you are watching us in the u. k. you got going on. the ground is coming your way, but if you are watching us from anywhere else in the entire world, crosstalk will be next for you. ah, i look forward to talking to you all that technology should work for people. a robot must obey the orders given by human beings except where such order does that conflict with the 1st law show your identification. we should be very careful about artificial intelligence at the point, obviously is to race trust rather than fear. a very job with artificial intelligence we'll summoning, with a robot must protect its own existence with

join me every thursday on the alex simon, sure. i'll be speaking to guess in the world of politics, sport, business, i'm show business. i'll see you then. ah, ah. hello and welcome to cross stock. were all things are considered. i'm peter labelle, focus on ukraine. joe biden says i don't accept any one's red line. russia's foreign minister saturday, 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 samuel, we in budapest, he is a podcast or at 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, crosshatch, rules and effect. that means you can jump any time you want, and i would appreciate it. again, it's got to glen 1st the in our slow i, i don't think we can you under estimate the significance of the 2 sentences that i cited in the introduction? i don't accept any one's red line. and the nightmare scenario of military computation is returning. i don't think anything we have heard anything like to since the end of the cold. where am i over reading this, 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 are now involved in the game of chicken process of mental expansionism is you think, substantial 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 made was suggesting it will not intervene militarily in response to rushing duration, which simply means that made and i was an old name, for example, authorities and keep it with promises on membership, which will invite war. and then, you know, stand by us, ukraine subsequently collapses the state. so this a lot of this, that doesn't really make sense at all. judge 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 a 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 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. yes, 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 on saturday, he was talking about

a defensive alliance in russia. 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 roches, borders and you keep installing your infrastructure in violation of the nato. russia of banking, 97. if you keep doing this, then they do, does not come across as a defensive alliance, and it was made, there hasn't been a defensive alliance 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 erin, 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 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 pen. no bumper sticker, i mean, but it doesn'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 and memorial is that what you have is stronger powers make it very clear that their, their interests are being threatened here and we're seeing repeat it here in this case. but you're just saying, no, i mean, you know, our values in closing their eyes to other countries insecurity and growing, insecurity because of their defensive alliance. it doesn't make any sense. go ahead one, know what i think when people talk to speak english and then begin to thinking cliches . i think that's a problem because the fundamental principle of international security should get a 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 astounding 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 on the other side of the plan, they should have the final say on everything in europe. so also 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 writes and not the concern of 3rd party. i mean, when the service placed missiles in cuba, in 962, the us did not suggest this amount of his business. now instead, it was prepared to start nuclear war, except which prevent you from exercising this, you know. all right, so this whole idea stays should be free to join in the military line says that 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 it's so what they're saying, the state should be free to join nato ahead because it never goes to all the way. you know, the u. s. is happy to try to undermine this rational and c s. d or duration economic union. however, you know, 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 district focus, i guess, as the china rises. i mean, if china has stomach a milder partnership with latin american solvents oil and he got them all in cuba, mexico will really the united states still stand on this principle. so no, i don't think it's a prince boys at all. it is a claim for him. on the, at most, i think george, it's a, it seems to me that i'm nate and 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, isn't 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 defensive alliance. russia is the rest. so what is your

evidence that russia is an aggressive? oh, look what he's doing to ukraine, but you great isn't a member of nato. so, i mean, if you was trying to push your way into nato, you was trying to right, go right out again into rushes, borders and now you're saying, oh, it's russia that is the wrestle. and they again saying what was the rest or in georgia? but it would be events in georgia, in 2000. they were a direct consequence of nato's ridiculous promise to both georgia and your brain, that they will eventually be members of nature. nature is continually kind of creating its own problems. and that's why justifying existence or defense of life as an horrific aggression threat, that is a emanating from russia. but it's something that is, has actually been triggered by nato. busy despite the warnings that have come from

