some way to go with me, roxanne, more surprises ah in the stories that shake the way here and i see tension spiral after ukrainian ship that approach russian waters with act authorization. something moscow is slammed as provocative and threatening. plus to strive is a dark day for journalism, june the sun, supportive lash out to the london high courts really to allow his possible expedition to the united states. yet another hearing is named needed to decide whose fate this is not a case that is being fought on the basis of more. this is an absolutely troubles to you. any legal process and devastating tornadoes tear 3 parts of the united states with dancing. kentucky alone feared to be more than 70

hello there. you're watching the weekly here, and i think international just gone 5 o'clock in the afternoon here in moscow. now attentions over ukraine ran hi, this week with russia criticizing the west, the feeling, the escalation and voicing concern nato's actions in the region. moscow says they could potentially lead to a large scale conflict where the escalation occurred after a ukrainian navy ship approach russian mort is without authorization on thursday evening. a move that russia regard is, is a threat to the navigation or safety of other vessels in the area. ukraine no denied all allegations and insisted the ship was an unarmed search and rescue vessel that never entered restricted board restricted waters or post any threat. it did eventually though, changed course, where ukraine was, the main topic of discussion between vladimir putin and joe biden on tuesday and the u. s. president pointed out what he called a threatening nature,

a russian treat movements near the ukrainian border and said that severe sanctions were being drawn up. moscow though, it does insist that it can move its treats wherever once on its own territory, while saying its nato, which is making dangerous moves. the criminal spokes person talk to you about how his actions are being perceived in russia. just to jeanette into which the rhetoric coming from the u. s. and e u leaders sounds pretty aggressive. we see plenty of fake news about russia allegedly planning an aggressive invasion at the same time. no one talks, the key of non warns key of against even thinking of a military intervention in the done yet. and lou guns conflict working in on that issue. and now we see that nato is taking an extremely aggressive position. first, they all say they don't take sets any red lines. second, they say that nato will do whatever it's once that it will do it on whatever territory once forth. all of this is aim to deter russia. we do not like that. we

will do everything to insure our own interests. while ukraine on the west, the keys rush revolving and arming, sorry, the self proclaimed republics in eastern train. the u. s. is openly sending alms to kiev, washington revealed that 30 javelin anti tank missiles. systems were delivered to ukraine back in october, as part of a $60000000.00 military aid package and a further $200000000.00 or on the table to russia has long insisted, though that nato must not expand his presence further east. closer to russia's borders, the white hash though believes only it has the right to draw the line. oh, of course the diplomacy is out and red lines are there to be crossed when the big bad wolf is planning a land grab ring a bell. a similar warning came in the spring when russian troops gathered for snap

training exercises. and again, when military drills were conducted in crimea, and only recently moscow was supposedly the mastermind of a qu, in key of remember the currency of no mean either because it didn't happen. in fact, none of the predictions came true, but this time apparently it's different. this time, it's the real deal, and to feed the fair, even drawing up the kremlin battle plans the new year offensive. and for the umpteenth time this year, russia is forced to defend the presence of its own troops on its own land. russia is not a threat to any country. the deployment of russian troops on the national territory is our sovereign roy and no one's business. it is nato on its members states a recklessly moving their military forces and infrastructure to the russian borders . so what is washes red line, us spy pains jetting towards rushes borders. passenger jets with hundreds of

civilians on board. diverted because the nato re complain was to close and wouldn't respond to ground control. the actions by the u. s. air force created the threat to civilization and the fact that the catastrophe was averted over the backseat doesn't mean that the u. s. and nato can go on the risk in people's lives with impunity. the latest american war ship sailing into waters bordering russia. what the shows was nature, you know, a u. s. warship has now entered the block. see, we can see it through binoculars or the crosshairs of a defense system system. a better one or multiple missile systems just across the face. it was a bit more to look at where nato's military infrastructure is located, just a short distance from our borders in romania and poland until we saw defense systems have already been deployed and they can easily be converted into offensive missile systems that targets us. it only takes a matter of minutes to change the software. now, instinct tells me that if a russian destroy was spotted steaming and to new york harbor, it would be

