policies for migration we are not questioning, is some out i a d. d. humanity on which we have to, to treat every human beings. this is the only point that we are racing. and that brings you out of today. you're watching our t thanks v company. i'll return in half. ah ah ah ah ah.

ah ah hello and welcome to cross stock where all things are considered. i'm peter labelle, focus on ukraine. joe biden says i don't accept any one's red line, rushes foreign ministers out again. margaret says the nightmare scenario of military confrontation is returning on this edition of the program. we examined the significance of both statements. ah

discuss these issues and more and joined by my guess, george m u l. e. in budapest, he is a podcast or the goggle which can be found on youtube and locals. and in oslo we have gland deason. he is a professor at the university of southeastern norway as well as author of the book, great power politics in the 4th industrial revolution, or a gentleman cross hoc rules in effect, that means you can jump any time you want, and i would appreciate it. again, it's glen 1st the in our slow i, i don't think we can, you underestimate the significance of the 2 sentences that i cited in the introduction. i don't accept anyone's red line and the nightmare scenario of military computation is returning. i don't think anything we have heard anything like that since the end of the cold war. my over rating is exaggerating this. go ahead. when. oh, it's our danger statement to make a step forward, the red line. and that will trigger our response. so, and i think that's always problematic because we're now in the game of chicken,

russia a suspension threat and it will intervene militarily it's red lines are broken . so meanwhile, nato suggested unlimited expansionism is a non negotiable principle because of values. so we're heading towards a conflict. therefore, however, at the same time, nato is suggesting it will not intervene militarily in response to russian interaction. which simply means that they don't, i was in bold name, for example, authorities and keep and with promises on membership, which will invite war and then, you know, stand by us ukraine subsequently collapses estate. so this a lot of this that doesn't really make sense at all. just george, i don't think i could say better than that. ok. but basically saying, you know, with biting, i mean one of the most responsible things i think the president is ever said. ok. and the meaning only, the u. s. has read lines, no one else does. the arrogance and the, and the danger that presents here. and also your give me the, the kremlin,

has been telegraphing this for a while now. i mean, it seems like washington and nato is of their sleep walking into a catastrophe for ukraine. not for them. go ahead. yeah, that's exactly right. i mean, the russians have sent this over and over and over again. is that the expansion of nato, and the installation of nature infrastructure in ukraine. and, you know, nato military operations in the black sea within the vicinity of russian territory, our existential red, russia, and your native continues to do with blinking yesterday of the on saturday. he was talking about a defensive alliance. russia is nothing whatsoever to worry about anything. and then we sold and book it says the same thing over and over again. but they don't

seem to appreciate that for russia, if you keep expanding, you know, inch by inch to roches borders and you keep installing your infrastructure in violation of the nato russia housing act of 1997. if you keep doing this, then they do, does not come across as a defense of alliance, and it was made, there hasn't been a defensive lines ever since the end of the cold war. and just simply repeating this. as you know, the russians are going to be persuaded by it is just a fools, aaron, which is why, you know, essentially they're just not, they're not listening to what russia is saying, and that's why i think it is leading to a dangerous situation. you know, when the, you know, again, one of it has mantras that you know, a ukraine is a sovereign state and it has the right to choose whatever lines it wants to join. well, that's a very good can know, bumper sticker, i mean, but it isn't. it doesn't measure up to reality. i mean, in georgia, i've talked about this before, and you go back to the peloponnesian war, i mean,

you look at city states, you know, they alliances, they developed and some city states wouldn't be able to join one. because, well, we're right next door to your rival, so that doesn't work well for us. i mean, in time in memorial is that what you have is stronger powers make it very clear that their interests are being threatened here. and we're seeing a repeat here in this case, but they're just saying, no, i mean, you know, our values in closing their eyes to other countries insecurity and growing in security because of their defense of the lions. it doesn't make any sense. go ahead one, know what i think when people call to speak english, they begin to thinking cliches. i think that's out there because the fundamental principle of international security should be the states to not increase their security of expense for security of other states. now, based on this principle states, you know, the develop specific mechanisms where true can be stationed, how many, this is not controversial yet. and that's why so standing, the want me to suggest is that russia should have no veto in those say,

or what happens in europe. this is truly an absurd principle of international security that the largest state in europe should have no say, implies that russia has no legitimate security concerns while the u. s. market. the other side of that i'm think, should have the final say on everything in europe. so there's never actually been this principle in international security, suggesting that expansion on military lines are some of you in your vote in will rights and not a concern of 3rd party. i mean, when the so misplaced missiles in cuba, in 962, the us did not suggest is anonymous business knowing that it was prepared to start nuclear war. exactly which prevent you from exercising this, you know. all right, so this whole idea states should be free to join in the military alliances. this is the source of jesus, i think is wrong. i think it's the source of money because it made always monopolizing security in europe, which is why they are p and some americans have changed to retro, completely so. so what they're saying,

