoc rolls in effect. that means he can jump in 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 just have bro 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, did he suddenly happen epiphany? go ahead and dc. yeah, i think what went berella seen as 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, and the, the fact that they want to do this is, is, is, is crazy because they can't even afford to try to, to meet their own nato 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, i think the big recent, i don't know, you use have this amazing ability to read my questions before i ask them, ok,

let me, let me good day. in london, i mean michael brings up the 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 buy start question deliberately to lead me to, to, to a particular point of view. but let me tell you the concern here is that going to embed their own enemy in order to create themselves as a nation state. european union is desperate to be a country, it's desperate job and it's desperate job 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 well,

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 or great. but in the case of bella roofs, we have now shut nato troops to the the border. i'm blamed ballerina i'm the day russia for potential cause i, i 3rd world war. i think when you militarize europe in this way, there is 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 nights or states of america. i'm to have a week on the stable on democratic international body like we are in union with its own military force, and they determination to be belligerent. now look, i'm going to say that, you know, i don't agree with the russian government. i don't like vladimir to say, but i have to say it takes 2 to tango. i don't think we've seen in georgia and

ukraine, but danger of your in foreign all is a, at the middle of the thrive, such as this place now in, in poland. ballers, i think, is incredibly dangerous. okay, let's go to john. an admiral, i'm. well, since russia has been brought up, i mean, in the current draft, this wasn't, 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, is that the morale knows that if he throws russia into the mix of, we would mixed reactions to how to perceive 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's right. i mean, they just need to win and invent a a threat. but then, you know, it's very doubtful you'll get a consensus of what that threat means. go ahead. john and edinburgh will. russia is not mentioned than the operational gate written by mr. barrow, but it isn't felt and is implicit. and i said, the 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 an a phase right now. and the operational gave written by mr. but out really does bear with them because it is a chilling document. and let me quote from it directly that without going to question the principle of unanimity, it is creatively by activating certain provisions such as constructive abstention or article 44, which allows for the creation of coalitions approved by the european council. what does that mean? that means that this is our policies charter. so any coalition of states or member states with an a, you can take it upon themselves or 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 there and i am a body is 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 to bump in the i'm the reason, as we all remember what happened in the 193940, but actually europe coming together becoming bill tristin has gone back further. you can look at them to probably all it was i genuinely thing i used to work at the bottom and the european union is interested in creating legitimacy. just as i think john just said, very interesting crates and legitimacy. and part of that is crating the paraphernalia of a state. i'm not personally in the shelf to be incredibly dangerous and incredibly difficult. i think that when you talk about who is the enemy, my fear race, asa european union set to said because i'm a jewel section with the republic of ireland as european union 6. and my concern is the enemy is don't debate. people are putting great people, apollo, and they're not happy with being invaded by migrants. you know, 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 is, it really is 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 tried 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 grease 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's no such thing. it's just, it's

a countries to the willing that might want to join in. i'm saying up somewhere like it, like in libya, like we saw, 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 warn you cry and there's been a war in georgia. there's been the collapse, i'll be lucas lobby. and always remember when pictures america were 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 2nd, well what was taking place. and then when britain came in to defend the cost of and

i guess the aggression of serbia, specifically slow down the last page, the european union was opposed to it. 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 complex. admittedly, along with vladimir j as well, i've actually track record of opposing people intervening to prevent genocide, you know, do you want, these dies to be the key decision maker on the safety and security in your i would say no. okay, well the talk about decision makers, john, i mean, who ultimately defines what a threat is and who's ultimately defines go in taking action against the threat. i mean, who are these people and elected bureaucrats go ahead? john will induce the i don't know what to do to catch overseas. they're both stopped in their support of emmanuel macaroni in particular and also the anglo american who she's no longer an office. these are the train movers of this initiative and always have been but we have to understand and we have mentioned the

invasion of utah by magnets, the real enemy of the peoples of europe for david jesse, don't travel and things are caused submitted to the eating or the english channel is western foreign policy. this is possible for the magazine crisis. and this document just illustrates that this foreign policy is going to continue no lesson so be learn 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 was. and it does not really, you know, for them that need to know is seen as a us. i us project european project, but i was told i didn't go further than that. i would go further than that. my aunt human chase with this i think actually when you were talking about the disastrous intervention in libya, when you're talking about the disastrous intervention, the rock, isn't they stone to make things worse? not better, because at least nato was interested in channel. sorry,

european security. what does this is about european flip your flexing, it's muscle. it wants to be a superpower. that doesn't bother me. particular. but the fact that the weight it will, the weight will generate its reputation as a superpower. if intervene militarily its neighbors or not could make what has been a disastrous period for foreign policy even was when you know, we have to wonder, you know, if there is a problem, many european union country are that those people of that country get a wealth in a welcome german troops without their se, i mean, that's a very big question. history matters here are a gentlemen, i'm going to jump in here. we're going to go to a short break, and after about short break, we'll continue our discussion on european security. stay with our team. the the