a flaming red line for washington. but believe it or not for us all, this is a, a pink line at best. the real issue is nato, or rather, nato's expansion and expanded it has from this humble state in 1990 to this empire in 2020. now, back in the day, russia was promised, nato would grow, not one inch eastward of berlin. wel, that's berlin. so no, it's not an inch. it's over a 1000 kilometers. and now it's knocking out rushes door. ukraine joining nato and we've been talking about it for a long time is a red line for us. the continual drawing of keys into the military orbit of the alliance, the de facto start of natives, assimilation of the military infrastructure of this country. and the desire to turn it into a foothold for confrontation with russia could all cause severe negative consequences and destabilize the military and political situation in europe. but lucky for nato,

it's got a gas out of jail free card because in politics, well, promises are made to be broken. there is that where is that written down? where is that from? was written down. donald romulus friend of mine wanted rich girl mitchell didn't quantica want us to collaborate, to go in. in the meantime, the u. s. unfazed, by its terrible track record of predicting russian behavior is covering its bases and drawing up some economic sanctions. you know, just in case task reporting that we're speaking of sanctions, washington has already threatened moscow with extreme measures and globally such penalties are essential to of us foreign policy. america, for example, is just irritated beijing too by imposing a diplomatic boy called on chinese upcoming winter olympics. and it's also imposed sanctions on 14 officials and 4 entities in iran and syria over alleged rights abuses. we discussed the role and impact of americans, punitive policies, with

a panel of guess essentially gotta you've got to view and walk into the u. s. american exceptionalism and, and supremacy. and they are basically, they're, they're, they're doing whatever they can. do you know where we're married? it's a very arrogant, aggressive policy. they use the sanctions and if it really is a means to destabilize the other countries sovereign nations and create that can make hardships early. why do you think america is threatening to sanction russia for something that a has not happened and b will not happen according to the kremlin? i think in one way the political up move on on that side. the other part is that we need it. we need a bogeyman, and i think partially, there were luther argon, it's kind of like a rabid dog. you know, you start to lash out in,

in different ways, trying to protect yourself. and the only one problem we have is a thinking is this kind of destructive approach to international relations. but it's, it's just so silly because ultimately you saw the brand you are sitting up, or do you think consonant when united states is going to survive. if it makes a devastated mess of the rest of the world, do you think any western power seriously believes russia is about to invade ukraine? you know, it's hard to understand the logic. what could moscow stand gained from from starting a war? well, i think that the western governments do well know that this is rather at blame game . they make the public believe that russia is a real threat to the ukraine at the moment. russia is really in defense because they have to fear that a ukraine will become a part of the nato alliance. and this is, of course,

a major threat to the geopolitical setting of russia. cutting russia or. busy from swift would be the most extreme of measures deployed yet. it happened to iran devastated the economy there. is there any chance of washington pursuing what's being called a nuclear option based on their questionable diplomats that they potentially good. i think be very unwise move, very little impact, i think internally, externally it would, it would kind of back fire. i would think europeans would be very strongly lobbying against such an action. and if you're going to set off to do something like that, presumably not the goal. well, let's just like opening a black hole up under the international banking system. we're seeing what's happening in china with a grunt warbling and the property market possibly going down the drain. uncles if that happens, that's going to pull down the western banking system potentially. now

a dark day for journalism that have driven the san support is reacted to the british high court ruling on friday that the weekly founder can be expedited to the united states. washington one, it's appeal against the previous decision blocking his son from being sent to america. to face trial on espionage charges, campaign is slammed. the latest move which was handed down on the u. n's, human rights de we condemn today's u. k. high court decision to allow the expedition of julian so on. so the us, which will prove historic for all the wrong reasons, we fully believe, but julian saw and just been targeted for his contributions to journalism. back in october, those a to day, harry, i was the united states trying to appeal over numerous grounds, including the fact that it offered an unprecedented package of assurances, as i saw it would not be held under the maximum security the strictest, maximum security conditions in prison. over there and that he isn't unwell is being,

