ah, in the world transformed what will make you feel safer? high solution, full community. are you going the right way or are you being that somewhere? which direction? what is true was is faith in the world corrupted, you need to descend. ah. so join us in the depths or remain in the shallows. ah ah, ah.

hello and welcome to cross stock were all things are considered. i'm peter lavelle . again, there are rumors of war. there are rumors of invasion and again, the country is ukraine. there are allegations of a russian military build up within the countries borders, though it is a fact, ukraine is receiving lethal aid from nato countries who benefits from this stratagem. i cross sucking ukraine. i'm joined by my guests, alexander claxon in london. he is a researcher at the university of lancaster in philadelphia we have walter melodic . he is a organizer with the answer coalition, and in otto, where we have paul robinson. he is a professor in the graduate school of public and international affairs at the university of ottawa, hard gentleman, cross hoc rules and effect. that means he can jump any time you want. and i'm, i always appreciate, paul. let me go to you 1st. in ottawa, i don't know, it seems like groundhog all day again to me. i mean we had this in the spring leave

in extensions. we're flaring a lot of our bombastic cabella coast rhetoric out there. what, what is the strategy from nato side? these of the ukraine go ahead. it's hard to tell because nato's is on the one hand supporting ukraine, giving it up, market back in giving it to lexie backing on the other hand, making it very clear that it's not actually willing to defend it militarily. so we had mr. bloomington of the other day saying that if a rationalist attack, ukraine of united states will put heavy sanctions on russia because sanctions are not a military response. because of course, ukraine is not a member of later. so, on the one hand, the c nato, kind of egging ukraine on a burden and lending it support and on the other hand, backing off as well, which is probably no desperately good combination. alexander, i can help,

i get the feeling that nato, and particularly the leader of the, of the alliance. the united states wants some kind of military conflict because at the end of the day, this is a inter ukraine conflict that needs to be resolved. and there's actually a roadmap for that. it's called the minsk accords here at which of course western diplomats don't like to make much reference to it last spring. they said, oh yes, yes, we believe in the min hska a process, but then they kind of drops out of the rhetoric here. ok, it, it seems to me they walk in. there's a kind of a nerd. i hint to zalinski and cab. you know, we've got your back, but as we just heard from paul, if there is a military conflict, there'll be sanctions, which of course is not a military response. it's very difficult to read this. go ahead, alexander. yeah, absolutely. well, i would say as well, we have to look at the big picture here and actually take ourselves back to 19 ninety's. surprisingly, to actually perhaps understand this conflict

a bit better because a russia for a long time has been adamant that it is against any nato expansion is source. and that's really here is the, the key of the problem here, right? let me put, it has been very clear that he's against ukraine being part of nato, his against ukraine ah, being actively and militarily involved with nato. but on the native side, we obviously see, as you mentioned, ah more aid go. more military going to to ukraine, was c mill checked the size is taking place between ukraine and the united states. and nato members. last ones were in september, though quite, quite big and closing on the black sea. this has been a lot of military movement. ah, from, from nato around ukraine. and you can understand why russia's, of course concern. i mean, russia has a long border will ukraine, and that's why, ah, russia has as taken steps as well. and to, to demonstrate to the west and to,

and to nato that look, this has to stop, you know, you can't keep, ah, you can't keep essentially promoting or murderer provoking russia by carrying out so many military exercises on russia's border hill. it walter is when i look it's going on here again, this is a, we saw a repetition of this from spring here. but when the more i look at these scenarios that could be played out here though, there's one country that loses in every single scenario in its ukraine. and i, and is we've already reiterated here, you know, nato is not really talking about a military response here. so, i mean, if, if something were to happen and there was a conflict between russian ukraine, ukraine is going to be the obvious loser here. is that what they want is it is, does that justify to nato, that rushes, the threat that there been telling us here, it seems to me that's one of the outcomes that they're actually hoping for at low cost to them. go ahead walter. well certainly,