oh is your media a reflection of reality? in the world transformed? what will make you feel safer? high selection, whole community. are you going the right way or are you being led somewhere? direct. what is true? wharf is great. in the world corrupted, you need to descend a join us in the depths or remain in the shallows. ah ah,

i saw a message from an unknown account because it had a self re with my pulse board as its profile page. i saw pictures of my documents, it was they also sent a credit contract. i had just 3 days comply with their demands to see if i didn't send money i. they sent out an online hate campaign that i was supposed to be a very dangerous man. who 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 to survey that is really bad financial shape. now facing default, the postal service is a cash cow, and there was a way to pull money out of the postal service to put into

a federal budget. there was a mandate that you're bringing $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. i about big business in money. it's not about the public and given them a service that they deserve. it's not about quality trade workers. it's about with welcome back, across stock. we're all things are considered. i'm peter level to remind you we're discussing european security with

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 into 2007 that europe was talking about battle groups. it 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. well, 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 countries going, going, 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 to 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, it's, it's up. 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 change? 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 y'alls 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 all the european army. and so in theory, it shouldn't actually cost any extra particularly to individual member states. but of course, you guys ask yourself, why don't 2nd, if you fail to pay your, your commitment to nato, how serious saw you about security? and i actually think that they all 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 hang of us from before, from the collections, the soviet union, 30 percent of lot brians 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 is why should the entire european continent defer to the united states when the united states that really, it 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 region 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, 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 like 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 views of you, 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 think in german belgian dutch, a town in a french saw w 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 of which any soldiers we want to russia held 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 a little 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 a soldier operates. in reality, when your national leadership was deployed as

a soldier, even if you don't believe in dying for the you, 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 implication that 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 going to 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 is 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 the 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. have europe. nice soldiers understand that more than most. okay, let's 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'd touch people on an everyday basis here. the berella has these delusions of grandeur. ok. and he doesn't have the building blocks for. 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 a good target? they need to define their target? is it 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. it, nato countries are tending to do that,

just that, but on a humanitarian basis. but when you do, how do you define what a threat is going to be? now i can understand countries coming together for humanitarian purposes, but when you want and you may need to bring in armies to guard the borders and, and, and sam corridors or people to move through it in the event of, of migrations from another part of, of a war zone elsewhere in the world. and that's gonna continue to happen. but it's, it, this document the on the, on the campus is just continues to beach clearly undefined as to what its purpose is and, and i, and it in, 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, let's say, give humanitarian assistance in africa for example, where they will, they will,

their total scholarship upside of outside of the e. u realm. we saw that we've only had one instance where nato reacted outside that was in the africana stan, and that is the only time nato has ever come together to react that way. and because of the on the united states, got grad john, and i just don't click over the reasons john, go ahead, jump in. i just made the point to what humanitarian does not appear once and mr. but i will document. but what does appear as the following passage, which i think is very regulatory and it, and it's, it's the, the, the relationship between this new petite, of defense force. i need to say this commitment to need to, should not prevent us from developing our own capabilities. and conducting independent operations in our neighborhood and beyond and beyond. this isn't peter's project by any of them in the course. of course,

he'll be able to point the point to make about that as we sit here in the united kingdom is to say to ourselves, we are going to 2nd, given that we have seen him on your micro threats and richard shipping and threats and british troll as an attempt to blockade, just a should we are united kingdom are being left, your opinion be concerned about what is a minor 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 are such a poor decision making process, such a lack of democracy. i think something stupid like back could ask you a type of control. and i think as a say, i mentioned bella, room salia, you know, something like that could, to oblige a 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 it's, and 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 generalize and it creates more problems and it will solve as we have when it out this morning in our discussion. and i think that that these are issues which need to be addressed 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 online or. yeah, well that's a different kettle of fish there. okay, that's all the time we have gentlemen. many thanks. so my guess 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, cross softballs. ah, suppose this was so home. the double membranes structures which are like sex, which capture pushes the cytoplasm and then deliver them to water, the incinerator of the cell, the license for degradation. so that's what we'll talk with. mm kaiser, financial survival guide. when customers go buy, you reduce the price,

then l reduce a lower that's under cutting, but what's good for food market? it's not good for the global economy. ah, one rescuer was found alive. he's one of our medics was saving people right there. a small miracle after a horrific tragedy, one rescuer is found alive in this siberian coal mine after being presumed dead. a criminal negligence probe has been opened into thursday's explosion, which claimed over 50 lives in strain of cove. it is identified in south africa amid fears. it could prove far more infectious than previous variance . spoken to the head of the russian investment from which is overseeing the rule out of the sputnik vaccine. the new variable force has to be started and we need to see how the show does exist and mixing side games and.