is to be sexually submissive. the mother and child flew to boston in july of 2020, where griffin picked them up in his tesla and drove them to his ludlow house. at the house, the torso was directed to engage in and did engage in unlawful sexual activity. now this long time cnn producer is now in custody, awaiting trial facing charges for 3 counts of sex trafficking, minors. i've convicted, he could face life in prison, but many are looking at this case and asking questions about the timing. why was it that these electronic devices were seized in august of 2020? the criminal complaint was filed, but he's just been arrested now. what exactly is going on here? people want clear answers, but at this point we don't have those answers. we've asked the f b i for comment requesting statement on the revelations. my folks news we awaits that reply. and that brings rather today's our turn with the more of the top the us

in june june . oh, is your media a reflection of reality?

in the world transformed what will make you feel safer? high selection for community. are you going the right way or are you being led to somewhere? which direction? what is true? what is great? in the world corrupted you need to descend, have join us in the depths or remain in the shallows. ah ah

ah ah ah hello and welcome to cross talk where all things are considered. i'm peter level in terms of security and defense, europe stands at a crossroads. should outdated cold war era structures be maintained like nato in over reliance on the u. s. or should europe define and shoulder responsibilities for its own defense? and what about russia? ah, to discuss these issues and more, i'm joined by my guess when decent in oslo. he is a professor at the university of south eastern norway as well as author of the book, great power politics in the 4th industrial revolution. and here in moscow we have

maxine schwarzkopf, he is the director of the center for advanced american studies at moscow state institute of international relations. right. gentleman cross up rules and effect, that means you can jump anytime you want and i always appreciate it again. let's go to glen 1st here. i, you know, glen, where does, where does your stand right now? because, you know, it's 30 years after the cold war. we still have nato, but we have a lot of the cold war agreements like on missiles and, and defense, and things like that. are either been thought it or being reassessed, but this isn't the cold war here. nato is not interested in, in negotiating missile treaties or not interested in pan european security arrangements. mean, it seems to me, from an outsider, looking in europe is kind of stuck it, it cherishes what was, but it didn't seem to work for it in the present. your thoughts? i agree, it has to be point out that we, we were working towards the pan european security architecture for many years. and

so the main breakthrough happened in 1975 was the helsinki course introducing the concept that they know that you're being security should rest on the concept of one side should not expand their security at the expense of the other side. so indivisible, security of this agreement was important for pan european security calls to play the foundation or negotiating them of the cold war in 1089. and this will some further develop the 990 with the charter paris for new york. and then finally, by 1994, it was created a common european security institution, which also is the and again, the key principle throughout this whole time, european secured our agreements was always the concept of indivisible security. however, then in the 1990 s, russia became severely weakened and this is when effectively in the west. we realized though, we don't actually have to listen to them anymore. and this is when we began to expand nato, and that has to be a point to how that made the expansion is. therefore, in violation of the principle of indivisible security of breaching every single

time european security agreement, we've had it, which has been the foundation for stable europe. and this is why predictably, the stability of europe is pioneer beam as basis now collapsing again. we're going to break the agreements. this curity will no longer be there. well, let me maxine, but this is not the 19th, nothing to ease hope is the 2nd decade of the 21st century and rushes saying no and, and what we get from european security structures, primarily nato, is that there's a, i was going to say inclusive, but actually, it's an explicit denial of rushes on security interest, and this is the, the conundrum that we're in right now. because russia saying you have to respect our security too. but nato says, but we're only a defensive alliance. well, you know, i want to ask both of you. i've never heard of any defensive lines. the constantly is expanding at the expense of others. go ahead back. see. i think there is

a broader understanding here in moscow that when we say a 0, it's really this is for america press in europe and therefore there is little incentive from austin to sheet any security arrangements on bilateral basis for being nations and rather get washington to talk about this issue seriously. if i were to continue kind of, you know, timeline to decline provided i think ever since the breakup of the soviet union in the ends of bipolar system. there were 2 major milestones in russia supposed to need one actually, you know, 1290 nice. when there was this honeymoon promissory, as mosque wanted to be great in this, you atlantic security juice and was talking about a structure and did not work out. and i think it ended with speech by

president putin in 2007, you know, the new wave of the me to russia, russia west relations was fraught with more conflict with georgia. regular liter mentioned other things and eat in the crisis. unit grade in 2014, our seems to was the 3rd wave of major concert between russia to particular that is now i fear, i really don't want for anything bad to happen, but i hear it very much looking like it's going to be pitching in some other major kind of 3rd crisis. well, you know, like in class, i mean, you started out with these, these pan european, you security structures. mean, why wouldn't that be in europe's interest? i mean, i don't understand it. i mean, if you're everyone is recognizing of the security interests of all others, isn't that the best of all possible worlds? because we're in the exact opposite right now. we're only one block of country