i mean the needle alliance is fully capable of making cynical calculations like that. i mean, i think there is certainly some, some logic to that. i mean, i think in terms of the zaleski government, they've largely failed to deliver on its anti corruption pledges. its popularity is coming in so sure, some st. rattling might have an internal domestic political benefit for them. but of course, yes, if a conflict actually broke out between russia and ukraine, or god forbid, an even broader conflict between russia an entire needle military alliance. you know, would be absolutely devastating for the people of ukraine just as the us are since the 2014 pain has been for the people. and that's true in terms of cost of human lives. ready injuries, but also the economy, the economy is a very bad shape. so, so i think this is really a seriously big threat. and something that could escalate out of control even

though perhaps and besides really want that to be the case. you know, for instance, in june the zalinski government lives left he himself, essentially falsely claim to have been de facto accepted into nato, that names membership. benito was i in principle group, but that was a complete lie. so who knows what the session smoke screens are? are being open to place here. well, i mean paul, we do have august 2008 wag the dog situation with georgia. i mean, is he hoping that says uminski is hoping that's going to play out because it didn't work out very well for georgia or thought, gosh really, i mean, i, i guess i don't understand the logic here. any kind of conflict would see the end of zalinski it automatically because it would be he would be seen as being part of a defeat here. so i don't understand even his personal calculus here. go ahead paul . i think the zalinski has had a real problem ever since came to power, which is it, he doesn't really appear to be in full control. and um,

i think that was the, the information he received, that his security services pushes him in a certain direction as to apply forces which makes it makes him impossible for him really to come to some kind of political settlement which is necessary to resolve the conflict which really is a settlement on, on of a kind of terms that she laid out in a meant to agreement, including some form of autonomy of for don bass. and therefore, ukraine kind of me, current government kind of likes the situation in which the war carries on the very low tempo. which is, you know, enough to continue pulling in the west support because there's still some sort of war going on, but not expensive enough to cause real serious damage to ukraine tend to live some an economic damage. but the danger of our is that at some point some, you know,

minor esco's mine incident. my escalated to something bigger on that someone might decide that ukraine could emulate what the as areas recently did in a car, back and retake their last territory by force. and that's the point of which we probably would see russian and to lunch. and i, i don't think russia is going to attack ukraine out of the blues back. that would be quite extraordinary. however, futon has made it clear, but if, if of ukrainians try to retake on bass by force bauer, b, the end of ukrainian statehood as the words put in actually said. so i think that if things were to go that way and the ukrainians were to launch a major attack on dumbass venue, would see a massive russian intervention. fortunately, i think now it's not gonna happen for reasons that which should, you know, a probably favors the ponies norion how things dragging on a very low level which tools in the west. it doesn't custom to not alexander that the. i very much agree that we just heard here,

except for it with the addition of is that i think, you know, if you look, it has been what's been said by the russian side over the last few weeks. because of this week here is that their patience is coming to an end. they will not allow a law, a long term festering conflict, even low intensity. i mean, if that's good at face, then they're gonna say no, throw down the gauntlet, we have to end this here. ours are strategic interests are being threatened here because it, with nato rhetoric here, this sounds like this is a, again, this is a self fulfilling prophecy. you know, they're bating a conflict and then when the compensate, we have a threat here. that's what they want to do. this is their strategy. go ahead, alexander. well, only just an april of the share, the landscape actually said. neither should move quickly on accepting ukraine of the nato member. so look, ukraine is very much in favor of joining meadow now as the for russia. that's just completely unacceptable. now, the head of nato, i think, want to just this week said that russia has no right to dictate its terms in terms

of ukraine joining nato. now of course subsidy true, the ukraine is a sovereign nation and it has every right to make whatever decision once. but we should also consider how would the united states react, for example, if russia and let's say cuba, hypothetically, medic, and some kind of military alliance. so over the russian, mexico, for example, in russia, started putting offensive military weapons in mexico and cuba for example. we know for a fact that the united states will not just sit back and take it. so i think the, the key problem here is that native still considered russia to be a weak state of the 1990 s. but the situation has changed that i would say russia has upgraded as military and it's, it's very much more capable of defending its interest. and that's what it's trying to do here. essentially, it's trying to say, look, why don't we build a new security architecture in the european space where russia is part of the conversation where we can discuss together how we can prevent

