i'm working, i'm are sure. she popped in. she said, well, i'm getting ready to go shopping for christmas and research. there was a good to buy another, shooting, another safe part of american life shattered by violence. the gunman was armed with an a r 15 semi automatic rifle. when the issue comes home, it's time to act when we're aspire on this issue, the other side wins by default, lady that lived over there, i was walking. one of the dogs says, why do you wear again, were you scared me? nothing could take it off of me. i think the people need to take responsibility in their own hands and be prepared if those kinds of weapons were less available. we wouldn't have a lot of the shootings and we certainly wouldn't have the number. there's a

ah ah, i hello and welcome to cross stock where all things considered i'm funeral about the bite ministration says it believes in diplomacy. well, now it has a chance to prove this. russia is presented to wide rating proposals, to recast and regulate its relations with the west in general, and nato. specifically, we are living in in this stuart moment. ah, we discussed these issues and more, i'm joined by my guess, george w l e. in budapest, he's a pod cast or at the goggle which can be found on youtube and locals and in plymouth. we have patrick senningson. he is the editor and founder of 21st century wire dot com, or a gentleman,

cross talk rules and effect. that means you can jump at anytime you want. and i would appreciate it. we're going to start with georgia in budapest. and as i said in my introduction, the russian side, because there are sides and this has presented to wide ranging proposals to the united states and to, and to nato. what are they and why now? well, why now? i think it's just what has been going on in ukraine since the 2014 has been a very serious from russia's perspective. because because obviously they're a great, a cultural, linguistic, historical connections between russia and ukraine. but more seriously, the more that nato has embedded itself into your brain. the more russians feel very, very anxious about nato's ultimate intentions here. and so what

russia has done with these 2 documents is gone back to the, the helsinki final act of 975 and has gone back to the 997 nato russia foundation document and said, look how the security of europe is indivisible, is that in black and white in the helsinki final act, which means that no country or group of countries can enhance the own security at the expense of someone else's security. as a nato that says, well, we can do whatever we like. we can expand wherever we want. we can allow the entry of any country that we see, like, because it's in our charter, that is something, you know, the is a unilateral step and is something that is clearly threatening to russia. and so

what are russia saying? ok, now we say, well you to pledge, but you will not let me expand any further. you know, you will not invite any new members in the model. you will not do anything that threatens our security. you're not going to conduct military exercises neighboring countries. you're not going to set up military bases in neighboring countries, and then, you know, we're not asking for that. when i'm saying that, you know, we want to set up military basis when we conduct military exercise. well then we can then have a mutually respectfully, mutually respectful security agreement. well, extremely well said, and those are the 2 points of patrick. this is on the basis, you know, what was at the time in 1975. the helsinki final act was basically sending the terms and conditions of interaction here. now the cold war is come to an end,

but it's a very good anchor to move forward here. and what it is is, and then well, add one thing to george and mention the russians. they proposed these 2 documents and they want in return something in writing because that's something that's been absent since the end of the cold war. the nato in the united states, they must sign a lease. this is preliminary, they're the russians have kicked it to their court and say, know how to, how you going to react. because we george, explain, it seems imminently reasonable. we've been here before, presumably the cold war was much more threatening. so i mean, this is a good opening gambit. i am though, we haven't really got a very clear answer. it may be, it's early days, maybe get something the end of next week. your thoughts? yeah, i think this is a smart move on the part of, of moscow or the effectively setting a new course or trying to reset the situation diplomatically and in a really an attempt to halt this kind of endless sabre rattling and what might be

viewed as provocations by, by nato, from the russian side. and a lot of hyperbolic language, we've just seen an endless amount of this since 2014. but it's really also to see if nato can also live up to its own self image as a defensive alliance. and so it's really reviewing this whole situation and trying to get back to some point where you can have some decent, a bilateral negotiations between these 2 world powers essentially. but it does, it is it's making russia a predictable, normative power. and i think that's really important to point out because russia's always cast is some sort of irrational actor by the west, by western diplomats, by media. and it's really casting them as a normative power. and i think that's really important because europe likes predictability. markets like predictability and rushes incredibly predictable.