state should be free to join nato ahead because it never goes all the way you know, but you is happy to try to undermine this rational and c s. d or duration economic union. however, you made there was the basic principle being allowed to join it or should be this fundamental principle in international security. so i just, i think is very wrong. and i think we will see more of this in the future. congress, i guess, as the china rises. i mean, if china has stomach a milder partnership with latin american solvents will and he got a molecule, our mexico will really the united states still stand on this principle. so no, i don't think it's a principle is at all, it is a claim for him on the utmost of inch. george, it seems to me that it's really all about nato's dilemma, because if it doesn't change his position visa be ukraine, then it really doesn't really have a reason to list. and this is the there fundamental nightmare for almost 30 years. is it? why do we exist while we keep looking for threats, they've identified one,

but in trying to enlist a new member on russia's border, they're not giving you. craney guarantees. ok, i mean, this is one of the most absurd things i could ever imagine. because i take the gremlins lines very, very seriously. ok. anyone that knows anything about history is in, in the, in the 20th century alone, russia was invaded twice. we add the 19th century. we have napoleon, this is right up to the doorstep. ok, george. and i think that anyone that doesn't take rushes read line seriously or not serious people go ahead. no, i think that they are no serious people. but you're absolutely right. you can see how this rhetorical inflation that has come from natives, and later on we are a defensive alliance. russia is the rest. so what is your evidence that russia is an aggressive look what he's doing to ukraine, but your grade isn't

a member of nato. so, i mean, you was trying to push your way into nato. you was trying to write, go right up again into russia, borders, and now you're saying, oh, it's russia that is the rest. so and then again saying that i was the wrestler in georgia, but it would be events in georgia in 2000 and they were a direct consequence of nato's ridiculous promise to both george and your brain that they will eventually be members of nature. nature is continually kind of creating its own problems and then why justifying existence while we are defensive, why to listen? horrific aggression, right? that is a emanating from russia. but it's something that is, has actually been triggered by nato, despite the warnings that have come from us. because they say, well, the days of spheres of influence over russia has no right to see the implant. once a week. i mean, it's moving into georgia,

ukraine. i know when is the north atlantic treaty organization and then moving it then happily in their way into a central asia. so we're getting all of this rhetorical excesses from they do. and it's glen pointed out when push comes to show and they have to justify themselves to the western public as a say, well, we only have sanctions in mind. we're not actually going to go to war because it was the western public isn't going to tolerate with russia. you know, quick thing. this argument if middle doesn't expand the means, granting russia sphere influence. we hear this over and over again. their influence actually has a meaning, it's a chest exclusive influence, expand nato. that's tool for fear of influence. russia saying no expansion, best not sphere. influence? that's a, you know, that's, that's an opposing influenza. really turned a language on his head. it's a quite remarkable. yeah. well, it means when i tell you it means and you have really what it means. and what is

the irony from all of this is that when we look at what's happened in ukraine since 2014, it's not russia that is compromised, ukraine's sovereignty it's western powers, nico powers. ok, because we know victoria new and famous f, the u. and then, you know, we start seeing the disintegration of ukraine. it's not russia. the student is that the empty promises, the nato is giving the people in q. and again, i want to stress everyone for the 3rd time. if there is a conflict, nick is going to do nothing for ukraine. ok, sanctions. i mean tweets that's going to be about it. it's a very cynical game to play and then blame it all on russia. go ahead one. well, i guess the has about us one of the additional layer. so she parker, she under all of this because the argument for rejecting all this principles of international security is, you know, to respect the democratic decisions of your grand. but keep in mind or made offered

a membership to ukraine in 2008 only 20 percent of ukrainian long term membership. the only reason why they wanted to join nato now is because the west back the qu in 2014, and the new authorities in chief have, you know, imprison the position leader, that cracked all the need of the disenfranchised 1000000. some orders are protesters, i mean, this was really the sovereign will of the people surely they have to be have to manipulate the claims assigned to this extent. i mean it's, yeah it's, it seems very dishonest, less or george shop with the 40 seconds here. i mean, if there is a conflict ukraine as we are know it now will be a very different place. go ahead, a very different place, because if there is a conflict, it will lose a very large chunk of the surgery. and we know the way russians operate, i mean it will basically punish ukraine for its refusal to abide by the

minster. cause and to try to resolve conflict with the dumbass peacefully. and so there is a company listen, extensive territory will be lost. russia doesn't really want to do this, but ukraine will have to pay a price just like you re pay the price by losing crimea. i mean, that would be, they refused to accept the agreements and they over through a legitimate, legitimately elected government. all you're right, they pay the price, paid the price or a gentleman and we're going to go to hard break here. and after that hard break, we'll continue our discussion on some real new state. ah, ah. join me every thursday on the alex summon sure. i'll be speaking to guess in the

