[000:00:00;00] ah, ah hello and welcome to cross stock, were all things considered on peter level in terms of security and defense, europe stands at a crossroads. should outdated cold war air structures be maintain like nato in over reliance on the u. s. or should europe define and shoulder responsibilities for its own defense?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 southeastern 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. gentlemen, cross up rules and effect, that means you can jump any time you want, and i always appreciate it again. let's go to glen 1st here. 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 defense and things like that are either been thought 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. i 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 or in the present your thoughts. i agree to point out that we, we were working towards the pioneer p and security architecture for many years. so the main breaks happened in 1975 with the hill thinking courts introducing the concept that the security should rest on the content on one side should not found a security at the expense of other sites. so in indivisible security, this agreement was important for the security complaint on patient or negotiating the end of the cold war in 1089. and this will some further develop the 990 with the charter powers for new europe. and then finally, by 994, it was created a comment on the repeal security institution, which was always the and again, the key principle throughout this whole european secured agreements with always because of indivisible security. however, then in the 990 s,

russia became severely weekends and this is when effectively in the west. we realized though, we don't actually have to listen to them anymore. and they want to began to expand nato, and it has to be a point how that made expansion is therefore, in violation of the principle of individual security breaching every single year in security agreement we've had which has been the foundation for a stable europe. and this is why predictably the stability of europe is pioneer. beam is now collapsing again. when you break the agreements, carrots will no longer be there. well, let me maxine, but this is not the 19, nothing d's. okay. the 2nd page of the 21st century and rushes saying no and, and what we get from, 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 russia zone 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, it depends the alliance will, you know, i want to ask both of you. i've never heard of any defensive lines that constantly is expanding at the expense of others. go ahead back. see. i think there is a broader understanding here in moscow. ringback that when we say nice, you know, it's really for america press in europe and therefore there is little incentive for moscow 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 this, you know, title i did 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's approach to need one

actually, you know, 1290 nice when there was this honeymoon promissory, as muslim, wanted to be great in this, you, atlantic security diffusion was talking about a structure and did not work out. and i think it ended with speech by president in 2000. so, you know, the new wave of the, me to russia, russia, west relations, talk more conflict. we're in georgia. regular liter mentioned other things and eat in the crisis unit in 2014. our seems to was the 3rd wave of major conflict between russia to particular that is now i fear, i really don't want for anything bad to happen, but i fear it very much. looks 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 not be in europe's interest? i mean, i, and 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 then this is the problem. this is the security dilemma. if you deny the opponent security, they will have to act in the way which undermines your security. so. so this all and what we have this monitor now in the west where we say we, we can't do that. that's exactly what put in one spot. but then we, we should be doing that if we allow russia top security and then we can have a stable european security architecture. so again, i think we close ourselves a bit too much in ideology from the 1990 s. and now when we talk about the basic foundations of european security agreements, such as, you know, don't expand the security of expense or more. we now refer through it us. no, no, that would mean accepting

a russian stair of influence. so russia should not be allowed to tell you what to do and effectively what we've done. this was shifted the narrative because what open european security agreement state is that the security blogs have certain responsibility neighbor shouldn't offer an membership to ukraine. but instead of made of frames or russia, the nice ukraine, the right to accept this membership of the problem is a nice way for nato effectively make itself a 3rd party. and so instead of being the main instigator of instability in europe, it says putting it on the sideline. thing. i know this is a conflict. 14, for example, russian ukraine is trying to curb it's sovereignty and we're just standing on the sidelines standing up for security and rights and you know, the do, the, this usual stuff. so i think it, i think with that the europeans realized that this con, continue bug. i think you 1st to long made or wrapped itself in this ideology, which we can get away. i don't the best i can stay with you, glen. i mean, i,

you know, the, making, the claim that russia is, is taking a sphere of influence. but is that exactly what nato under the leadership of the united states is doing? it staked out it's fear of influence and is even saying it will expand that fear of influence. even a brother, you mentioned ukraine. i mean, they're can, they're mean they're, um, they're, they're accusing a one side who it's doing something when they're doing it themselves. keep going, glen over all this about 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 either ukraine and russia. so no one has exclusively influence over ukraine, like just to partner between 3 entities and a no more serious of infants and you said no, no, that's not acceptable. so, so you're, you're right to buy a, trying to draw your cranium to nato. it's affecting the, making it, putting it under us serve 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 the it, it doesn't make any sense or it might seem um, will i find it 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. they, 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, what is the matter for all this market? you know, the frequently see that a liberal, like a market driven economy, you don't have to get involved because there's this invisible arm of the market