a conflict by ensuring that russia interest are also taken into account. while of course, acknowledging the ukraine also has its own solar and interest as well. walter, you know, it's, i always find it very curious and hypocritical, is that obama care have read lines and syria, for example. or they have read lines all over the world. but russia can't have any red lines when it comes to security. go ahead. the, on the mental absurdity, i think the u. s. condition and what the united states, and it's been about a russian men inside of russia, russian who in russia. i mean, that's where they're supposed to be the, it's on the other hand, it's sending their soldiers out all the way across the ocean, 1000 miles and when are there, and then there and this year and you know, projecting is our course globally as well. yeah, but yeah, i mean it's, it's, it's a complete upset. yeah, i think about it that i ever, walter, i had to jump in here. we have to go to a hard break. and after that hard break,

we'll continue our discussion on ukraine. stay with our team. ah, ah, 100 mic. no shit, you know, borders a tease and you as a merge, we don't have authority. we told them that that whole world needs to be ready. people are judgment, common crisis with we can do better, we should be better. everyone is contributing each in their own way. but we also know that this crisis will not go on forever. the challenge is great to response

has been massive. so many good people are helping us. it makes us feel very proud that we are in it together with ah, it's update on you being a loyal dominant, but they didn't. didn't valuable. mm hm. that's been happening by high middle now. i own, i hate up my lap bad that hell of that. i am getting thought. mr. luck, knuckle lemon law. but he did thought, now along outfit a bit, a well, i mean a happy thought ations fairbetter, and i'm gonna take them out in and

welcome back across stock. we're all things considered. i'm peter level to remind you we're discussing ukraine. ah okay, let's go back to paul in ottawa, it's something alexander already brought up in the program and i want to delve into it a little bit more. this mantra that you, you crane is a sovereign country and it has the right to decide what military alliances it wants to join. that that is that, that's ridiculous argument to make. it sounds really nice, but all through history, this is what countries have done. no, i can't join your side because i'm too close to the other one. okay. i have to, i, you know, it, the security is not a 0 sum game. i mean, security is something that is relative here and i, every time i hear this from a nato official, it's absolutely nonsense. it made, this is a,

these are people that don't understand strategy and balances of power because that's exactly what we're in right now. it making that kind of statement is a political statement it's, it's a virtue signaling and it doesn't help us resolve the of the conflict here. go ahead paul. well, i mean, i was on the right, i'm back in the ukraine southern state. it can apply to joy, any organization it want shirt and i don't think in a rush to tell it you can't apply. but at the same time, nature, members are also sovereign states and, and they don't have to accept new members. or when you know the country like canada isn't as a native members, considering whether it should allow someone else into the car, but it should be thinking about its own inch as it does. it serve us to have these people join our club. what do we get out of it? do we become stronger from it? or do we end up essentially adding a liability to us? and personally, i, i can't see what benefit nato would acquire from having ukraine. i, as a member,

it's a very poor society. um, it's a military, it is quite leak or is extremely vulnerable and it risks dragging us into war. russia and why should no essentially put it quite bluntly what, why should canadians die for ukraine? i mean, what, like, what, what's in it for us? and so, yes i ukraine is, is um entitled to apply. but that does not mean that nato am is obliged to accept. and i think nato members were, for lack of a sense of the, in some cause have to create germans. and they would say no, actually, we don't want you. and the, and so far for side is, is what nato has said. and i think not was he will i, i think the hungarians would say no to as well because the hungarian minority in ukraine is treated quite badly in all that has actually said that he will oppose nato membership. ukraine until the various a change in your training courses will. okay,