world of politics, sport, business, i'm show business. i'll see you then. ah, breaking toil. forced labor stress. industrial injury. corporal punishment. owner words with which we are all familiar are you certain that the world

you live in? abolish slavery long ago. ah, welcome back to cross that were all things are considered. i'm peter level. this is the home addition to remind you were discussing some real news. ah. okay, i will go back to georgia in budapest and change gears a bit here. there's another conflict brewing close geographically in the balkans, something that you and i in the gaggle of cupboard very extensively and give us the lay of the land here. why is it important here? because i want everyone to know when our audience george is and pre eminent expert

on the force destruction of yugoslavia in the 19 nineties and the legacy of that a policy initiative, quote unquote, which started under the clinton administration is coming to fruition. but probably in ways that they didn't know for go ahead george. yes. right. i mean, what happened was, at the time of the germany 1st, then the united states seized on yugoslavia is actually to price it away from any kind of influence country. what happened was that they created a state that have no real hope of the existence which was bosnia, which is basically divided in muslims. about 40 percent of about 33 percent crowe at about 17 percent. and there was no way that the states could exist, but nonetheless, the united states, all this boss and they are as it's clients, they in europe much as the german. so corporations, levine,

is that by and state. now they, you know, there was a war there because a large percentage chunk of the population wouldn't want to live under most of them, dominated by the governor. but nonetheless, you know, they coupled together the date and of course, are, you know, clinton on something done a foreign policy success before his re election. well, 20000000 now, 25 years on the state really isn't functioning. i mean, it was always a kind of an artificial entity. and the bosnian serbs really now few very little allegiance to the state and want to go their separate ways entirely in accord with the principles of national self determination. the clinton administration alumni who are back in the, by the ministration really are furious about this. their price creation, this, the state of bosnia is on the brink of dissolution. now threatening

unspecified action certainly. sanctions. and they've already imposed sanctions on about in a big well, they're also threatening a military action, you know, to prevent the dissolution of a state that has not exist as an independent entity other than for these boss 30 years. and, you know, when, when thing, you know, bush comes to show, you know, they will then they will try to push forward with some kind of action against the law infrastructure of propaganda that has already gone into operation in the western media. horrible sounds of genocide, genocide, and you know this, this could escalate into, into quite a nasty conflict. now this time i think with different outcome from the 1990 s ross

is thinking a very active in interested role in what's going on in bosnia herzegovina. and there's not, there isn't that great need to unity that existed in the sort of the, hey, they triumphalism immediately off of the cold war. when you try to explain to our viewers here, ok, this bus, the hurts of aveena, this, this experiment on your opinions of the americans created it. it was never a viable state, still not a viable state, and you have a good chunk of the population that doesn't want to be in that thing and they were forced to ok. they were going to military force. they were forced to join the state and they didn't want to be part of it. it's unravel the serves in bosnia herzegovina saying they don't want to participate anymore. and so there's the possibility of a war. why, i mean, i don't understand why this is something, something that's so important to the european union and even less understand why it's important to the americans go ahead on how your role in the grades are either way, if you could have work of the problem is that he was actually being

a great extent, but also a lot of this chaos because it has been the primary actor to undermine the fragile state of the bus there, which will say assist just a brief lou in the warren balls that came to an end in 95. 1 it had the deep agreements which essentially stated what the cost, what solution on the constitutional b, which was both, they would a tool thomas entity, supposedly, according to the and the servant, the so the set of the special powers to implement this, however, that you then hijacked did it, this powers are, you know, effectively ruling or bosnia, but they've decided the only way most that could be peaceful if it integrates into the u box there can because if you want integrating that, you have the centralized powers. if the abandon the entity system set up in the bait agreement, a centralized power in sort of you. so again, to summarize that he gets his powers or voicemail to implement the dayton agreement, but then refuses to restore the sovereignty until until they undermine the deep agreement potential as empower. furthermore,

they were supposed to have this power is there'd be a total hours or 2 to 3 years instead has been more than a quarter of a century so. so, so this is why that was always the fragile state because initially the war, the service wanted both that the state was phobia. if that didn't work, they would like to serve in regents to at least to see them be able to stay in the 5 year and then they got their 3rd option which was ok will be in the home is in the inside of the session is most now, but the, but now the company even have this, so they're essentially threatening mouth to ignore the use someone colonial power and even break away unless that you stops undermined from the dayton agreement, which the you proclaims it's trying to hold. so obviously most goes weighing in and it's the mounting on it's cooling, effectively the use colonial and mentality in this whole project. so it begs the question, what can be done at this point? i mean, you can only use the serbs and the rushes of undermining the date agreement, but they are the main ones refusing to implement that. so it's a, it's a very weird conflict to have, especially for the european stuff in charge. you can't really bother not trying to