security is to find the others are denied. i mean, i, i don't understand what, why think europe is so against this. go ahead. no, and this is the problem. this is karen dilemma. 9, opponent 6 very. they will have to act in a way which undermine 0. so. so this all what they have this mantra now in the west where we say we can't do that. that's exactly what put in one spot. but we should be doing that if we allow russia to have security, then we can have a stable european secured architecture. so again, i think we close ourselves a bit too much in ideology from the 1990 s. and now we talk about the basic foundation upon european security agreements, such as expanding secured than others. we now refer to it as no, no, that would mean accepting a rational serve influence. so russia should not be allowed to tell you what to do and effectively what we've done this. we're sure that the narrative, because all the security agreement is the security blog, have, 3rd responsibility,

naples shouldn't offer and membership to ukraine, but natal frames or russia denied to you the right except for this membership. but that's not the problem. it's a nice way for them. to make it 3rd party. and so instead of being the main instigator instability in europe is essentially putting it on the sideline. thing. i know this is a conflict. 14, for example, russia and ukraine is trying to encourage sovereignty and we're just standing on the sidelines standing up for security and rights and you know, the, the, the usual stuff. so i think, i think we, that the europeans realize that this can continue, but i think for too long may wrapped itself in this ideology, which we can get out the best i can stay with you, glen. i mean, i, you know, the, making the claim that russia is, is staking a sphere of influence. but is that exactly what nato under the leadership of the united states is doing? it staked out it's sphere of influence and is even saying he will expand that fear

of influence even further. you mentioned ukraine. i mean they're, they're, they're, um, they're, they're accusing a one side who is doing something when they're doing it themselves. keep going, glen. well, this does seem like projection because in 2014 right before the nato countries supported the cool in ukraine and ukraine and russia, they came to the ear and they pledged like an hour begged to come up please. let's find the trilateral agreement between you, your crime and russia. so no one has exclusively influence over ukraine, like just to partner between 3 entities and a no more series of incidents. and you said no, no, that's not acceptable. so, so you're, you're right, by trying to draw ukrainian to nato. it's affecting the making and putting it under us. sarah influence, which goes against the whole concept of multilateralism wished upon european security architecture was supposed to be based upon. so, so no, it is, i think we, we really, we corrupted the language for to, along to the extent of it. it doesn't make any sense or it, maxine,

i finding also an oddity that, you know, the, the, it seems to me that it, nato desires insecurity because an insecurity gives it a reason to expand it. we have to secure this, we have to secure that we have to expand, we have to, we bring in more members, but the more they do that, the more they created a very unstable environment. i mean, they're doing exactly the opposite of what they claiming to do. go ahead. maxine, no longer to use the metaphor of this market, you know, with a liberal market driven economy, you don't have to get involved because there is invisible on the market that does the same. so, you know what happens in reality that monopolies get to a control most of the market. so i think in politics in similar fashion, you know, when you see, you don't have to go because, you know, states make their own free choices. so you don't have to tack crating back to you,

asian, you more or less the opinions decide their own state because there were some nation, i think there is a serious degree of cunning this, you know, when obviously know that there are different or political movements of pressure on this governance and that is done disguised as sovereign choice to join nato or some other was for organization that is obviously not in russia in storage. so russell's what ill again will say will speak to that because um you know, lately when you say you start out talking about pan european security, mean you, you, you, guardy gave the historical reference in 2004 to 2014 when and basically saying you know, we, every one needs to sit down and look at every one's others interests and then the, the west said no that we, i don't want to use victoria newlands words on this program. we're

a family program, but you know what she said about the e u in ago shading a, a settlement that would be a continent would accommodate everyone in ukraine? well, the problem with the nato frames all its strategic interest in the language values . so for some of these power in just by saying these are old values just seeking to democracy, whatever it makes me are problematic. because if you make a basic fundamental argument that you know us a stable security architecture needs to respect this year to both sides, then suddenly this has been completely new meaning in this ideology of nato. because now you're saying, oh no way we want, what process demanding is compromise on their values. so russia seeks their influence, we seek democracy so. so this whole concept of compromise and diplomacy and it goes out the window. but again, the reason why it was such a demand for this on this because now with self changed,

i often make the point that natal could be a source of stability to dismantle. that's to go back to what it was, which was status quo power. it was a defensive alliance and just sitting there, but what happened in $1009.00 is to began to expand and also invading other countries without the un monday as well. this is when nato became a revisionist, our natal would go back to its original mission. just sit there as a status quo power go back to being a defensive lines. them, it could be a source of stability. mike's point about them might actually not endure any more because no one is threatening to made nato. so it just depends on the lines. it will lose its purpose and it might not last. well, it also if i can chime in before we go to the break here, there's about 5000 um salaried employees in brussels that work for nato. this is a very lucrative a career for many, many people, and not to speak of the army producers as well. this is a good gig or you can use the word gripped. i'll leave it up to the viewer to