us, they say, well, the days of spiritual influence over russia has no right to speak with inland. well, once a week, i mean, it's moving into georgia, ukraine. i know when is the north atlantic treaty organization and that kind of them moving and 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 shove, 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 is going to go to tolerate with russia. not one quick thing . this argument, if made us expand the means granting rational sphere influence. we hear this over and over again. so influence actually has a meaning, it's a chest exclusive influence, expand nato. that's us tool for fears of influence. russia saying no expansion, best not sphere of influence. that's a, you know, that's,

that's an opposing. and so you really turn the language on his head. it's quite remarkable. yeah. well, it means when i tell you it means and you have really what it means. and what is it? 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, nato powers ok, because we know victoria new and same as f the you. and then, you know, we start seeing the disintegration of ukraine. it's not russia that student is. that's the empty promises. the nato is giving the people in care of 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 puckers younger all of this because the argument for rejecting all this principles of international security is to respect the democratic decisions of your grand. but keep in mind or made or offered a membership to ukraine in 2008 only 20 percent of ukrainian wanted memberships. 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, in prison, the position leader, the crack, all the media disenfranchised. millions of 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 this honest lead on you ga shop with you 40 seconds here. i mean, if there is a conflict ukraine, as we all know, it now will be

a very different place. go ahead at 30 a very different place because there is a conflict. it will lose a very large chunk of it surgery and we know the way russians operate. i mean they, they will basically punish ukraine for its refusal to abide by the minster cause and to try to resolve it's conflict with the dumbass peacefully. and so there is a conflict, you're all, 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 brain paid a price by losing crimea. i mean they, they refused to accept the agreements. and they overthrow a legitimate, let 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 newspaper. ah ah

ah a wrong one i'll truth just a to shape out the same because of the african and engagement equals the trail. when so many find themselves worlds apart, we choose to look so common ground. ah, welcome back across that were all things are considered. i get a little, this is the home and it to remind you we're discussing some real news. ah

yes. go back to georgia in good. it has and change gears a bit here. there's another conflict brewing close geographically in the balkans. something that you and i am the goggle of cupboard very extensively and give us the lay of the land here. why is it important here? because i want everyone to know in our audience. george is in pre eminent expert on the force destruction of yugoslavia. the $990.00 s and the legacy of policy initiative, quote unquote, which started under the clinton administration is coming to fruition, but probably in ways that they didn't whole for go ahead george. yes, what i mean, what happened was, at the time of the germany 1st, then the united states seized on yugoslavia essentially to price it away from any

kind of influence from russia and helped to break up this country. what happened was that they created a state that have no real hope of the existence which was bosnia, which is basically divided by 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 client state in europe, much as the german. so corporations, levine, is that by and say, wow, they, you know, there was a war there because, you know, a large percentage chunk of a population wouldn't want to live under most of them dominate the governor. i'm but nonetheless, you know, they coupled together the dayton accords are, you know, clinton wanted something done a foreign policy success before his re election. well, 20, now, now,

25 years on this. they really isn't functioning. i mean, it was always a kind of an artificial entity. and the bosnian serbs really now feel 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 the bus in a big bar. they're also threatening military action, you know, to prevent the dissolution of a state that has never existed as an independent entity other than for these last

30 years. and, you know, when, when it comes to show, you know, they will, then they will try to push forward with some kind of action against the last 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 the governor. and there's not, there isn't that great need to unity that existed in the sort of the, hey, dave triumphalism, immediately after the cold war. when you try to explain to our viewers here, ok, this buffy hurts of aveena. this, this experiment that the europeans and the americans created. it's a, it was never

a viable state, still not a viable state in the, i'm a good chunk of the, populating the doesn't want to be in that thing. and they were forced to ok. they were me 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 i even less understand why it's important to the americans go on how your role in the grades are either way, if it could have work. and the problem is that the e u is actually been a great extent there also a lot of this chaos because it has been the primary oxer to undermine and the fragile state of the bus there, which was set up because just briefly when the war and also came to an end in $95.00, it had the deep agreements which essentially states and what the cost, what solution in the constitutional b, which was, was there were 2 or thomas entity is supposed to occur on the and