that does the space. and, 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 tang crating back to you, asian, you more or less, you decide their own state because there are some nation, i think there is a serious degree of becoming this. you know, when, obviously you know that there are different political movements of pressure on this dominance. and that is that this guy has stubborn choice to join nato or some other was from your organization that is obviously not interested in russia in sturbridge, the russian holes. what ill again will say will speak to that because um, you know, we, we were used, you start out talking about han europe, ian security. mean, you, you, you, guardy gave the historical reference in 2004 to 2014,

written in basically saying, you know, we, every one needs to sit down and look at every one's other's interest. and then the, the west said no that we, i don't wanna use victoria newlands words on this program. we're a family program, but you know what she said about the you negotiate in a, a settlement that would be a continent would accommodate everyone in ukraine? well, the problem with the nato frames all is strategic interest in the language of value . so if somebody is powering just by saying these are all values just seeking to democracy, whatever it makes, very 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 seek sphere

influence. we seek democracy. so. so this is the whole concept of compromise and diplomacy. and it goes out the window, but again, and then the reason why it was such a demand for this on the all this, because nato itself changed. i often make the point that nato could be a source of stability does have to dismantle nest, to go back to what it was, which was the status quo power was a defensive alliance, and just sitting there. but what happened in $99.00 is to began to expand and also invading other countries without the un monday as well. this is what made it became a revisionist, our nato would go back to its original mission. just sit there as a status quo, power go back to being defensive. aligns them. it could be a source of stability about mike's point about them might actually not the endure anymore because no one is threatening to made nato. so if it's just offensive lines, it would lose its purpose and it might not last. well he, 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 nature. this is

a very lucrative a career for many people and not to speak of the arms 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. stay with our ah ah ah ah, ah ah, ah, ah,

a ah with moon when i was showing the wrong one. 0, just don't move to shape out disdain because the african and engagement it was the trail. when so many find themselves worlds apart, we used to look for common ground. 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 victim. not at the individual level. it's not individual. well our 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 a 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 ah okay, go back to your maxime here in moscow. and at the very end of the 1st part of the program, glenn pointed out nato and it's,

it's 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 quote unquote dilemma. and we can debate how manufacturers, it really is a base, a strategy of the political military organization. but it actually ends of the cold war. there were a few, a few ways to ball. but, you know, if it wanted to preserve as like i mentioned in the beginning of our problem, the american military a presence and you're the only way it could have the state was to enlarge in terms

of territory and you know and 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 in making ladies idea this, you know, the elias was to protect democracy in yugoslavia was really play well and then it all the sudden there was this notion of that need to have to be fighting international churches. and all these resources were sent that mission, but that, you know, russia correct. so the say was backed into the 4 of the major policy that enabled the requisition to accept members and saying what the president mcgraw some time ago was

a brain dad or something like that. nature is brain dead. keep going. yeah, this is zach the say. you know, it was great in order to get it back in life, it needed anatomy and the idea. busy busy of the united states to have china, to bring china to european here as early. and i need you to play out quite well because a lot of your patients on the chinese money and wanted to get, you know, deals with china and economy technology and russia. frunner liaison, really well and all the small pieces that come with all this work. so let's see. she bring their own historic trauma to the agenda and united states. and that plays well, i think the major transatlantic agenda contain and determine russia well and glen, i it 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 to,

we have the enemy that was already mentioned there. moscow. ok, 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 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 need the u. s. 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't dismiss the in the arms manufacturers and budgets and things like that. i

mean, it's quite cynical, but i think, you know, most of the time in g politics, the most cynical thing is the most obvious thing. go ahead, glen. well then this was a key discussion to how to worse them of the cobra. good, much made this argument several times as well that 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 with which gave us so much power was structured according to this mutual confrontation. and this is one of the reasons why i want to so the unit collapsed. the youth did not have to do so. it's secure and architecture instead, as you pointed out, to have an incentive and who use a nato as a hedge, a monic tool, which means to keep your divided because because in a year divided and you have the russians which become marginalized and less of a role and then you have the, the rest of the europeans will become dependent on the united states for security. so for again, i think that's where it,