he's made out. well, julia sanchez have continued to say that he is indeed a suicide risk and that all of these assurances are meaningless and vague as they purchase. they said that the united states can reverse any decision at any point. class is also concerned about the trustworthiness of america's guarantees to pointing to one of those reports in the year that the cia had talked to kidnap during the saw and put it to kill him. speaking outside the high court here this morning, we've heard from stella morris to partner who's incredibly disappointed and she is saying why and how is this happening for? how long can this go on today is international human rights day? what a shame, how cynical to, how this decision on this day to have one of the foremost the foremost publisher journalist of the past, 50 years in

a u. k. prison, accused of publishing the truth about or crimes about cia killed teams. many people have been supporting her outside here. many, many protests is that also all similar questions there who is a glimmer of hope that you know, the british justice system might actually prevail for once. the british judiciary, as the assistive on every level, the u. s. campaign to get a july to 10 years, 10 years in the streets of london, public opinion and this side of a sound. but obviously the judge's decision. 9 is not on the side of public opinion. it's absolutely doesn't say things. so she, this time of year to another christmas about, do you know that is children without their dad stay on the fight to free judy. massage the choice, so we will prevail eventually many people outside as

a high court say, where is the human rights in the case of jr and assange, obviously listed on the foreground of the royal court of justice, that they call it the royal courts of injustice. a dog beyond a, it was being announced a protest even through eggs at this side, directly behind me, which just goes to show the sentiment and feeling here on the streets of london at which dash reporting his how it's set reached this point in 2019 junior sound was forcefully removed by british police micro doors embassy in london after the country terminated his 7 year asylum, sought refuge after section the sold allegations and sweden,

which were later dropped the british authorities, though, did arrest him on a separate charge of jumping bail. america once the we can find extradited on claims, conspiring to hack government computers and also publishing classified material. meanwhile, hassan just feeling said his claim. he suffered a stroke during a hearing in october. we cliques, editor in chief, kristen robinson, talked to us following fridays, really was actually in believable. and so i run a decision to be handed on the united nations human rights. the united states had offered unity in the madison court to make those so called us if not it simply press 2 to leave more in the matter of court in january the united states had given assurances that the they would to treat the julian unfairly. and he would get the treatment and be housed in an adequate jail. and that even through the sentence,

if he gets one in australia, all of these so called assurance and have been investigated by human rights organizations such as amnesty international and found that the us you are. and so some of the work and paper they're written on, they are simply not reliable. we are dealing here with a nation where individuals on the top level in the junior, the top level of the cia and in the white house contemplated, kidnapping were killing julian assaults. this is not a case that is being fought on the basis of the law. this is an absolutely try to steal any legal process. this is a political case, and the julian arrest us we have said for many, many years is a political persecution. devastating storms have ripped through center in southern parts of the united states with kentucky suffering some of the worse damage.

president biden said the tornadoes could be the most disastrous in american history, or rescue work is already far more than 40. missing people limit the damage buildings and there are concerns to the number of deaths could exceed 100 shelters have been opened with the help of the red cross. and kentucky governor has declared a state of emergency his local reporter at costa. this is the severe destruction that we can see in many places across different states. we're several tornadoes have heated, really hard. the worst part here in mayfield, kentucky, the governor of the state announced that 70 people lost their life on these tragic episode. this has been the most devastating tornado of that. in our state's history, the level of devastation is unlike anything i've ever seen. satellite far too many homes. the people were likely an entirely devastated. this will be, i believe,

the deadliest tornado system to ever run through kentucky. the devastation we can see here in the city center. he says something that will take a long time to recuperate. but many people took the streets. we can see lots of citizens that got together to do all. they can wendy's hard time. they are now a new version of george will wells 1984 is likely to appear on book shelves within the next few years or so. after the off is a state gave the green light to retell the dystopian classic from a feminist perspective. according to report, so you add that taishan by the american author, sandra newman, will tell a story from the perspective julia protagonist, winston smith's love interests with many predicting a new version of a book. considered one of the most influential of the past century will inevitably transfer to the silver screen. however, on social media, the reception hasn't been so positive. all will's writings sexism is

