science lighting science. that's how ignorant says manufactured their attention only seeking to the rail science rolling using stier to against the shelf. ah or no german language channel r t d e is embroiled in a legal dispute as europe's media regulator. questions it's broadcast license ortiz management stresses the license was obtained in full compliance with european law. russia publishes a list of proposals to nato, for maintaining security with the country is deputy foreign minister saying the ball is now in the alliances court when it comes to de escalation. and an inquiry has revealed that the manchester arena, suicide bomber had links to

a former nato soldier, turned terrorist as your world news headlines for the sour stick around for your a world news, and just about 60 minutes. ah, ah ah ah hello and welcome to cross talk where all things are considered on peter level in terms of security and defense, europe stands at a crossroads. should outdated cold war air structures be maintained like nato in over reliance on the u. s. or should europe define and shoulder responsibilities for its own defense?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,

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 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. gentleman cross type roles in 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 defense and things like that are either been thought or to, 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 in cherish is what was but it doesn't seem to work or in the present your thoughts. i agree to point out that we, we were working towards the p and security architecture for many years. so the main breaks happened in 1975. was the hill thinking, of course, introducing the concept or the security should rest on the concept on one side and not security at the expense of the other side. so in indivisible security, this agreement was important for security because it's on vacation or negotiating the end of the cold war in 1089. and this was further develop the 990 with the charter of powers for new europe. and then finally, by $994.00, it was created a comment on the repeal security institution, which was always the and again, the key principle throughout this whole year, p insecure, the agreements with always because of indivisible security. however,

been 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 they had to point to 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 stable europe. and this is why predictably the bill of europe, 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 19th, nothing. he's 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's 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 get washington to talk about this issue seriously. if i were to continue kind of, you know, title i did decline, provided i think, ever since the breakup of the soviet union in the end of my 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, and this, you atlantic security juice and was talking about this comprehensive european security structure and did not work out. and i think it ended with speech by president into, you know, the new wave of the way to russia, russia, west relations was fought more conflict with georgia. regular liter mentioned other things and eat in the crisis unit in 2014. and we're seeing that 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, thinking claiming 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 now and this is the problem. this is karen dilemma. 9, opponent 6 mary. they will have to act in a way which undermined 0 securities. so. so this all have this mantra now in the west where we say we can't do that. that's exactly what putting ones, but then we should have 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 990 s. and now we talk about the basic foundation of upon european security agreements, such as expand security and others. we now refer to it as no, no,

that would mean accepting irrational serv influence. so russia should not be allowed to tell you what to do and effectively what we've done. this was the narrative because what opened your security agreement is the security blog. 3rd responsibility neighbor shouldn't offer membership to ukraine, but instead made of frames or russia denies 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 instigators, instability in europe is putting it back 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 setting 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 about, i think for too long may wrap itself in this ideology,

which we can get our way out, the better i can stay with you, glen. i mean, i, you know, the, making the claim that russia is, is staking a sphere of influence. man, 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 further. 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, lynn. well, there's about seem like projection because in 2014 right before the nato countries to part of the, the coolant 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 ear, ukraine 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 to buy a, trying to draw your cranium to nato. it's affecting the making and putting it under

us serve influence, which goes against the whole concept of multilateralism, which depend european secured 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 day 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, the frequency that a liberal, like a market driven economy, you don't have to get involved because there was in visible 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 crane back to you, asian, you more or less, you decide their own baby because there were some nation. i think there is a serious degree of turning this, you know, when obviously you know that there are different political movements of pressure on this governance. and that is done disguised as a sovereign choice to join nato or some other western group organization that is obviously not in russia in security. so rush, 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 others 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, the, the problem with the nato frames all its strategic interest in the language value. so it is power in just by saying these are all values. so just seeking to found 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 but 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 where we want, what process demanding is of the compromise on our values. so russia seek sphere

influence. we seek democracy. so this is the whole concept of a compromise and diplomacy. and it goes out the window. but again, that, that the reason why there was such a demand for this on this, because now with self changed, i often make the point that nato could be a source of stability does have to dismantle nestor, go back to what it was, which was the status quo power, he wasn't defensive alliance and just sitting there. but what happened in $99.00 is to began to expand and also invading other countries without you, amanda gus wrote. this is when nato became a revisionist, our natal would go back to its original mission. just sit there us that a scope, power go back to being in the offensive alliance. them. it could be a source of stability. mike's point about them might actually not the endure anymore, because no one is threatening to invade nato. so if it's not offensive lines, it would lose its purpose and it might not last very 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 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 gonna 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 tea. ah, ah, ah, failure to allow markets to reflect to market forces has 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 a loading, then you're going to be homeless. and that's american today. it's just that oil and gas manufacturing, electricity, telecom, chrysler, taishan. all of them now have a t type of infrastructure connected to the internet was clearly realizing this disruptive potential so that those countries cons ignore it. because it threatens national security. if we take the nato e u countries, virtually all of them subscribed to certain doctrines. and maintains selling but task forces. they are a cyber army on behalf of a country. that's their job. ah, welcome back to cross stock were all things are considered on peter la bell. this is the home addition to remind you. we're discussing european security