well that leads to my next question. alexandra, here's a scenario for you. i mean, this whole thing is whole gambit has so many different scenarios. so you can game out, here's another one for you. provoke a conflict. lou, a ukraine forever loses the don bass. then, you know, if we put crimea aside, you know, and i mean, i know a lot of people in ukraine won't, but we will. and in our program, and then ukraine says, well, we don't have any more territorial conflict with a, with russia. okay. that conflict has been resolved because we lost the war that we provoked under those circumstances, because nato can't accept a new member that has conflicts on its unresolved conflicts on its border. but i mean with this gambit here, they're never going to get the don bass back. they know it, and so sacrifice it in. come out the victim. go ahead. what are your thoughts? well, i think in many ways, so my be political suicide for zalinski. oh sir. whoever is sure that of over ukraine. so just for that reason, i don't think it's a, it's an option for them. i mean, even, ah, for example, deciding that the crime is,

is, is for evan, up are russia, that, that's political. so suicide as well. and i mean, i think we have to take into account, i think was mentioned already, but as alaska isn't, there isn't a difficult position right now. i mean, i saw the pole recently, although his popularity is around 25 percent. and the majority, i think close to 60 percent, don't want him to run for the 2nd term. so in many ways this conflict does provide him with some i munition for so old. he can act as a tough guy. you know, that, that can stand up to russia, that you know, he could portray himself in that way. secondly, he can use the conflict to get closer to native to ask for more military aid, perhaps more financial aid as well, which ukraine also needs, given the, the economic hardships are the, the country is experiencing right now. but to be honest, i mean, going back to, you know, the question, i think the only solution here is for all sides to, to actually get together and discuss this. i mean, because what we have right now is essentially an imbalance of power where,

where nato seems, the thing that look, we have the stronger side where go to dictate to russia, what's gonna happen. that's not a solution in along them. that's exactly the reason why this conflict is taking place. i think it's time, you know, for, for, for nato to treat russia as an equal when it comes to sitting down at the table. and actually, as i mentioned before, deciding what is for the benefit of the whole of, of europe, including rushing through the ukraine, including narrowness, members are in europe only that way. i think the read the conflict can be resolved . well, i'll exaggerate, i'm afraid that's not going to happen because of nato. sit down with russia and treats it as an equal. then there's no reason for nato to exist any more. okay, that's their dilemma. and, and this is a dilemma. walter, let me go to, you know, nato it's, it's really throwing the die out there and they're going to get snake eyes on this one here because they upped the ante, but they're not going to get the result that they want. ok, and that's why it, we go through this every 6 months now. and then eventually in the black sea,

in the dawn bass a drone, something's going to go wrong. and then a chain of events will occur that everyone's going to regret. go ahead, walter. well that's, that's certainly a possibility to certainly a possibility. i mean, that's what makes the situation so dangerous, even if each side does not desire an all out war, even if they're just trying to extract a discrete political benefit from it that does not or that type of conflict. there is always the possibility of a miscalculation a misunderstanding, something going wrong, and then, and then the striking back is very, very possible. you know, there is one other winner in this situation that we haven't talked about yet. that's the arms manufacturers know? yeah, united states. you know, this, this type of cedar rattling needs into this great power competition. narrative kindergarten is pushing, which is of course, an excuse to spend tens of billions of hundreds of millions of dollars more on

a regular basis on weapons that make military contractors rich that make the world a more dangerous place. but, you know, this atmosphere constant tension with russia. i'm just like the atmosphere constant tension with china is a great justification, a great excuse to seriously military spending. and that's what the united states has been doing consistently for years. you know, paul and one ain't no, it's got to minsk records here. i mean, it's a, it's very interesting if they were just to be applied because, you know, russia a, i had signed off on it does germany and france as well. but you know, the dilemma for cube is, this is that if you, if that's a solution, which i think is a pretty good one, it's a form of federalism, is that other parts of ukraine will think the same and want the same. so almost no matter if there's an arm conflict or they use the men's good chords, they'd sovereignty of ukraine starts to dissolve and it's a, it's a dilemma they can't resolve. that's why they don't want to go down that path. you give it to them. they may be people and caught

