ah, asylum seekers may have to wait months at the ease beller is bordered to get processed. if a new plan from brussels gets the go ahead, right to groups and say the move throws away, the rulebook. nursing unions around the globe call for covet vaccine patents to be lifted. blaming production restrictions for deaths in the developing world. the army constrain will be followed they others if we cannot act and eat all countries in it at here to a single vaccinations traffic and england's cancer catastrophe. senior medics react to deming government findings that 700000 potential cases may have been missed. since the pandemic began. those are your headlines this our, my colleague niel harvey will be here in just under an hour the full and fresh look

at your new stay with us. this is our international with 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 buildup 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 guess, 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, the public and international affairs at the university of ottawa, hard gentleman, cross hoc rules in effect, that means he can jump any time he want. and i'm, i always appreciate, paul. let me go to you 1st thing 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 our bombastic cabella coast rhetoric out there. what, what is this stratagem 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, mac it back in 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 of the other day saying that if a rationalist attack keep crane the united states will put heavy sanctions on

russia. medical sanctions are not a military response because of course ukraine is not a member of later. so on the one hand, e. c, nato, kind of egging ukraine on a lot of 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 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 entry ukraine conflict that needs to be resolved. and there's actually a roadmap 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 the men sca a process, but then they kind of drops out of the rhetoric here. it, it seems to me they walk in, there's a kind of been nurture. 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 our sales back to 19 ninety's. surprisingly, to actually perhaps understand this conflict a bit better because russia for a long time has been adamant that it is against any nato expansion, e sorts. and that's really here is the, the key of the problem here, right? let me put you 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 military. the size is taking place between ukraine and the united states and nato members. last ones were in september, though quite,

quite big. includes him on the black sea. it has been a lot of military movement, awe 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 her bro 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 the scenarios that could be played out here, that there's one country that loses in every single scenario in its ukraine. and i, and in so live 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 that, that justify to nato, that rushes, the threat that they've 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 a largely failed to deliver on its anti corruption pledges, its popularity is plummeting. and so sure some 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 quick as ours

since the 2014 pain has been for the people. and that's true in terms of cost of human lives, 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 when the session smokes, screens are being opened 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 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 you know what the, the information he receives, his security services pushes him in a certain direction as to apply forces which makes it makes it 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 form of autonomy or 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 tend to live some an economic damage. but the danger of our is that at some point, some in a minor escal mine instead of 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 just going to attack ukraine out of the blues. that that would be quite extraordinary. however, putin has made it clear that if, if of ukrainians try to retake down bass by force, that would be 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 that's not gonna happen is the result that which should, you know, a probably favors the ponies moreno staffings 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 lot, a long term festering conflict, even low intensity. i mean, if that's good at face, then the going to say no, throw down the gauntlet we have to end this. here are our strategic interests. are being threatened here because it, with nato rhetoric here, that sounds like this is a, again, this is a self fulfilling prophecy. you know, they're bating a conflict. and then when the conflict habits 8, we have a threat here. that's what they want to do. this is their strategy. go ahead, alexander. well, only, just in april of the ship,

the landscape actually said nathan should move quickly on accepting ukraine as a nato member. so look, ukraine is very much in favor of joining meadow now as the for russia, that's completely unacceptable. now, the head of nato, i think, want to just this week said that russia has no right to dictate the terms in terms of ukraine joining nato. now of course, up to the true, the ukraine is a sovereign nation and it has every right to make whatever decision i want. but we should also consider what, how would the united states react, for example, if russia and let's say cuba, hypothetically, medic, and some kind of military alliance over the russian. mexico, for example, in russia, started putting offensive military weapons in mexico. and cuba, for example, went off 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. 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 a 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 and do this on the middle of the i think the u. s. edition. and what the united states and its allies are complaining about a russian meant, in spite of russia, russian troops in russia. i mean that's where they're supposed to be. the seats,

in the other hand, is sending their soldiers out all the way across the ocean. thousands of miles and one other cotton and another hemisphere and you know, projecting is our global lead as well. yeah. but yeah, i mean, it's, it's, it's a complete upstream. yeah. think about it that i ever, walter, i had the job been here. we have to go to a hard break that to that hard break. we'll continue our discussion on ukraine. stay with our team. ah, ah ah

ah . this in their interest for some financial plan is to see the value of the currency lose value because they can gain traction on social media saying it somehow a good thing, but not everybody is an undertaker. not everyone is a grave robber. 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 and less than 0. and that's a good thing is the, is the mad ah, welcome back to cross stock where all things are considered. i'm peter lavelle to remind you we're discussing ukraine. i

