receiving lethal aid from nato countries who benefits from this stratagem. aah! crow 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 walters melodic. he is a organizer with the answer coalition. and in order 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 day again to me. i mean, we had this in the spring. the attentions were flaring. a lot of bombastic cabella coast rhetoric out there. what, what is the strategy him from nato side? these of b, ukraine, go ahead. it's hard to tell because nato's is on the one hand

supporting ukraine, giving it a magic backend, giving it to linux, backing on the other hand. makes it very clear that it's not actually willing to defend it militarily. so we had mr. lincoln the other day saying that if a rationalist attack, ukraine of united states would put heavy sanctions on russia, medical sanctions and not a military response. because of course, ukraine is not a member of nato. so on the one hand, the c nato kind of egging crane on a bed and, 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. united states wants some kind of military conflict because at the end of the day, this is a entry ukraine conflict that needs to be resolved. and there's actually a road map for that. it's called the minsk accords here,

which of course western diplomats don't like to make much reference to it last spring. they said, oh yes, yes, we believe in them in sca a process, but then they kind of drops out of the rhetoric here. it, it seems to me they will. there's a kind of a nudge, a hinge 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 bigger 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 his against ukraine being part of nato is against ukraine, ah, being actively and militarily involved with nato. but on

a native side we obviously see, as you mentioned, ah more aid go, more military, go into the ukraine. ah, we see mill checked the size is taking place between ukraine and 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 on 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. you know, 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. and it's 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 of the threats 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, and so sure some saber 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 would be absolutely devastating for the people of ukraine just as the us are. since the 2014 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 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 zaleski government lives last, he himself essentially falsely claimed to have been defacto accepted into nato. that means membership. benito was in principle group, but that was

a complete lie. so who knows what the session smoke screens 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 as an excuse, 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, this, i, i don't understand the logic here. any kind of conflict would see the end of zalinski it automatically because it would be a 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 ready to come to some kind of political settlement which is necessary to resolve

the conflict which really is a settlement on om of a kind of terms which are laid out in a meant to agreement, including some formal autonomy of for don bass. and therefore, ukraine kind of mc running 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 ceiling damage to ukraine. tell 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. 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 rob 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 with the reasons that which should, you know, a probably favors the conan's 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 at 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 in april, the share the landscape actually said nathan should move quickly on accepting ukraine as a nate 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 just this week said that russia has no right to dictate the 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 wants. but we should also consider, well, how would the united states react, for example, if russia and let's say cuba, hypothetically, medic, and some of military alliance over 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 its 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's interests are also taken into account. while of course, acknowledging that ukraine also has its own solar and interest as well. walter, you know, it's, i always find a very curious and hypocritical is that obama 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 and do the on the mental city. i think the u. s. edition and what the united states and allies are complaining about a russian meant, in spite of russia, russian, who, in spite of russian, i mean that's where they're supposed to be. the seats, on the other hand, is sending their soldiers out all the way across the ocean. thousands of miles and one of their cotton and another hemisphere and you know, projecting is our course globally as well in your area. but yeah, i mean it's, it's, it's a complete australia. think about it that i average walter. i have the job in here . we have to go to a hard break about that hard break. we'll continue our discussion on ukraine. stay with ah

this in their interest for some financial pundents the see the value of the currency lose value because they can gain traction on social media saying it's somehow a good thing, but not everybody is an undertaker. not everyone is a grave. robert. you know, some people are actually out there trying to be productive and productive lives. and of course, that philosophy of, oh, the currency has gone to 0 less than 0. and that's a good thing is the, is a mad lunacy. ah, you were told it was bad for your eyes and your posture that it would stop you from having real friends and finding a girlfriend. but what they fail to mention is that you can make thousands of dollars every weekend by simply playing video games with a dentist they should believe, look up a little bit ago we formed deficient was showing a little rougher facilities, georgia resume. because apparently the fresno can much,

much reduce up is no longer going. of course, to make video games a high paying job. you have to be gifted and quick with it. hang on to a little bit bigger. it's going to splice the to close to lithium thickness to lithium vitamin. this sensor would webpage video from young to spark even started yet, glove voice. well, you most stormy. i'm of is do it out or you mean it, was it mules puberty? guy of the owner. but i would that be circle with will still be stuck with these is odd to do. i also use with welcome back to cross talk. 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 ukraine is a sovereign country and it has the right to decide what military alliance is 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 that they, 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. a, 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 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 i'm entitled to apply, but that does not mean that nato am is obliged to accept. and i think of nato members were for about a sense of then some course have to create germans. and they would say no, actually we don't want year and the, and so far for sat is, is what nato has said. and i think that 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 process. 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, ah, 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 on,