why also the interest between the u. s. changes at some point because they even have to recognize that by keeping the continent divided in this way and not having independence being secure 6 security architecture, the continental give divided the week and 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 reforms, we need to address the challenges which, which were, which were being discussed seriously 30 years ago. but today, and we used to say no jargon than the, you know, democratic slogan, airing, actually talking about it. because, i mean, 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 me again, you know,

we have 30 years after the cold war. 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 the rules of 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, there are 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 most 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, i don't 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 me with a security would look like i think 1st and foremost, it would be a european security order with russia. secondly, a respectful of russia's national interest and security concerns. and that expanding need to both soviet state outside holdings for crane georgia and will go and bowers, in particular, are the,

obviously some of the red lines and moscow all this. and we'll have always looking at them as you know, anything on that is i think, must a negotiated is open to these negotiations. just general that these things don't matter. but if you look at it, and again here in law school, i can see there's a lot of the sense that whatever you do, it's for a lot of interest. that could be the case. but also the could be the case that the american political lead us law strategic for cyber. any the deed in their interest to make, to contain china and russia is anything by them or an interest. but if you go to russia, you know, a red line in terms of security, it is exactly the type of reaction you're going to face. and then you don't have to be surprised. that's why all of

a sudden rush instead of being part of the solution, is part of the problem a me, you know, a been a clinic being that was a tragic thing here. i mean, his words matter matter words have impact here. and, you know, i see this inability is 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 russia 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 of someone like victorian coolant, 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. well, obviously the ross has been demonized so far. now, we don't even talk about russia we talk about. so there is no discussion about

russia secured the interest personality, you know, what is the thinking and assuming that has also serving so it strikes them up, but i'll have to miss it also has been said though, that the key problem now exactly is because instead of having people who have the main loyalty has to be to nato nato. so there is the key, the key money that goes on and on again. and this goes across the prospect of stability in your, for example, you know, the simple things like in the proliferation, previous business model, spreading nuclear weapons, they have very clear rules. the nuclear weapons side, nuclear states. see the u. s. has put in germany and ribbons in belgium, italy, netherlands, turkey and but it says that this made nuclear sharing. so it's okay. that makes nato a role military, same or treaty was supposed to prevent 1st strikes. it will find the 19th and due to all the pm's, a post,

the americans withdrawing from infantry wants to meet the nato asset that they're being federal. we have to have the natal solidarity. so now the world for it. and now we just talk about how paranoid rush heaping exactly the same argument arguments, but there being only a few years earlier. and it's the same with the trade in america, unilaterally withdrawal as well. we need maple some of that, right? so we will have to repeat the montero that actually was russia who was being violated. right, let me ask you a quick question. what are we in here? of all the treaties that you just mentioned? russia initially the withdrawal of any of those? no, no rush, all the grid a baby am i and so it's, it's but again, if we went but these are your be and then or global security of yours. but the problem with our loyalty is always primarily to made the 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 i think my get them out slow and here in moscow, and i think we're still watching us here at r t. c in exxon. and remember across cycles. ah, ah, i mean, you must certainly do that in as you want to don't to stand together. we'll continue to stand together against russia media in germany. repeat some of the areas that we doubt this made. they noticed visa, shockey daughter about their billing influence, other nations, french, u. k. and even latin america and other countries in future than they knew where to high from cycle alone with members of your household. so please, please, please,

please. we're going to continue to fight with russia must not be allowed in germany. i don't want y'all to common leave it to show out. so the an hour enough is the 5 and the yes to in the 80 the enough mrs. guns until sunday. scientific knowledge has never been so readily available to everyone across the globe, but overwhelmed by information. how can we distinguish the real science from the one being imposed upon us? we're living in a world where there are many people who have a vested interest in finding information, finding scientific evidence, and discredit, even the notion that science could provide the truth about the natural world in the pursuit of business goals. large corporations, a challenge strongly by scientific evidence if you're emotionally invested and free markets, them climate change is

a serious emotional threat because dealing with that means we have to change our approach to business industries or on the war by attempting to debunk legitimate science by producing new evidence in science writing science. that's how ignorant says manufacture their attention only seeking to the rail science rolling. using sy, shell ah, he digs into shock revelations at the manchester arena, suicide bomber had linked to a nato train terrorist as the inquiry into the trustees. these submissions from the you case, home office in counter terrorism, police turning on the president, media outlets that are usually very jo, button friendly start to grumble. he shouldn't run for another term, not just covey this the danger to humanity. russia is the world to wake up to