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, ukraine, is a sovereign country and it has the right to decide what military alliance is, who wants to join that, that it's, that, that's a 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. it's 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 his rights,

i'm back in the ukraine. some 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, nato members are also sovereign states and, and they don't have to accept new members are 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? 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. you know, what,

why should canadians die for ukraine? i mean, what, like, why, 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 lack of a sense of the, in some cause half the 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, 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 ukrainian hospitals. 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 is another one for you. provoke a conflict. lou a ukraine forever loses the darn bass. then, you know, if we put crimea aside,

you know, and i mean, i know a lot of people knew crane 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 it, 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 i might be political suicide for the landscape. oh sir, share that and over ukraine. so just for that reason, you know, i don't think it's a, it's an option for them. i mean, even for example, deciding that the crime is for evan, up out of russia, that about to go to side as well. and i think we have to take into account, i think it was mentioned already, but as alaska isn't the in a difficult position right now. i mean, i saw the bold recently though,

like his popularity is 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, 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 you, 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 are going to dictate to russia. but what's going to 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 to 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 copy can be resolved. well, alexander, i'm afraid that's not going to happen because if nato sits down with russia and treated 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, nato, and it's really throwing the die out 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 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. 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 spark that type of conflict. there is always the possibility of a miscalculation a misunderstanding, something going wrong. and then the striking back is very, very possible. i 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 great power competition. narrative pentagon 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 just like the atmosphere constant

tension with china is a great justification agreed excuse to seriously military spending. and that's what united states has been doing consistently for years. you know, paul and 18, you know, it's go to the 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, 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 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 kind of 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 pretty obvious that 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 is really the silly kind on of a peaceful solution. but as you said, peter, it's, it's unacceptable to, ah, many cranium uncritically 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 bass becoming a part of his crane again is unacceptable to one of the parties. ah, and what do we do at that point? it's, it's, it's, it's not obvious. um, the only way out of our maybe if it will be of nato power's good was freshly ukrainians. but even if i happened, i'm not sure they would be willing to, but i'm,

so i'm tending more and more to the view that essentially ah, we need to understand, but of over 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 cut out by putin. about trade dumbass and her, you know, we should be thinking in terms probably not of some settlement, but just of um, a total cease fire. some sort of peacekeeping forces to permanently separate the sides and just to stop, stop people killing each other. and that's probably the best we can hope for. i think, you know, alexander woods with 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 entry 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 this. that's why this situation is almost impossible to resolve. because if you, if you sit down with the russians and come to an agreement, that's called appeasement. that's munich. you know, they've painted themselves into a corner. go ahead, alexander. well, there are a lot of hawks within there, of course. ah, premier lien or the baltic states i, you know, they, they've always opposed any sort of agreement with russia. of course, there are certain members who, who are, i'm open to discussions with russia, germany, italy, france, to some extent. and it is actually a bottle within nato itself actually. oh, you know, who can, who can convince the other 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 the dream of within nato and, 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 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 guest in london, philadelphia and in ottawa, and thanks to our viewers for watching us here, our tea, see you next time. remember crossed up rules ah ah,

ah, ah. the postal service delivers a 155000000000 pieces of mail every year, approximately 40 percent of the world's mail right now the us postal service is an a flight of its life. a bad financial shade 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 move in money. it's not about the public and given them a service that they deserve. it's not about quality and training with

ah hello, i max kaiser, this is the kaiser report. let's get right into it. great. well max, you know what jamie diamond has no intrinsic value? well, that's a response to his tweet tier jamie diamond. bitcoin has no intrinsic value. bitcoin says, cry harder, jamie diamond. but of course max, there is no such thing as intrinsic value. all value is subjective and derived from human consciousness would say col manga, right, right. the fact that big coin has no intrinsic value or utility value is one of his greatest attributes. one of his greatest features. why is that? because any time for like a commodity would have some intrinsic value,

let's say with silver or some of the electronics applications used for gold. that means that part of the community brings in what they believe to be its value industrial value. and that would have an impact on the overall price discovery. and that would mean that it's not perfect money because some of those participating in that market have different expectations about its use case. then those who are looking at it for the purpose of storing wealth with bitcoin because it has no utility value and no intrinsic value. it's perfect money. it's only uses as a monitoring a premium is 100 percent versus gold, which is maybe 80 to 85 percent solver. maybe 45 percent calories shells close to 0 . new us $1.00. they have the u. s. dollars, no monetary premium whatsoever. it's literally worthless, so it is jamie diamond is a guy who's a bureaucrat.