ah, the russian president and the indian prime minister wrap up the top level talks and new delhi just a day or just a day before vladimir putin's plan. the video conference with joe biden, from one spokes person who's in india with president wooten, slams nato's aggressive stance. on moscow, dmitri pascall spoke exclusively with our t movie, jim stem outpatient. now we see that nato is taking an extremely aggressive position and we see mr. still some bugs, rhetoric, we see the different u. s. and he does rhetoric. we do not the lifetime, we will do everything to ensure all are with that's the message from president biden. as western media goes into overdrive with

allegations of an imminent russian invasion of ukraine. that's all for this hour on behalf of our team international. thanks a lot for watching. we hope to see you again soon. ah. i hello and welcome to cross talk. we're 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,

the who discuss these issues and more and joined by him. i guess george m u l. we. in budapest, he is a podcast or the goggle which can be found on youtube and locals and afloat. we have going these and he is a professor at the university of south eastern norway as well as the author of the book, great power politics in the 4th industrial revolution or a gentleman, cross talk, rules and effects. that means you can jump in anytime you want, and i would appreciate it. okay, it's good to go ahead and 1st the in our slow i, i don't think we can 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've heard anything like this since the end of the cold war over rating is exaggerating. this. go ahead . when know and well, it's interesting to make because they just step over the red lines and we'll figure

our response. so, and i think that's what was problematic because we are now in the game of chicken. russia says, expansionism is substantial threats and it will intervene militarily, if it's the red lines are broken. so meanwhile, natal suggested unlimited expansionism is 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 intervention, which simply means that they don't, i was holding, for example, authorities and keep promises our membership, which will invite more and then, you know, stand by us. ukraine subsequently collapse as a state. so there's 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 gimme 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 of the on saturday, he was talking about a defensive alliance, rushes, nothing whatsoever to worry about anything. and then we sold both of those things

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, an 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 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 is just a fools, aaron, which is why, you know, essentially they 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, plenty, again, want to nato's 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. 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 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 defense of the lions. it doesn't make any sense. go ahead one, know what i think when the people call to speak english, they begin to function cliches. i think that's probably because the fundamental principle of international security should get a states to not increase their security of expense for security. 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 what nato suggested

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 the time, they should have the final say on everything in europe. so also there's never actually been this principle in international security, is suggesting that expansion on medicare lines as are some in, in, in the, when will writes 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, sovereign rights. so this whole idea states 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 nato is monopolizing of security in europe, which is why they are being some americans have changed to rhetoric completely. so

it's 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 know, made there was the basic principle being allowed to join it or should be the 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 progress, i guess the china rises. i mean, if china has stomach a partnership with latin american solvents will and he got them all in cuba, mexico will really the amount of states still stand on this principle. so no, i don't think it's a principle as at all. it is a claim for him on the utmost of inch. george, it's, it seems to me that um, nate in 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 list and this is the fundamental nightmare for almost 30 years,

isn't it? why do we exist? well, 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 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 in, in the, in the 20th century alone, russia was invaded twice when ad, 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 red line seriously or not serious people go ahead. i think that, hey, i know sir, is the book, but you're absolutely right. you can see how this rhetorical inflation that is come from nato later at all. we are 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, if you was trying to push your way into nato, you was trying to right, go right up again into russia's borders. and now you're saying, oh, it's russia that is the in wrestle. and they again saying, oh i was the rest are 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 while we are defensive to listen, horrific aggression, right? that is an 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 spiritual influence over russia, no, no, right. to speak of implant once a week. i mean it's moving into georgia,

