but of i'd say rattling from all sides going on here, or is there something deeper here at stake? i, i think that i think there is something deeper here at stake. i think these behaviors on the part of these governments are, are really reprehensible and particularly, oh, i would say you as a nato in my opinion, are definitely trying to intimidate russia for some reason at this particular point . all right, nick martin, a journalist, an anti war activist. thanks for joining us today on the program. good, samuel, thank you. all those, all the headlines for this hour join us again. the 30 minutes for the latest updates. we'll see you back with

supposed to swing. so form double, membrane stretches which are like sax, which capture, pushes the cytoplasm and then deliver them to water, the incinerator of the cell, the lies, i'm for degradation. so that's what we'll talk with. mm hm. with hello and welcome to cross talk where 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? ah, the cross talking european security, i'm joined by my guess michael. my loop in washington. he is a former pentagon senior security policy analyst in london. we have under a walker. he is a political commentator in calmness and in edinburgh. we cross to john white, he is a writer and political commentator. i totally cross our roles and effect, that means he can jump at anytime you want. and i always appreciate it. let me go to michael person washington. let me quote, the high commissioner for foreign and security affairs. joseph moreau. quote, europe cannot afford to be a bystander in your world order that is mainly shaped by others. why? if he's saying this now that's been the case since 945. i mean that he's suddenly having to pip any. go ahead and d. c. yeah, i think that what went 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 of 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, the big reason. i don't know if you have this amazing ability to read my questions before i ask them, okay, let me, let me got 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 voucher 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, a 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 while you as

well this taken place, germany invited everybody from north africa to come and move to germany. when does not cause to migrate crises, it cause problems in multiple countries. whether that be grease on grade. but in the case of bella roofs, we have now shut nature troops to the border. i'm blame ballerina. i'm the date, 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 c niger states of america on top a week on the stable, own 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 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 middle stride such as this place now in, in poland. a baller eggs 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, 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 your traditional guide written by mr. bordeaux, but it isn't felt and is implicit. and as in elephant in the room,

you asked who the enemy is peter and in the woods of ed 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 stellar enemy to try and fashion social cohesion. and we're seeing this with the e richest, who's legitimacy is hanging on a knife edge right now. and the operational gave written by mr. but our really does bear with them because it is a chilling document and let me quote from it directly without going to question of visible of unanimity. it is creatively by activate in certain professions 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 within the you can take it upon themselves or try to more deploy without any democratic oversight with the approval. 027 member states. that's a chilling document. indeed, i don't know why i'm even there and i have anybody has reading my notes. okay. i

was just, i did say that 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 becoming becoming bill, tristan has gone back further. you can look at them to probably only was i genuinely fig. 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 creating the paraphernalia of a state. i'm not par finale 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 city, said because i'm a jewel 6 with the republic of ireland as european union 6. and my concern is the enemies don't debate. people all problem 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 as 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 it is, are they going to react to a turkey grease confrontation who know who makes the decisions by under, under nato you have to have unanimous consent. i'm going to document that you read, read out it. there's no such thing. it's just, it's a country suit 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. you want defense indifference, 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. new crime has been a war in georgia. there's been the collapse. i'll be because lobby and always remember when picture the america, we're talking about intervening in bosnia, the european union remained solid in the states. it was, it wanted no action to be taken when the largest genocide, 2nd world war was taking place. and then when pitching came in to defend the cost of ends, i guess the aggression of serbia, specifically slot with 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 solely try quick hold of winding up your appeal conflicts. admittedly, along with vladimir putin as well, i've actually track record 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 job? i would say no. okay, well, let's talk about decision makers, john. i mean it who ultimately defines what a threat is and who'd ultimately do defines go in taking action against the threat . i mean, who are these people and elected bureaucrats go ahead, john? well, and it's the, the r annuity bureaucrats oversee the boast of the near support of emanuel macaroni in particular. and also the anglo medical. she's no longer offers. these are the crime movers of this initiative and always have been. but we have to understand and

we've had mentioned the invasion of europe by magnets, the real enemy of the peoples of europe for travel and private jets who don't travel. and these are caused, emitted to lead in, or the english channel is western foreign policy. this is possible for the magnet crisis. and this document just illustrates that this foreign policy is going to continue. no letters are being learned from libya. no lessons of been learned from afghanistan, and this is redolent of a european union that is no longer fit for purpose as if it ever were. and it does like totally the firm that nato is now a seen as a u. s. i u. s. project ra, european project, but i would, i'm not a private counsel. 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 interventions in libya, when you're talking about the disastrous intervention, you're the rock. it's a big stone to make things worse, not better, because at least nato was interested in channel. i saw european security. what is