decide or a gentleman. i'm going to jump in here, we're going to go to a short break. and after that short break, we'll continue our discussion on european security, staying with our tea. ah ah . oh right now, there are 2000000000 people who are overweight or obese. it's profitable to sell food. this is tracey and sugary and salty and victim not at the individual level. it's not individual well power. and if we go on believing that never change is obesity epidemic. that industry has been influencing very deeply. the medical and scientific establishment. mm hm. what's driving the obesity epidemic? it's corporate in

welcome back to cross stock. we're all things are considered on peter level. this is the home addition to remind you. we're discussing european security with go back to the maxime here in moscow, and at the very end of the 1st part of the program, glen up pointed out nato. its mission is changed. it is now much more in tune with values. can you explain to our audience because i don't understand what do so called values in geopolitical interests and security have with each other because i don't think they have anything to do with each other. and i think that's the problem. go ahead, maxine, well, obviously, i mean there's always this horrible dilemma and we can debate how manufacturers it

really is a base, a strategy of the political military organization. but i think actually the end of the cold war, there were a few france and few ways to reach a boss. but i wanted to preserve as like, i mentioned the beginning of our problem, the american military a presence and you're the only way it could abstain was to enlarge in terms of territory. and you know, accept more members and also kind of enlarge politically. try to know and don't more political areas, but most importantly, there's gotta be a common enemy because any political military organization has to plan. and so i'm thinking, inviting ladies idea. if you know the alliance was to protect democracy, this lobby was bombed. didn't really play well and then you know,

all the sudden there was this notion of that nature. you'll have to be fighting international church or, you know, and all these resources are spent on that mission. but that, you know, russia correct. so the say was back into the or of the need to policy that unable to accepted the members and saying what the problem my call sometime ago was a brain dana or something like that. not the nature is brain dead. keep going. yeah . like the same, you know, it was right and in order to get get it back in life, it needed an enemy in the idea. busy of the united states to have china, to bring china to european theater as their me and the need to play play out quite well. because a lot of chinese money and wanted to get, you know,

deals with china in economy, technology and russia for liaison really well and all the small stations that common neighborhoods will be multi or some post on the c brain. they're all just sort of trauma to the agenda of major in the united states. and that please, well, i think with the major trans atlantic agenda as containing and detroit, russia, well, glen, and at the end of the day it's all about a reason for the united states to say in europe. ok, i mean, because, and then they, of course we need that. we have the enemy that was already mentioned in moscow. ok . it's a, it's very, very convenient. but it's kind of laziness of the mind. i mean, it is not really looking at the, the, the geopolitical realities of the present because in europe, in its current security format, with nato. i mean, it's going to push up against russia. a conflict is always possible when they do that. but it, that's what nato is going to be. it's constantly going to be searching for monsters

to slay, and that that inherently is unstable. but the americans are perfectly fine with it because at the end of the day, a lot of people will probably disagree with me, but they do it. does it really low cost at the end of the day? and so they how they have a unsinkable aircraft carrier in the western part of the region from continent and at low cost. they can um, project power, and that's what it really gets all down to. and again, as i said at the very end of the 1st part of the program, you can dismiss the, the arms manufacturers and budgets and things like that. i mean, it's quite cynical, but i think you know, most the time in geo politics the most cynical thing is the most obvious thing. go ahead, glenn. oh, well then this was a queue discussion to horse them of the cobra. good. much made this argument several times as well. if the u. s. and the soviet union would end this confrontation, they would have to recognize that will come at the cost of power as well. that is because the whole system which gave no so much power was structured according to

this mutual confrontation. and this is one of the reasons why i was so during the collapse the youth did not have to do so. it's secure and architecture instead, as to point it out to have an incentive and who use a nato as a hedge, a monic tool, which means to keep europe divided because because in my yearbook divided and you have the russians which marginalized and less of a role and then you have the rest of the europeans who become dependent on the united states for security. so for again, i think that's where we also the interest between the u. s. changes at some point because for the year that the recognized that by keeping the content divided in this way and not having any pioneer being secure 6 security architecture, the continental be divided, we can become less and less relevant in the world. so we want to look at their own problems now, but for the us, again, this is a company that becomes dependent on the us. the other half is the marginalized. so