they've done this at every turn injure situation. they have done a move that the set reset the situation and allows for diplomacy. the question is, will the west reciprocate so charge? if i don't go to you here in budapest, i mean i read the to document it's, it's, it's, it's, it's very legal like, but it's extremely familiar as well. i mean, and the reason why i'm asking this question is because we keep hearing no country has a right to veto another countries, a desire to join the military alliance. now that is an international law, and as far as i know, there's really no historical precedent to it is. well, i mean this is kind of made out of hold off. ok, but that's, that's the manager that we get out of stuff and bird and brussels. your thought, yeah, that's a very good point because essentially what made us go, russia has no right to veto anything at all that we do. we can go anywhere,

do anything that we want to know right now. but we, on the other hand, have a right to veto anything that russia, so we have a right to tell russia where it can conduct its military exercises. well, we don't think that you should conduct military exercises anywhere close to the green border. we don't think that should be point any a, but they can't tell us what to do. so when you consider these are what russia is saying, it, everything that is, you know, insisting on in the treaty pertains to nato's expansion. isn't it is nato that he's moving. every slip is nato that has extended its reach far beyond what was envisaged when it signed the 997 foundation document with russia. and so it is extraordinary that the media which it was in the parents,

whatever nato and us officials of them are just completely outrageous. well, why is it outrageous for russia to insist on the security guarantees is to say, but they are the countries that are our neighbors, the countries with which we were partners in the former ussr. these countries should not be the base for nato activities ever, but so it's the nato think he is now so ingrained on policy makers of media by that they think that there's something really outrageous rush asking for some, some kind of a security for themselves. you know, i think the rush is accused of building on spirit and then phones, but in fact, it's made out it's creating a sphere influence at the expense of brush and insecurity. that argument is never presented in western media. yeah, it is. and it's,

it's amazing because if you go to the music security conference and all the talk of the last decade, it's been about collective security packs with both sides coming to the table to establish some level of balance. and now in the last, since 2014, that's not really happening in the west, it's using the u. s. is using the new credit ukraine as the sort of main, he's just to justify their expansion forward saying it's russian aggression. i think this is a really important point in history because now vitamin put in the russian government and wanting to pull the west to the table to talk about specifics to talk about reality. what is the situation in crimea? visa v international law, and if you dig into these issues, you'll see that it's not. it's the polar opposite of how it's been characterized over the last 7 years by the u. s. and its allies, the same with eastern ukraine. what happened in eastern ukraine?

how did the situation begin? there is a lot of political details there, like lustration and things that were encouraged by the u. s. and the u. s. backed political actors at the time that created their crisis, and russia did not invade crimea or sylvester pool. they were there already, and there was a, there was a transition, crimea was reunited with russia and had been separated in 1954. so these nuances never get talked about. and so they think rushes in, violation of all these international laws. and that justifies nato expansion. so if we come to a forum, if we come to a negotiation table, these details should come out. will they though, is this what the u. s. wants do they want to have that conversation? i don't think they do. i don't think their allies do, they want to keep it in the realm of hyperbolic aggressive, to drive by comments and accusations. because there, you don't have to have, you know, you really don't have to abide by any international agreements or treaties. your

just seem to be reacting to russian aggression. so i think this is a really important point. you know, george is a 2 document set out for present. and each country has its own security interest and they are, that is indivisible. but the reaction so far from western governments is that russian, russia, security is anything but indivisible. i mean, this is a one way street it's, it's very hypocritical, 40 seconds before we go to the bank in time because made those attitude and you know, they were us and the u. k. government and the rest of them attitude is russia has no legitimate security concerns of it. and therefore, whenever russia does address it, so security need them, that's just aggression and we have to defend ourselves against ra, from aggression. and so you know that that's, that's the center of their attitude. any, any russian demand for security guarantees. is that something that we have to