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 water. 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 i might be political suicide for the landscape. oh sir, sheriff didn't ukraine? so just for that reason, i don't think it's an option for them. i mean, even for example, deciding that the crime is forever up out of russia that about to go to suicide as well. and i think we have to take into account, i think it was mentioned already, but as alaska isn't the difficult position right now. i mean, i saw the bold recently though like popularity around 25 percent on 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 mean issue, 1st of all, he can act as a tough guy. you know, that can stand up to russia. you know, he can portray himself in that way. secondly, he can use the conflict to get closer to native to ask for more military rate, perhaps more financial aid as well, which ukraine also needs, given the, the economic hardships that the country is experiencing right now. but to be honest, i mean going back to the question, i think the only solution here is for all sides to actually get together and discuss this. i mean, because what we have right now is essentially an imbalance of power. where, when nato thinks the thing that look, we have the strongest side we're going to dictate to russia. but what's gonna happen? that's not a solution in a long time. that's exactly the reason why this conflict is taking place. i think it's time 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 europe, including russia, including ukraine, including nato and its members. in europe, only that way, i think the, the couple can result. well, alex, under, i'm afraid that's not going to happen because if nato sits down with russia and treats it as an equal, then there's no reason for nato to exist anymore. ok, that's their dilemma. and this is a dilemma. walter, let me go to, you know natal it's, it's really throwing the die south there and they're going to get snake eyes on this one here because they up the ante, but they're not going to get the result that they want. ok, and that's why 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. oh 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. no, yeah, united states. you know, this, this type of cedar rattling needs into this re power competition narrative. and a guy who's pushing, which is of course, an excuse to spend tens of billions of hundreds of millions of dollars more on a regular basis and weapons that make military contractors rich that make the world a more dangerous place. but, you know, this atmosphere constant tension with russia just like the atmosphere constant tension with china is a great justification agreed excuse to seriously military spending. and that's what

the united states has been doing consistently for years. you know, paul and one a know it's go to the minsk accords here. i mean, it's very interesting if they were just to be applied because, you know, russia a signed off on it, 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 that means 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 in protocol, 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 in men's, which involves a some sort of autonomy. an amnesty is really the silly kind on of a peaceful solution. but as you said, peter, it's unacceptable to, ah, lin, ukrainian, and political lead for a number of reasons, including the ones he just said, which means that we're, we're, we're, we're in a serious impasse because the, the 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 power's good was freshly ukrainians. but even if i happened unnatural, 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 going to 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 or, you know, we should be thinking in terms probably not, or 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 impoverish 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, 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 side 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 hard sanctions against russia in order to completely separate russia from the

international community. and for many hawks that left 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 the 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 sell 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 ottaway. and thanks to our viewers for watching us here at r t c. you next time, remember crossed up rules ah,

by the panoramic no. borders and is blind to number please. a new fresh as emerge. we don't have with the we don't to look back seen the whole world leads to take action to be ready. people are judgment, common crisis with we can do better, we should be doing better. everyone is contributing each in their own way. but we also know that this crisis will not go on forever. the challenge is grateful to his function has been matched. so many good people are helping us. it makes us feel very proud that we're in it together with

awe back breaking, toil, forced labor stress, industrial injury. corporal punishment. oh no. words with which we are all familiar are you certain that the

world you live in? abolish slavery long ago, the war drugs started as a way to combat a gray problem. what's the warrant? it's part of the attitude of the nation, not just of north dakota, and it got to be something that you could get elected to this time. the fight against drunk. still good to try and shake told us that andrew was a competent short form. this is way too dangerous for him to be doing. clearly they put him in harm's way. a rural college student doesn't just get shot in the head and found in a river like that. something else had to be happening. the postal service delivers a $155000000.00 pieces of mail every year. approximately 40 percent of the world's

now right now the us postal, this is in the flight of its life is pretty much a 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 bring 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 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 the money in a

headlining miss. our asylum seekers may have to wait months that the bellows order to get processed. if a new plan from brussels gets the go ahead, white group, say the move throws away the rule book. nothing unions around the globe call for coven vaccine, peyton's to be lifted, flaming production restrictions, but deaths in the developing world. the army comes train will be followed by others if we cannot act. and if all countries do not adhere to a single vaccinations, traffic nearly 3 quarters of a 1000000 potential cancer cases in england to be mish, since the pandemic began according to a damning government watchdog report.