a cough want the same thing and then calisha and it would go on and on here, this is a dilemma and the biggest loser and all this is ukraine. always go ahead paul. i mean it's, it's pretty obvious. but if you crane wants to re absorb dumbass and, and, and have it have it back there is only one solution because a military socially to rush intervention and therefore succeed. so therefore, central compromise is required times what's laid out. immense, which involves a some sort of autonomy, an amnesty. it is really the silly kind on of a peaceful solution. but as you said, peter, it's, it's unacceptable to, ah, when ukrainian uncritically pro number of reasons, including the ones he just said, which means that for which we're, we're in a serious impasse because the be only possible way out of it peacefully which sees dom bath becoming a part of these grain again is unacceptable onto one of the parties. ah,

and what do we do at that point? it's, it's, it's, it's not obvious some the only way out of our, maybe if it will be of nato powers good was freshly ukrainians. but even if our hat and i'm not sure they would be willing to, but um, so why i'm tending more and more to the view back essentially. ah, we need to understand that the verb minutes does represent the obvious solution to the problem. it's not gonna happen, and that we're seeing a gradual creeping annexation of dumbass by russia recently seen in a new decree. crap. i couldn't about trade of dumbass and her, you know, we should be thinking in terms probably not of some settlement, but just of a total cease fire. some sort of peacekeeping forces to permanently separate aside and just to stop, stop people killing each other. and i, and that's probably the best we can hope for. i think, you know,

alexander whitman to, it's really impoverished is the entire situation. is that nato and led by the united states does not want to come to an understanding with russia on this at all . because what they've done is taken an inter ukraine conflict and pulled russia into it. and this is how it's characterized to the media and they cannot, they cannot back down from that. that's why this situation is almost impossible to resolve. because if you, if you can sit down with the russians and come to an agreement, that's called appeasement. that's munich. you know, they painted themselves into a corner. go ahead, alexander. well, there are a lot of hawks within there, of course. ah, premier in the baltic states i, you know, they, they've always opposed any sort of agreement with russia. of course, the ross, certain members who for, i'm open to discussions with russia, you know, germany, italy, france, to some extent. and it is actually a bottle within nato. itself actually, oh, you know, who can, who can convince that the site on what on what steps to take because the hawks

within nato, the, you know, primarily the both states in some ways they would probably enjoy some kind of a conflict between russia and ukraine. i mean, obviously not a full hour war because it might involve them as well. but some kind of a conflict would enable them to push for, for the european union to push for very, very heart sanctions against russia in order to completely separate russia from the international community. and for many hawks that last the dream of within nato and, and, and for some hooks within the united states as well. perhaps not joe biden himself, but some people who surround him as well. and so in many ways, this is a debate that, that nato members should have among themselves. and i, i do hope that the ones that are for our discussions and negotiations with russia, prevail in this discussion. well, it's very interesting, alexander is, and i talked about this on this program many times. i just don't know what they're going to do. totally sanction russia isolated, but please. so your natural gas to us. ok. this is the level of intelligence and

maturity we have from these leads. here are gentlemen, that's all the time we have many thanks to my guess in london, philadelphia and in ottawa and thanks to our viewers for watching us here, r t c. you next time. remember crossed up rules ah, when i was shows wrong, oh, just don't hold any world yet to shave out. disdain becomes the answer to an engagement equals the trail. when so many find themselves worlds apart, we choose to look for common ground. postal

service delivery is a $155000000000.00 pieces of mail every year. constantly 40 percent of the world's mail right now the us postal service is in the fight of its life history. 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 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. that's a big business in money. it's not about the public and given them a service that they deserve. it's not about quality train warfare. it's about with

awe back breaking, toil, forced labor stress, industrial injury. corporal punishment. oh no. words with which we're all familiar with the world you live in abolish slavery long ago.

ah, the headlines sr. asylum seekers may have to wait months. the you better use border to get processed if a new plan from brussels gets the go ahead. bright screech. so say the move froze away, the rulebook need to continues to escalate the situation directly on our borders . and as for military security in the euro, atlantic region, it continues to deteriorate. also this, i russia's foreign minister, slams nato for a lack of diplomacy. at a meeting with the u. s. secretary of state warnings are exchanged over ukraine, and laska was threatening with new sanctions. and the c i a's embroiled in the child sex abuse scandal that involves children as young as 2 years old will but one alleged offender going unpunished. according to declassify document.