bid scientists a warning of a possibly greater threat in the form of ancient viruses that are lying dormant under the arctic ice. russia has taken the lead calling on the arctic council to start examining such viruses urgently as melting permafrost well means. the end of the day the virus is, could ultimately be unleashed on humanity. deadly ancient viruses, revive horror movie. no reality rushes permafrost is melting. viruses and bacteria that were trapped in frost for thousands of years now could wake up. there are extremely good papers that say yes, you can revive bacteria from deep permafrost. russia establishes an organization to examine these threats. with that are sure, there are a number of well documented outbreaks of paleo infections that had arisen from

thermal degradation of permafrost, and the arctic and sub up to greens, anthrax, smallpox tuberculosis, one virus, has already been found the pits. a virus has defrosted from the pan, the frost, and right after that it started attacking and killing amoebas. luckily it is not harmful to humans, but what else is hidden in the frozen soil? what is awaiting us in 2022 and your programmer tons of a top of the ah, we talked about a space rate on hypersonic weapons. we talk about the fact that would be a rain check on fossil energy. we talked about a democratic democracy, prizes in the us. so if you don't think that's outrageous enough, it is only because today the everyday life seems to me as that some who's been

doing this for 30 years. it's very difficult actually, to make our re depiction, compete with the reality of the rages day by day life that we're seeing a ah hello and welcome to cross talk. we're 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 europe stands at a crossroads, should outdated cold war era structures be maintained like nato in over reliance on the u. s. or should europe define and shoulder responsibilities for its own defense?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 our slow he is a professor at the university of se or 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, gentlemen. crosstalk 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. i, you know, glen, where does, where does europe 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 i'm being reassessed,

but this isn't the cold war here. nato is not interested in, in negotiating missile treaties or not interested in a pan european security arrangements. mean, it seems to me from an outsider, looking in europe, is kind of stuck it, it, it cherishes what was, but it doesn't seem to work forward 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 other side. so indivisible, security of this agreement was important for pan european security calls to play the foundation for 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 being 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 19 nothing. these has the 2nd decade 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. 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 in asia, it's really 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 gaps 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's approach to need. one actually, you know, 1290 nice. when was this honeymoon promissory, as moscow wanted to be great in this, you atlantic security juice and was talking about discovery has fewer insecurity structure and did not work out. and i think it ended with speech by president putin, into, you know, the new wave of the, me, to russia, russia, west relations for more conflict with georgia. regular liter mentioned other things and eat in the crisis unit. great. 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 hear 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 that 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 1990s. 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 all pan 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 natal. 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. no, no, this is a conflict. 14, for example, russia, 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 realize that this con, continue bug. i think you 1st to long made or up to self in this ideology, which we can get away. i don't the better 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 it's that exactly what nato under the leadership of the united states is doing. it staked out its fear of influence and is even saying he will expand that 3 of influence even further. you mentioned ukraine. i mean, they're can, they're would, they're, um, they're, they're accusing a one side who it's doing something when they're doing it themselves. keep going, lynn. well, there's nothing like projection because in 2014 right before the nato countries to part of the, the cool in ukraine and ukraine and russia. they came to the ear and they've pledged like an hour begged to come up please. let's find the trilateral agreement between ear, ukraine, and russia. so no one has exclusively influence over ukraine,

like just to partner between 3 entities and 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 it, it doesn't make any sense or it, maxime, i find it also an oddity that, you know, the, the, it seems to me, the nato desires insecurity because an insecurity gives it a reason to expand it. the, the, 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 frequency that a liberal in market driven economy, you don't have to get involved because there is invisible on 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 the 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, you decide their own be because they're a sovereign nation. i think there is a series degree of economists, you know, when obviously you know that they're different. who's your political pressure on this donors? and that is that this guy as sovereign choice to join nato or some other western group organization that is obviously not interested in russia in storage. so russell's well it glen will also we'll speak to that because um you know,

lately when you say you start out talking about han european security, mean you, you, you, guardy gave the historical reference in 2014, 2014 written in basically saying, you know we, every one needs to sit down and look at every one's other's interests and then the, the west said know 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 of value . so. so some of these power in just by saying these are old 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, the reason why there was such a demand for this on this because nato itself 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 was a defensive alliance and just sitting there. but what happened in $1009.00 is the 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 a defensive aligns them. it could be a source of stability about mike's point about they might actually not the endure anymore because no one is threatening to made nato. so it just depends on the 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 nato. this is a very lucrative a career for many, 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. all right, gentlemen, 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, ah ah, join me every thursday on the alex salmon. sure. i'll be speaking to guess will the world of politics, sport, business, i'm sure business. i'll see you then. ah