just keep trying, doing the wrong things because the very predicate is, is something that can come to wish because you have a chunk of the population that doesn't want to agree to this colonial mindset. and of course, you know, better than rush oh my god, run to the hills. i hear that every single time. you know, it's always looking for an external excuse for their own mistakes. go ahead your yes. yes. yeah, that's right. but of course and points out, i mean you and they, so how push for bosnia herzegovina to be a member of nature when in order to be a member of nato, they wanted to create a centralized government and a unify as well. that was always a non starter because the reason why there was a war involved in the 1990 is precisely because they wouldn't accept a unified centralized warranty,

which was always liked it to be dominated by the bosnian muslims. and so by pushing for this, it was always likely to trigger a reaction from the serbs and the one immediately to precipitate of this current crisis was the a hi representative of some suddenly amending the criminal code and making it a crime punishable by prison. genocide, denial, which is essentially a code for you know, whatever the, so think about their performance in the war. so a said, well, you know why, why do we want to be part of a state that is inherently hostile to us? and i think, you know, now with all the threats that are coming, you know, how dare you violate the date in the course. but of course the data was never provided for a unified army. i mean, you know,

you go through the date because where does it say that the governor should have a single army? this is all invented after the of the data. and of course the media on hand to fuel the conflict by saying, oh, the subs are violating that they can of course, that they really are not. it is lee nate. so essentially we just push for this, which is violating the nature of the vehicles. so they're just, they're just making up the rules of the game as they go off. is that what you're saying? yeah, exactly. like i mean this, the service in bosnia herzegovina, they, they want to call it quits. why doesn't the international community let them do that? i mean, i, as far as i understand they don't have any terry, totally ambitions over anyone. they just want to get out of a bad deal that they were forced into, into a failed state. it wouldn't exist if it wasn't pumped through of full of money from outside international organizations. i mean, it's also everyone,

one of the most corrupt places in the world, go ahead when. well, this is the problem because usually when there's a dispute, we can look towards international law in principles. but again, there are no rules and source of legitimacy set apart. keep in mind, you know, the breakup of the stores mentioned was large and to large extent driven by external powers as well. and when did choose between the principal sovereign and their total integrity and then the self determination of a people, you know, the conflict. it's always independence. i mean if you're most now, you should be allowed to see it from, you know, from yugoslavia. but if you are the service territory you're not allowed to remain in yugoslavia. customer should be allowed to see from, from them from serbia. but northern northern call so should not be allowed to stay . crimea should be allowed, can look to see if it all depends on power interest. and that's the problem. if

there are no uniform rules, it always goes back to power politics and has begun to say the distribution of power is very different now than it was in the 99. this role is very similar to conflict problem in ukraine and both actually because with this idea, logical format for what to call your integration. and it's kind of the only way for it to work. if you make a north eastern ukrainians or at least call them, you know, russian agents or we ignore the service impulse now by simply calling them you know, nationalists, the naval so there is the head. it has like this. i think it wasn't going to work. yeah. i mean, george, you can finish it out here. i mean, it's the golden rule, those that have the gold make the rules right. that, but it doesn't look like ok. yeah, that's right. what's it by common to all of this? is that nato and the western powers in favor?

so session when it works to their advantage, why don't they want the, well, the bosnian serbs, too as to see from boston? well, because that would strengthen the sobs in europe. and that was, strengthen russia, which was always the goal. why, why that was so keen on breaking up yugoslavia because they were so you just love it as russians, little brother in europe so that that's why they've always been attended to a cross any of aspirations because for russia, the bonus of principles there ago that the end of the day, we covered 2 major topics to ukraine in serbia and, and as far as the west concerned, they don't care about either as long as it's only a defeat for russia. that's is their money. it's very colonial, isn't it? i gentlemen, that's all the time we have on, i think my guess in budapest and in the us know, and i think our viewers are watching us here at ortiz. see, and it's time remember across ah ah

no, no, no, no, no, no, but they did a valuable. mm hm. helping my middle now i own my hit up my laptop that has a nickel. i'm fine. you can thought no, well i'm happy to be a well, i'm really happy to lation strobe with a

ah, yes, that's the message coming from joe biden. i had talked with his russian counterpart as the west. that media goes into overdrive with allegations of an imminent invasion of ukraine. or moscow says its native schools in french and in the region with energy prices across europe at a high this winter heating bills for homes in the u. k. could soon be set to double the code into a fuel poverty monitor, leaving some, it's fair to choose between heat and government and not taking any steps to talk to reduce blue or through poverty. so canadian stranded in south africa say they feel abandoned by their government after all to with post all mccomb restrictions.