this is about european flight your flexing it's muscle. it wants to be a superpower. that doesn't bother me in particular. but the fact that the weight it will, the weight will generate its reputation as a superpower. if intervene militarily its neighbors and that could make what has been a disastrous period for foreign policy. it was, well, when you know, we have to wonder, you know, if there is a problem, many european union country are the, those people of that country get a wealth in 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 lunch break, we'll continue our discussion on european security. stay with our team. the us dollar a reserve currency. the days are numbered. there those even the big calling community that held on hope that somehow the us dollar will remain on the world

days. but it's hillary clinton or south point out coin is essentially undermining or destroying the us dollar because the us dollar can hold its purchasing power because it's money money over the past 300 years as ever escape trading to 0. me don't see the picture from one of a gun. some didn't wash them with it and want to hear the phone. yes you supposed to do this? i was asked to follow them in here beside that, so i may have to let them know they should. i usually should almost. i also

what i'm going to look up in cities. it took us all right. just a few moments it's she slightly, as she said i welcome back to cross stock were 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 and it disappears. okay, i mean, what was it a few years 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, what is different now? and as you've pointed out, i mean, if the nato countries don't want to pay their quote about 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 we're 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 nato 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 you're finding for themselves what the enemy might be when. in fact, it may not be and we, 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, you may the point of our call staying. i think it's incredibly important. people misunderstood somebody making a member of nato. what respects incredibly changed? and the reason 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 ideas on spending that they still 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. what put the costs. you don't ask yourself, well, i'm going to 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 saying, when you have all the hangover 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 having america involved actually makes a great deal more sense than having these guys using their own bench if you allow. yeah. but it's ok. but are there any on the other side here, and why should the entire european continent defer to the united states and 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 a 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 lead me, john, let me give you a scenario. let me get to jot in 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 with the way. and he and

poland can say we're going to, we have this, i knew it was a 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 bring the entire european union into a potential hot war over the 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 that 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 soviet 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 right thinking german belgian dutch, a town in a french soldier will 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 to sell a van line. i cannot foresee any circumstance which any soldiers be willing to russia held to save the integrity of the e. u. flag in this really does get to the heart of the matter. because as already mentioned, the you has all the appliances overstate without the substance because it hasn't, there is no emotional attachment to the you 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 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 while 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. let me just finish. let me just finish. the

big 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 in 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 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 europe. it is a union of the leads, have 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, you're 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 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 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 san corridors for 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 going to 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 you, 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 outside. now the light on outside of the outside of the e. u realm, we saw that we've only had one instance where nato reacted outside it, and that was in afghanistan. and that is the only time nato has ever come together

to react that way. and, and because of the building on the united states, got great john and i just don't think of the reasons john, go ahead, jump in. i just made the point. the devote humanitarian does not appear once and mr . but l document. but what does appear as the following passage, which i think is very regulatory, and it said owns the that the relationship between this new protective 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. and this isn't an peters project by them. in the course. of course, you'll be able to point to point to make about that as we sit here in the united kingdom is to say to ourselves on the 2nd, given that we have seen a manual backlog threats and richer shaping, and threats and british troll as an attempt to blockade, just a should we are, the 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 have such a poor decision making process, such a lack of democracy. i think something stupid like bar could escalate charge of control. and i think as a say, i mentioned bella, room 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 bag 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,

and serve as an example. ok, 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, i think i think that having worked at the pentagon i had, once i began to read this document, i thought what, what's, what's the point? what's the purpose? it's so undefined, it's generalized. and it would create 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 nato going all out to try to regional guidance or. yeah, well, that's a different kettle of fish there. okay, that's all the time we have gentlemen. many, thanks them i guess in washington, london and in edinburgh. and thanks to our viewers for watching us here at ortiz, see you next time and remember,

cross softballs. ah, ah. oh, 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 fight of its life. everybody 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 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 a

. 7 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 i saw a message from an unknown, the count as it has a selfie with my passport as it profile page. so pictures of my documents, it will say also send that credit contract. if i had just 3 days comply with their demands, if i didn't send money and they sent up an online hate campaign that i was supposed to be very dangerous man. a

ah, well, i didn't do anything special. i should be back for my life. every post in my situation would have done the say, the 1st words of a rescue who was miraculously found a law. i been a civilian coal mine off to being presumed dead. a criminal probe has now been opened into thursday's explosion, which claimed more than 50 lives. any strain of code is identified in south africa fears it could prove far more infectious than previous various who spoke to the head of the russian investment fund, which is overseeing a rolled out of the sports vaccine. the new rental course has to be started and we need to see how additions exist and like seems like beings in your area. so it shouldn't be involved and what they model, it should be about portfolio different vaccine technologies. and just days off the moderate tragedy in english china.