ah, welcome back to cross stock were all things are considered on people bill,

this is the home addition to remind you. we're discussing european security with those. go back to the maxime here in moscow, and at the very end of the 1st part of the program, glen, i'm pointed out the nato a 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, obviously, i mean there's always this horrible dilemma and we can debate how manufacturers it really is a, it's a strategy of the political military organization, but it actually ends of the cold war. there were a few,

a few ways to reach a boss. but, you know, you wanted to preserve as like, i mentioned in the beginning of our problem, the american military presence in europe. the only way it could have said was to enlarge in terms of territory. and, you know, accept more members and also kind of in large, politically, try to know more political areas. but most importantly, there's gotta be a common enemy because any political military organization has to plan and me. so i think in this idea that, you know, the last was to protect democracy, not he was lot, it was long, really play well. and then all of a sudden there was this notion of may have to be fighting international or, you know, and all these resources are spent on that mission. but that, you know,

rational threats. so a was back into the or of the need to policy that unable to accept the members and sustain what the problem i promised sometime ago was a brain dana or something like that. not the nature is brain dead. keep going. yeah, i was just like saying was right and in order to get get it back in life if needed an enemy and the idea. busy 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, jack, knowledge and russia for liaison really well. and all the small faces that common neighborhoods will be faulty or some post of the c brain. they're all just sort of

trauma to the agenda of major in the united states and that place. well, i think with the major trans atlantic agenda from jean and detroit, russia, well, glen, 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 of course we need to, we have the enemy that was already mentioned in moscow. ok. it's very, very convenient. but it's kind of laziness of the mind. i mean, it is not really looking at maybe the geopolitical reality of the present because in europe, in its current security format, with nato. i mean, it's going to push up against russia and accomplish is always possible when they do that. but that's what nato is going to be. constantly going to be searching for monsters to slay, and that inherit really 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 have, they have a unsinkable aircraft carrier in the western part of the region, continent and at low cost they can 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 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 geo 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 which gave them so much power was structured according to this mutual confrontation. and this is one of the reasons why when the soviet union collapsed, us did not have to do so. it's security architecture instead,

as to point that 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 a year divided and you have the russians which become 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 they even have to recognize that by keeping the content divided in this way and not having any penny or being secure secured 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, which more, which were being discussed seriously 30 years ago today. and we use the center

jargon and you know, democratic slogan airing. actually talking about the image and the 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 after 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 deals of the 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, but only this week you have a saying, you know, the europeans need 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 a very bad 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 mean, maxine, could it be any other way? i mean it's very messianic. the with the, the american approach here. i mean, 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 sticker. let me ask you, 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, it would be your duty or russia. happily,

it 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 anything other than that is i think muscle again, again, negotiated is open to be just that these things don't matter, but if you're looking at it and again hearing loss, but i could see there's a lot of the sense that whatever us do or some medical or kids might interest medication. but also that could be the case that the american political lead has lost strategic force 5, any, indeed, and their interest to me in 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 we're going to see and then don't have to be surprised what all of a sudden russia, our solution is part of the problem. that seems pretty much put me in a plan. they the tragic thing here. i mean, 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 of someone like victoria new 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 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 instruct them all, but i'll have it all that's 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 that prospect of stability in your, 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 u. s. s put in germany and you can reference and belgium italy, netherlands, turkey and, but it says that they don't nuclear sharing. so it's okay. makes nato role military law. same 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 the natal 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, but there being only a few years earlier and he's the same with the, i'm afraid it's america. you know, luckily, withdrawal. well, when you maybe some of that, right, so we all have to repeat the monitor that done. actually it was the russia who was been violating let me ask you a quick question here of all the treaties that you just mentioned, russia initially, the withdrawal of any of those. 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 b and then 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. all the time we have gentlemen, and i think my get some outflow and here in moscow, and i think our viewers are watching us here at r t c and exxon. and remember across cycles, ah, ah, failure to allow bond markets to reflect to market forces as resulted in a bifurcation in the economy, where the most corrupt are rewarded for committing crimes. j. p. morgan being a prime example. and if you have morals or ethics,

you're penalized. if you're not out there still stealing alluding, then you're going to be homeless. and that's american today, is that with headlines right now, here one r t, russia, publishers a list of proposals to nato for maintaining security. the deputy foreign minister saying the ball is now and the alliance is court when it comes to de escalation. in the program, we dig into disturbing revelations at the manchester arena, suicide bomber had linked to a former nato soldier ton terrorist. as an inquiry, his submissions from the u. k is home office encounter terror force and drought.