a capitalist feature, not a bug. to remove a confronted and move the rigid, black and white politics of the story. i never say this about adaptations, but maybe just write a new story that makes space for nuance. instead of trying to make 1984 feminist. you know what george orwell is to stop in classic 1984 needs a politically correct modern day rewrite from a feminist perspective, said no one ever. this looks great, but we need to do something about the concept of the estate of an author has been dead for generations. nobody should need permission to revisit 1984. all right, well let's discuss this a bit further then and cross like to radio host and colon this john gordon also, you k equality law expert, linda bellow senior bay for a welcome. thanks for coming on, john. if i could start with you, some people love this idea, some people obviously don't. or where do you stand? 0 question to me. it was john, i apologize. i will tell you where you stand on. this is sort of rewriting from

a family's perspective. sorry. oh, when i 1st heard it, i thought what a lot nonsense it just need to happen subsequently looking into it, i can see no reason. if this woman wants to rewrite it the estate of giving permission as well. it's actually not a re, right? is a, it's another book and that's happened lots in literature recently. so i'm not too worked over at it. i don't think it's necessary. i think 1984 is a brilliant book. i don't think it's necessary and maybe that's because i'm a blog is going to be published by grantor, so he's not going to become abate. best seller. i doubt voucher. it's not a rewrite each. just nancy, i'm taking this is my inspiration. and this is what the woman might of thought am. so yeah, i think, okay, no problem am. i would have preferred to write a new book. i don't know why she needs to do this, but if she wants to do it, why not? linda let santia because i know the all, well estate says look, we felt there was a need for this for, for a long time. and finally we found somebody to rewrite it for us from

a different perspective. um, is it something you felt has been needed for a long time? i mean, maybe not in particular with reference to this novel, but generally speaking, is it a bad time? he got things from a different perspective and from a feminist perspective, yes, of course. and it didn't take away from the original book, but i'd, i don't know, i thought whether i'm, i'm, i should be minded to read it when it's published. and probably i read the original i. and so, so much of literature and in certainly in the west has been by men for men, that it's maps useful to have a different perspective. it might cause a number of us to think, to discuss, to explore some of the ideas that are in the original and to i know what do we

do with, with, with literature it, it is, inspires us. it causes us to thing, to discuss things with each other. that's a good thing. and i don't see any reason why any book shouldn't be subject to revisiting and re questioning a book that was written. i know 2300 years ago and her i can think of several that are still in prince to day. they could be real, it could, could be really this debit the original stance. and the update is something to be added. i'd suggest, i think i agree with linda and largely because this is a lot better than what's been happening recently, which is only one step away from burning books. what we don't want is cultural revisionism. if a book is written in a classic like 1984, yes as problematic bits in it, just like this problematic bits in shakespeare's work, what we need to be doing is seeing that as the source material is somebody them

wants to write something different. i saw an old female or a short japanese version of king lear, for example, which had a totally different aspect to it. i assure nath cello, where othello was actually played by a white person, a german production. and it was fascinating because when he got to the racism, so we shouldn't just say no, it should be like this. what i don't like even you the host you are calling it or rewrite. it is not to rewrite. it's a supplementary book. and as, as a, at the moment we're just very close towards book burning. you know, if you look at people or j. k. rowling, and you look at a new blight and all these things. you don't have to like a book, but you can understand its context and i think that's what we need to get to there too many students now who are having trigger warnings, who don't want to look at something which is perhaps difficult. that's what we, that's what, that's what life's about, isn't it reading some and thinking,

i don't agree with that. oh that guys this a lot wounds that i also agree with linda. mostly. she was written by men as a historical fact more more literature been written by women now which is good thing. although there is a feeling among many righteous, male, righteous. of course, that is almost import, impossible to get published. if you are a man and protect it, but if you are getting published into so many to look at this. yeah. in her linda, can i can i just come to you, lynn? because i know, and i just mentioned there, i used the word re written and that's fair enough, but we haven't ready yet to we. we haven't really. i mean i don't know how much she's going to change me, maybe will read it and will be outrage. does she have to be careful how she rewrites is low vaughn? isn't it freedom? an expression, artistic expression is part of literature. so it is, some chaps are going to be, so what's the word vulnerable about

