nato and american military's got it. germany, i call it here 1st you say, i'm crazy, but that's what i'm calling with . ah. hello and welcome to cross stock. we're all things are considered. i'm peter lavelle, 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 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 cross huck rules and 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 any one'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. am i over rating this, exaggerating this? go ahead. when oh, it's our danger statement to make a step forward. busy the it lines and that'll trigger a response. so,

and i think that's always problematic because we are now involved in the game of chicken because rush assess, of national expansionism is like it's essential threats. and it will intervene militarily. if it's the red lines are broken. so meanwhile, nato suggest that 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 always emboldening, for example, authorities, and keep it with promises of 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. i, 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 george, i mean, 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 on saturday, he was talking about a defensive alliance in russia. nothing whatsoever to worry about anything. and

then a shoulder and 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 housing act of 1997. 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 full erin, which is why, you know, essentially they just not, they're not listening to what russia saying, and that's why i think it is leading to a dangerous situation. you know, when the, you know, again, one of 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 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 it, what you have is stronger powers. make it very clear that their, their interests are being threatened here and we're seeing a 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 out there 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. want me to suggest is

russell 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 us look at 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 elaine, you'll go in, in the, when will writes and not the a concern of 3rd party. i mean, when the soonest place missiles in cuba, in 962, the us did not suggest is none of his business knowing that 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. the joint in the military line says that this is the source of jesus, i think is wrong. i think it's the source of hedge money because nato is monopolizing security in europe, which is why the europeans and americans have changed to retro,

completely. so it's so what they're saying stage to be free to join nato ahead because it never goes to other ways. and you know that you as is happy to try to undermine this rational and c s d o or duration economic union. however, in made though, it's the basic principle being allowed to join it or should be this fundamental principle international security. so i just, i think is very wrong and i think we will see more of this in the future. the secaucus, i guess, as the china rises. i mean, if china has stomach with an acute military partnership with latin american solvents will and he got them all in cuba, mexico will really the united states still stand on this principle. so no, i don't think as a principal, as at all, it is a claim for him on the utmost. i think 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 than it really doesn't really have a reason to live. and this is they,

they're fundamental nightmare for almost 30 years, isn't it? why do we exist? well, we keep looking for threats. they've identified one but, and then trying to enlist a new member on russia's border. they're not giving you crazy 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 it in, in the, in the 20th century alone, russia was invaded twice. we add the $900.00 century. we have napoleon. this is right up to the door step. 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 now 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 look what it's doing to ukraine,

but your grade 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, boulders, and now you're saying, oh, it's russia that is the in wrestle. and they again saying that i was the wrestler in georgia, but it would be events in georgia, in 2008. we're a direct consequence of made those 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 then why justifying existence or defense, why hasn't horrific or aggression, right? that is emanating from russia. but it's something that is, has actually been triggered by nato, despite the warnings that have come from moscow. they say, well, the days of spheres of influence over russia has no right to speak of inland. well,

once a week, i mean, it's moving into georgia, ukraine. i mean, i know when is the north atlantic treaty organization and then moving them happily in their way into a central asia. so we're getting all of the rhetorical excesses from they do. and it's glen pointed out, but when push comes to shove, and they have to justify themselves to the western public. as you know, does it 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 go to tolerate with russia. one quick thing, this argument, if nato doesn't expand the means, granting rational sphere influence. we hear this over and over again. so influence actually has a meaning, it's such an exclusive influence. so if you expand nato, that's a tool for fear of influence. russia thing, no expansion best, most fear of influence. that's it. you know, that's, that's a 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 the irony in 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 famous f the you and then, you know, we start seeing the disintegration of ukraine. it's not russia. the student is this 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, you can 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 one of the additional layer, so she puts you 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, and made offered a membership to ukraine in 2008 only 20 percent of ukrainian ones memberships. the only reason why they wanted to join me now is because the way back the qu, in 2014, and the new authorities in chief have in a prison, a position leader that cracked on all the media there disenfranchised millions of orders. a protesters, i mean, this was really the sovereign, the will of the people. surely they would have to manipulate the claims assigned to to this extent. i mean it's, yeah it's, it's insular this on a slip or a shop with the 40 seconds here. i mean, if there is a conflict, ukraine is we are know it now will be a very different place. go ahead, a very different place because if there is a gothic, it will lose

a very large chunk of it. and we know the way russians operate. i mean they, they basically punish ukraine for its refusal to abide by them in the cause and to try to resolve the conflict with the dumbass peacefully. and so there is a conflict. listen, extensive territory will be lost. russia doesn't really want to do this, but your brain will have to pay a price just like you've ready paid a price by losing crimea. i mean they, they refused to accept the agreements, and they over through a legitimate, legitimately elected governments. all right, they 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, 100 i make no, certainly no borders a tease and

you fresh as a marriage. we don't have a charity. we don't have a vaccine whole world leaves to take action and be ready. people are just you know, come with we can do better. we should be better. everyone is contributing each in their own way, but we also know that this crisis will not go on forever. the challenge is great. the response has been massive. so many good people are helping us. it makes us feel very proud that we are in it together. join me every thursday on the alex salmon. should i be speaking to guess in the world of politics? sport, business. i'm show business. i'll see you then. mm .