i think am, i think it's, we would need the reforms. but to have the reformers, we need to address the challenges which for him, which were, which were being discussed seriously 30 years ago today. and we use the center of georgia and, you know, a democratic slogan hearing, actually talking about it, but claim, i mean it, if you, if europe is, is being used as a hedge, a monic tool that i agree with that. but this in europe limited options, i mean, because of its dependency. i mean, again, you know, we have 30 years out to the cold war of the u. s. is, is a dictating what europe security policy should be. certainly they're trying to do it with energy here. i can see how it makes europe stronger. more dependency makes it more irrelevant. can you address that real quick? yeah, no, i agree, but you'll have to see that us change is june a bit like now that you're talking about strategic calling me away from us. it's talking about european sovereign, the,

i don't think it can be achieved by the only bit rate you have on the front saying, you know, the europeans knew their own army, which that means it implies less relies and they don't less influenced by the u. s . i think and there are a lot of people who are noticing that this is about to take, but in order to have peace in europe, when do need to keep the americans are so close friends, but the not this dominant relationship. well, i'm a maxine, could it be any other way? i mean it's very messianic. the with the, the american approach here. i mean they, it's either had gemini or nothing. i, i don't, i don't see partnerships or they use that language all the time, but it's not a partnership of equals. it is, it's a hedge, a monic and, and, and rushes on. the short end of the stick you, let me ask you. and maxine, i mean, what in russia for russia, from russia's perspective, what would a pan european security structure look like? because the russians have offered it over the last 20 years,

a number of times. can you explain? can you explain to where we were, what a leon security would look like? absolutely. i think 1st and foremost, that would be your order that went into russia heavenly and would be your orders respectful of russia, national interest and security concerns. and that extending nature to most soviet state holdings, ukraine, georgia, in another room in particular, are the, obviously some of the red lines and must always and will have all looking at them as spoken in the anything that is, i think moscow can again negotiated. it's open to be just some protera that these things don't matter. but if you're looking at it and again hearing loss, i see there's a lot of sense that whatever you do or some medical or could you monitor interest

medication. but also that could be the case that the american political has lost strategic force 5 any each indeed, and their interest to me took into china. actually, united russia is anything about them or an interest. but if you are a b, i know a trauma on the rug lives in terms of security. it is exactly the type of reaction . and then you don't have to be surprised why all of a sudden russia, instead of our solution is part of the problem. that seems to be much to me. you know, mean a plan they, there was a tragic thing here. i mean a, because words matter words have impact here. and, you know, i see this inability to se seriously and honestly negotiate because you have denigrated your, the opposite side. so much russia gate obviously didn't help. we were all worried that rush gate would bleed into policy. it certainly has under the,

by the administration. you have a lot of the b team from obama. they still have scores to settle. i'm thinking and someone like victoria knew jake sullivan, people like this. and even, even if it became of absolute necessity to have negotiations, they can't because they can't on ring the bells of the rhetoric that they've been using for a good part of a decade. now address that issue now. well, obviously the ross has been demonized so far. now, we don't even talk about russian. are we talking about? so there is no discussion about russia secured the interest personality, you know, what is the thinking and assuming that it's also serving so it strikes them all. but i'll have to miss it all has been said though, that the key problem now exactly is because if they're having people who have the main loyalty has to be to nato and they call it the key, the key money that goes on and on again. and there's also the prospect of stability

in europe, for example, you know, the simple things like in the nonproliferation period, and it's not about spreading nuclear weapons. they have very clear rules themselves . so nuclear states, see the us put in germany and you can reference and belgium italy, netherlands, turkey and, but it says, all this is made nuclear sharing, so it's okay. it makes nato rolled military law famous treaty was supposed to prevent 1st strikes. you will find the 972, all the or p in the post, the americans withdrawing from intervals. who wants to meet on the nato asset that they're being federal. we have to have the natal solidarity. 6 so now the world for it, and now we just talk about how paranoid rush heaping exactly the same argument arguments that they're being only a few years earlier. and it's the same with the, i'm afraid it's america, you know, luckily, withdrawal. well, we need maybe some of that, right. so we'll have to repeat the monitor that done. no, actually it was the russia who was being the mileage. right. let me ask you

a quick question here of all the treaties that you just mentioned, russia initially, the withdrawal of any of the no, no rush, i follow the a, b, m i. and so it's, it's but again, if we will, but these are your be in an or global security institution. but the problem with our loyalty is always primarily tomato, like a military book in a loyalty from security. that's what we're, we heard on this program here. that's all the time we have gentlemen, and what i think my get some outflow and here in moscow, and i think our viewers are watching us here at ortiz. see next on remember across cycles. ah ah ah

ah ah. oh, he digs into shop revelations, at the manchester arena, suicide bomber had links to a night to train terrorist inquiry into the atrocities. his submissions from the you guys, home office and counterterrorism police going to extremes. anti vax is in germany . brown did not cease by the media as police fallen alleged assassination flop by radicals opposed to code with restrictions. so just cove it that is a danger to humanity. russia.