a survey. so the set up the special powers to implement this, however, that you then hijacked it at this powers and you know, effectively ruling or both now, but they've decided the only way boston could be peaceful if it integrates into the u box. there can be costs if you want integrating the year. you have the centralized powers. if the abandon the entity system set up in the bait agreement, a centralized power and sort of you. so again, to summarize that he gets his powers or voicemail to implement the date agreement, but then refuses to restore the sovereignty until until they have their mind that they've agreement potential is empower. so furthermore, they were supposed to have this power is victoria hours are 2 to 3 years instead has been more than a quarter of a century so. so, so this is why i was always a fragile state because initially in the war the service want to both of the state hub. yeah. it doesn't work. they would like to serve in the region, struggling to see them be able to stand before. yeah. and then they got their 3rd option which was ok will be in the home, isn't the inside of the session is most now, but now they can't even have this. so they're essentially threatening to ignore the

someone colonial power and even break away unless you stop undermining the agreement, which the claims it's trying to hold. so obviously most goes away and it's the mounting wanted scolding effectively. use colonial mentality in this whole project . so it's a big question, what can be done at this point? i mean, you can only use the search and the russians have undermining the agreement, but they're the main ones refusing to implement that. so it's, it's a very weird conflict to have, especially for the european so you can charge that. you can't really bother not trying to keep trying, doing the wrong things. because the very predicate is a, is something that can come to fruition because you have a chunk of the population that doesn't want to agree to this colonial mindset. and of course it's been 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, the other, that's right. but of course and points out. i mean, you and nato have push for bosnia herzegovina to be a member of nato. and 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 in bosley in the 1990 is precisely because they wouldn't accept a unified centralized or 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 for so i think what immediately precipitated this current crisis was the a hi representative of some suddenly amending the criminal code

and making it on 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 bearing, you know, now with all the threats that are coming, you know, how dare you. busy violate the data on the course, but of course the data was never provided for a unified army. i mean, you know, you go through the bank because where does it say that the government should have a single army? this is all invented off to the fact of the data, but, 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 on the, you know, nate. so essentially there's, we just push for this,

which is violating the nature of the goals. so they're just, they're just making up the rules of the game as they go off. is that what you're saying? yes, exactly. you know, 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 towing 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 a 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 because apparently rules and source of legitimacy incentive, hard to keep in mind that you know, the breakup of the stores mention was larger and to

a large extent driven by external powers as well. and when did choose between the principal of sovereign their total integrity and then the self determination of a people, you know, they conflict them. it's always independence. i mean, if you're most, you should be allowed to see it from, you know, from yugoslavia. but if you were the service territory you're not allowed to remain in yugoslavia, customer should be allowed to see it from, from them, from serbia about another northern call. so should not be allowed to stay. crimea should be allowed, should can not received it. so it's stuff, it all depends on the, our interest of time. and the problem is 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 $99.00. and overall, it's a 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, rush agents or we ignore the service impulse now by simply calling them you know, nationalists the naval so there's yeah, there's the head. it has, 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 up, 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 was to their advantage, why don't they want the well, the see from boston? well, because that would strengthen the sobs in europe, and that was strengthened russia, which was always the goal. why? why that was so keen on breaking up. you love it or you just love it as russian is little brother in europe. so that's why they always be attended to across any

aspirations because for russia, known as the principals, their goal. at the end of the day we cover 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. that'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 on, i think our viewers are watching us here in our t. c. and it's time remember across ah ah, ah

ah ah, no, no no, no, no, no, but they did a mapping, bye, a, a knuckle. i love bob again thought no alarming app. it'd be a well, i mean a relationship with sonya is, i'm not in that. and i hope

headlines right now, you're not the international. vladimir putin arrived in india on only his 2nd trip abroad since the top of the pandemic also comes just a day ahead of the president's plan video conference with joe biden, with the message from joe biden. there's the western media goes into overdrive with allegations over an imminent invasion of ukraine. and with europe in the grip of a winter of discontent over soaring energy prices. a group monitoring fuel poverty wants that household heating bills and the u. k. could soon double also in the program here with r t vaccination cooperation. the best way.