ukraine. i know when is the north atlantic treaty organization and they've got them moving at them 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 west of the public as a 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 made doesn't expand the means, granting russia their influence. we hear this over and over again in such as a meaning, it's a chest exclusive influence. so if you expand nato, that's us tool for fears 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, he a nico powers. ok. because we know victoria new and famous f e u. and then, you know, we start seeing the disintegration of ukraine. it's not russia that student is that 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, one of the additional layers of poker see 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 or offered a membership to ukraine in 2008 only 20 percent of ukrainian wanted membership. no . the reason why they wanted to join the middle now is because the west back the cooling 2014. and the new authorities in chief have, you know, in prison. the position leader, the correct all the media there disenfranchised me, live some orders a protesters. i mean, this was really the sovereign will of the people surely they have to be in the have to manipulate the ukraine is assigned to this extent. i mean, it's a, yeah it's, it seems very dishonest, less or jordan and shop with the 42nd sir. 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 it search. and we know the way russians operate. i mean they, they basically punish ukraine for it's a refusal to abide by the minster. cause and to try to resolve conflict with the dumbass peacefully. and so there is a conflict or 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 paid a price by losing crimea. i mean that they, they refused to accept the agreements, and they overthrow 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. with

this i didn't you think you oh no, no, no, but they did in a valuable ah, that been happening by high middle none. i own the heat up my lap and i hadn't of that. i man thought, mr. lucky knuckle bucklin. my law. bob again thought, no, well i'm going up at a bit a well, i mean a relationship with sonya here long. i've been with ah, welcome back to cross stock were all things are considered i'm funeral about. this is the home addition to remind you were discussing some real news. ah

yes. go back to georgia in good. it hasn't change gears a bit here. there's another conflict brewing close geographically in the balkans. something that you and i in 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 lavine. 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 a muslim dominated, bosnia herzegovina. but nonetheless, you know, they coupled together the dates and of course are, you know, clinton on 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 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 russia 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, they triumphalism immediately the cold war. when you try to explain to our viewers here, ok, this busty hurts of aveena. this, this experiment that the europeans and the americans created it. it was never a viable state, still not a viable state in them, a good chunk of the population. 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 worked end of 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 of the cost will be, which was both there were $2.00 or thomas entity is supposed to occur on the and the survey. so the set up the special powers to implement this, however,

that you then hijacked, did 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 that. you have the centralized powers, if the band and 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. furthermore, they were supposed to have this power. is there a total hours or 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, one of both of the state was phobia. if that didn't work, they would like the service regional stud list to see them be able to standard 5 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 charge that you can't really bother not trying to 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 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 already, which was always liked it to be dominated by the bosnian muslims. so by pushing for this, there was always likely to trigger a reaction from the service. and then what immediately for 7 they did this current crisis was the, the, the high representative off there, 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 date of 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 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? yeah, exactly. you know, like i mean this, the service in bosnia herzegovina, they, they want to call it quit. 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 parallel 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

principle of sovereign and they're totally integrity. and then the self determination of a people, you know, they like them. 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 were the service territory, you're not allowed to remain in yugoslavia coastal or should be allowed to see from from them from serbia about northern 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 990 s. 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. it's making north eastern craniums or at least just 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's yeah, there's the head. it has, it has like this. i think it wasn't gonna 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 session when it was to their advantage, why don't they want the well, the sea from boston? well, because that would strengthen the suburbs in europe, and that was strengthened. russia, which was always the goal, why, why that was so keen on breaking up the side of it because i was, or you just love it as russia, little brother in europe, so that, that's why they always be attended to across any sort of aspirations. because

russia, the loan of the principles, their goal. at the end of the day, we cover 2 major topic to ukraine in serbia. and as far as the west concerned, they don't care about either as long as it's only a defeat for russia. they're very colonial, isn't it? i gentlemen, that's all the time we have on, i think, my guess in budapest and i think our viewers are watching us here at r t c. next time. remember across ah ah ah

back breaking toil forced labor stress in industrial injury corporal punishment own words with which we're all familiar. ah, you certain that the world you live in abolished slavery long ago.

i saw it on you being ah you oh no, no, no, but they did in a valuable. mm hm. not that big, my middle. now i own my head up my dialogue that i didn't thought is that where your left knee, knuckle, my love, bob again thought no along up it a bit a well i me let me go. lation, suburban. yeah. man, it's sonya gates, not in the banana ah ah, known island in the philippines, whom typed in on barren gay, the philippines underwater, klondike. mm. divers here find gold beneath the waves just off the

coast.