a woman writing a book that puts a different spin on things. and then there's something wrong with asking what i was trying to say. lenders are not, you know, the concern isn't about who writes it is about how they rewrite it. i mean, there are certain things that you will take as gospel for in 1984 and always refer to it, you know, dystopian novel coming through in our everyday lives right now. how far can she go when she, when she is rewriting asthma, feminist perspective, before people sort of go hang on a minute. well, which people at the good seeing surely if ideas the ex, expiration of free extra exploration of ideas. and if she writes a book, she's taken an idea which has already been published, taken the, some of the really important significant things about the book and we visited. this is good. we haven't seen the book yet, that we will read it. i mean,

it matter. i mean, that's what i was trying to say. emerald, sort of thing on your price is already, but oh wow. didn't we go either? either. i think i'll be reading it. it doesn't really appeal to me. however, i don't want band cuz you can't ban books because if you start banning books, you as bad as the people on the other side who has to say an almost burning them. so this woman, she writes, it will judge it all from our different perspectives. and then actually move on, but i've got to say, i don't like the idea of banning if from for his out. i thought some of your comments, the comments are that some of your viewers had said on twitch, i guess i just thought that was bad because it's a kind of censorship and we don't need them. yeah, i mean, i'm sorry, linda, i was just gonna say, do you think rule a bit to edgy these days? i mean, i was reading one of the comments, one of them, what is from journalists or foreign port, joseph watson. he said, a book on propaganda will be rewritten to conform to modern propaganda. i mean, he can, it's funny bird. i mean, is he, is he going to far or does he have a point?

oh dear ah, what are we call it calling? if we didn't, don't like something equally propaganda. if the book is well written, if it's interesting, then surely if it makes us think this is a good thing, we don't have to necessarily compare, come, you know, compare and contrast the 2 different books. one book is stimulating a woman to revisit some of the important significant things of the 1st book. and she makes a 2nd book and we read it. we like it or we don't like it. what we mustn't do is bennett. absolutely. john, i suppose. i mean, i don't want to sound ignorant here, but this could sort of spark a new trend you think in looking at novels and rewriting the, from a different perspective. 11 of my colleagues in the office said we should look at animal farm from farmers perspective and it says, open up

a whole new realm of where we can go. well, i think that holy rome is there anyway, often watches don't talk about where the influences are, but you can track it back. i think it's there. i think it's perfectly acceptable if a woman wants to rewrite it, i thought was interesting because they, they talked about, you know, she had a different attitude to the party than them. winston. and i think that is interesting to explore whether it will become a best seller, la george or world. her book is i'm not so sure. but listen, we motion ever start from the premise that this must be brandon and paul, joseph watson. his interest in that he's one of the commentators, he's the man who's against all this cancelled culture. if this was somebody trying to cancel, take counsel 1984. he would be up in arms, he would remaining the barricade. you can't have it both ways. free speech history speech, frederick brush is really important. it might be the worst book in the world. it might be the greatest book in the world, the woman a thief, and written it yes,

but let alone published it. i don't think so i'm going to come to it with an open mind as i say, it doesn't particularly interest me, but i'm a blog at all. so i loved 1984. i don't need to know why winston is like this about that. i don't want to know that i just take that book for what it is and a massive influence on me as a child when i 1st wrote it, you know, we are in a smart world at the moment arm. we were to kill a mockingbird, which we all read when we would do to levels is now been banned because it is racist because some of the language difficult attack. linda, i read. yeah. and i just but to slide the world mad. sorry, linda, linda, just like we're to linda place. we've only got about 1520 seconds left. well, freedom of speech, freedom of thought. can we have freedom of who i want to think beach stimulation to motivate people. i ideas. i don't like as well as ideas. i do like that, i think is what civilization should be wrong. and i certainly want university

should be run on. but what's happening 1st is that the bo, which is these. paul loves men and women, black and white. they know what eddie did, that might upset their koji view of the world. we're gonna change that. an e mail, i'm society will be wrecked. and i, i've been told to wrap it up. it's been really good to get faith. your views on this and mine tell you that was that ready? house and coldness don't go into nor say you k, a quality door expert, then the bellows. thank you very much. thank you. thank you. thank you for watching . just on half i to moscow or back again. ah ah .