with those. go back to 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 interest 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 wirelessly. i mean, there's always this quarter dilemma and we can debate how manufactured the dilemma really is geo politics and strategy of the political military organization. but they've been actually under the cold war, there were a few problems and few ways to we could have the boss, but you know,

if you wanted to preserve and like i mentioned in the beginning of our problem, the american military presence in europe are the only way it could have the state was to enlarge in terms of territory and you know, except 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 think in making ladies idea this, you know, the elias was to protect democracy in yugoslavia was really play well. and then, you know, all the sudden there was this notion of that nature, you'll have to be fighting international churches. and all these resources are spent on that mission, but that, you know,

russia correct. so the say was backed into the end 4 of the major policy that requisition to accept members. and so saying what the problem a call sometime ago was a brain dad or something like that. not the nature is brain dead going? yeah. just like the saying was right in order to get it back in life it needed an enemy. and the idea. busy busy of the united states, to have china, to bring china european theater as their enemy didn't to play, play out quite a lot of chinese money and wanted to get, you know, deals with china in economy, acknowledged and russia liaison really well. and all the small faces that common neighborhoods will be multi or some posts of the c brain,

their office sort of trauma to the agenda of me to the united states. and that place, well, i think with the major trans atlantic agenda 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. okay. 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 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, 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 in 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 how to worse them of the cobra. good. much made this argument several times as well, but 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 doing the collapse the us did not have to do so it's secure and architecture instead as to point 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 personalized 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, 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 secured architecture, the continental be divided, we can become less and less relevant in the world. so we only look at our own problems now, but for the us, again, this is a constant. it becomes dependent on the us, the other half is the, is marginalized. so i think, i think it's, we would need the reforms, but to have the reformers we need to address the challenges which, which were, which were being discussed seriously 30 years ago. but today,

and we use the center jargon and you know, democratic slogan airing, actually talking about the u. m. a big claim. i mean, it, if you, if europe is just 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 the rules of the 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 that 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 rushes on the short end of the stick here. 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 you, what a leon security would look like. letting 1st and foremost it would be a european security order with russia. handley, it would be

a subtle of rushes, national interest and security concerns. and that expanding need to both soviet state, outside holdings for crane georgia. and we'll go bowers in particular, are obviously some of the red lines and must go always and we'll have always looking at them as full community. anything other than that is, i think, must a negotiated is open to these negotiations. just can't tell that these things don't matter. but if you look at it again here in moscow, i can see there's a lot of the sense that whatever you do, it's for a lot of teachers that could meet again. but also that could be the case that the american political lead has lost strategic force fire any the indeed in their interest to make, to contain china and russia is anything by them or an interest. but if you go to

rush, you know, a red line in terms of security, it is exactly the type of reaction 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 wrong. a me a, been a clinic being there with them. tragic thing here. i mean, his words, matt, matter words have impact here. and i see this inability to use seriously and honestly negotiate because you have denigrated, you're 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 helen, jake sullivan, people like this. and even even if it became an 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 it thinking or? and assuming that has also serving so it strikes a lot. but it also has been said though, that the acute problem now exactly is because instead of having to have the main loyalty has to be to nato natal, call it the key, the key money that goes on and on again. and this also across the prospect of stability in your, for example, you know, the simple things like in the proliferation period. and this is not spreading nuclear weapons. they have very clear all the nuclear weapons. so nuclear states,

see the us put in germany and you can reference in belgium, italy, netherlands, turkey and, but it says this is 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 $972.00, all the p as a post, the americans withdrawing from infantry wants to meet of 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 russia heaping exactly the same argument arguments, but there being only a few years earlier, and it's the same with the i've treated america unilaterally withdrawal as well. we need maybe some of that, right? so we'll have to repeat the montero that actually was the russia who was being the mileage 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, so follow the grid a, a, b, m i. and so it's,

it's, but again, it will be and then or global security. but the problem with our loyalty is always primarily to nato, 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 some outflow and here in moscow and i think be we're still watching us here at r t. c in exxon. and remember across cycles. ah, join me every posted on the alex simon. sure. and i'll be speaking to guess in the world of politics, spoke business, i'm show business. i'll see you then. oh,

my view more broadly is that genocide has taken place. far more than anyone acknowledges. right. it takes place frequently. it is taking place in virtually every country in the world. so why does it come to be called in? well, there's political will on mobilization, if you remember, wanda, nobody initially wanted to am or may knew it just i was taking place. nobody wanted to call it that eventually that label came to take place, but not at the time when events were unfolding about places asian is if you say it's genocide, is suggest that you need to do something with oh right now, there are 2000000000 people who are overweight or obese. it's profitable to sell food that he's pricey and sugary and salty and addicted. it's not at the individual

level, it's not individual willpower. 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. so what's driving the obesity epidemic? it's corporate in the moon. ah. saudi max kaiser, this is the kaiser report. we are in mexico city, heading south to el salvador. the said you're adopting bitcoin standard. probably mexico. we'll do the same thing a couple of years, but let's check in with stacy stacy mass. the last episode we talked about the inflation and inflation propaganda. inflation is still in the news. i think this.