ah ah, welcome back across that were all things are considered. i'm funeral about this is the home addition to remind you. we're discussing some real news. ah yes, go back to georgia in budapest and change gears a bit here. there's another conflict brewing close on 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 a 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, right, i mean, what happened was at the giant, the germany 1st, then the united states seized on yugoslavia is actually 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 by 40 percent of about 33 percent. crowe at about 17 percent. and there was no way that the state could exist, but nonetheless, the united states, all this boss and they are, as it's client state in your much as the germans. so gracious levine is that fine

state. now they, you know, there was a war there because a large percentage chunk of the population wouldn't want to live under a most them dominated by the governor. but nonetheless, you know, they coupled together the dayton accords are, you know, clinton on something done a foreign policy success before his re election. well, 20 now and 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 while. they're also threatening a military action, you know, to prevent the dissolution of a state that has never existed as an independent entity other than police 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 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.

rochester, me a very active and interested role in what's going on in bosnia herzegovina and there's, 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 in the am a good chunk of the population. the doesn't want to be in that thing and they were forced to ok, they were 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 worked 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 doctor 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. 1 it had the deep agreements which essentially state the aust, what solution on the constitutional b, which was there were 2 autonomous entities, a servant. so the set up the special powers to implement this, however that you then hijacked it. this powers and you know, effectively ruling or both now, but they've decided the only way most of it could be peaceful if it integrates into the u box there can, because if you want to integrate in the year, you have the centralized powers. if the, 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 both know to implement the agreement, but then refuses to restore the sovereignty until until the date agreement post central is empower. furthermore, they were supposed to have this power. is there

a total hours from 2 to 3 years instead has been more than a quarter of a century so, so, so this is why it was always a fragile state because initially in the war the service want to go to standard was phobia. if that didn't work, they would like to serve in the region, struggling to see them be able to stay in yugoslavia and then they got their 3rd option which was ok will be the one with the inside of the session is most now. but now they can't even have this, so they're essentially threatening now to ignore the someone colonial power and even break away unless the stops undermines. and the date in agreement which the claims it's trying to hold. so obviously most goes with 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 serbs and the russians undermining the agreement, but they're the main ones refusing to implement that. so 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 just keep trying doing the wrong things. because the very predicate is, 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 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, the other. that's right. but of course a glenn points out. i mean e, e, u and nato. how 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 unified horses. well, that was always a non stop that because the reason why there was a war in bosnia in the 1990 is precisely because they wouldn't accept

a. and if i centralize those already, 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 that, 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 date because where does it say that the governor should have a single army? this is all invented off to the fact 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're 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. oh, is that what you're saying? yes, exactly. like, i mean this, the service and it's going to, you know, 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 was 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 rules and source of legitimacy incentive, hard to keep in mind that you know, the break up as mentioned, was large and to large extent driven by external powers as well. and when did choose between the principle of sovereign and they're totally integrity and then self determination of a people, you know, they conflict. it's always, it depends. i mean if you're most you should be allowed to see it from, you know, from yugoslavia. but if you're in 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 to come up to see 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 is an overall, it's 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 me agents or we ignore the service impulse now by simply calling them you know, nationalists, the naval so there is 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. 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 sea from boston? well, because that would strengthen the sobs in europe, and that will strengthen russia, which was always the goal. why? why that was so keen on breaking up the side of it 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 across any of aspirations. because for russia, the loan of the principals, their goal at the end of the day, we cover 2 major topics to ukraine and 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? or a gentleman 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 at r t c. and it's, i'm remember across ah,

ah, [000:00:00;00] a ah, is it on your being, are you oh no, no, no, but they did a my mirror now i own my hair up my lap and i had a knuckle. my, well, i'm bob again thought now, well i'm up there a bit a well, i mean

a relationship with sonia natal. i'm not in then i did a renewal about my laundry 1st need to visit this. gosh, a few different. oh good. this is a good start. well, we have our 3 banks all set up here, maybe something in europe, something in america, something overseas, in the cayman islands, you never know all these banks are complicit in their club piper. so we just have to give them a call and say, hey, i'm ready to do some serious my laundry. okay, let's see how we did. wow, we've got oh, we've got a nice luxury watch for max and for stacy. oh, beautiful jewelry. and how about ha ha, luxury automobile again, for mag, you know, it, money laundering is highly regal. copier watch has

a record a russian president and indian prime minister wrap up top level talks and new delhi just a day before vladimir putin planned a video conference with joe biden kremlin spokesperson, who's in india with president putin slams nato's aggressive stance on moscow. dmitri pascall to spoke exclusively to our team moving in on that. now we see that legal demonstrations extremely aggressive positions with she missed the stolen bugs, rhetoric. we see that many different usb does rhetoric. we don't like the language that we do everything to ensure. oh, interesting with