resist? because it aggression from russia. ok, gentlemen, i'm going to jump in here. we're good. we're going to go to a short break, and after that short break, we'll continue our discussion on some real noun. stay with our ah ah ah, join me every thursday on the alex simon shows and i'll be speaking to guess what the world of politics, sport business,

i'm show business. i'll see you then. i go to storage safely at the pedal with what we get the rest and 7 years a report ah ah

ah, welcome back to cross og. we're all things are considered. i'm futile. a bell. this is the home addition trim bungee were discussing. some real news. ah okay, baker, let's go back to you in plymouth. one of the interesting things is that what we hear from the head of natal sultan burg, he's almost default every other sentence and he begins every paragraph and ends. every paragraph with nato as a defensive alliance. so can you explain to our viewers why

a defensive alliance needs to expand? because i think the definition of defense is that you defend what you have. am i wrong? go ahead. well, that, that's the whole premise of, of nato is a defensive alliance. and it has been an offensive alliance in recent years. but if you, if you look what's behind that, what is behind that change in, in, in orientation by nato is there's a lot of pressure, especially in the u. s. in britain to drive military defense sales for instance. so they need markets and they need situations where this can happen. and if you look at the amount of weapons that the u. s. has been pumping and military aid, they've been pumping into ukraine. this is effectively from a u. s. side. this is corporate welfare. this is what john mccain's job was while he was sen was to look for opportunities and markets where they can channel a product in there that's paid for by the us taxpayer. for all these defense contractors, now that job is taken over by senator tom cotton, marco rubio,

and people like this. they've taken that torch. so there's that. plus there's this kind of nato is having an existential crisis. we all know it, everyone's talking about it. even donald trump remarked on this in his own way, in his own bull she way he remarked on this during his presidency. so it is kind of an alliance. it's an organization that doesn't really, it's not attached to its original purpose at all. everybody kind of knows this, and i think it's, it's good that russia has gone for this reset right now. and that's going to really bring this into the light of day where you can have this proper discussion internationally. and then maybe the media might join in this discussion. you know, heaven forbid that they might actually weigh in some of the great commentators, international relations and our mainstream media. but that's what's been missing. and this is, if this isn't brought to a slow down or halt, then we're really facing the potential for

a hot conflict in that somewhere down the road. and that's not anything that europe wants for sure. the u. s. enjoys the sabre rattling the arm sales. the posturing the politicians can do, but it's not really in europe interest at all. hopefully that's what comes to emerge with this. well, i'm not holding my breath. unfortunately. george, me the way that western media and politicians frame this entire situation as a conflict between russia and ukraine. and if you look at these 2 documents, obviously ukraine is mentioned, but it's really that that's a focus point. it's a, it's a data point. these 2 documents, these 2 proposals are of a grand scale. i mean, it's something we haven't seen since 975 and, and what needs one of the most important things that needs to happen is that for western audiences, the understand that it needs to be refrained completely. this is an absolute, central grad for nato. nato's mission and it has to expand or basically to shut

down shop. and obviously from what patrick had to say, there's just too much money involved here. go ahead. a lot of money and of course, later comes accompanied with this massive propaganda machine. you mentioned moments ago about oh it's, it's a defensive alliance. so it, it keeps repeating this over and over again. and just as the media always repeat, well. so is providing your grain with defensive weapons, you know, so everything is defensive. so when they provide missiles, they are anti tank. i'm, this is a miss. it doesn't matter whether you launch it against a tank or whether you launch it against the civilian population. but that's why, because ultimately, you know, the public in nato countries really do not want to get into a war with russia. and so that's why they have to be bamboozled with all the talk about how nato is terribly frightened of imminent russian invasion. that is why

no journalists ever goes to ukraine off the bus to them. say, are you really afraid of a russian invasion? i mean, is this something that you know is affecting your life? you think the russians are about to roll in? do you great. tomorrow they don't think of course, ukrainians aren't afraid of that. but as far as policy makers go, as far as the media go, you have to gin up this idea that russia at any moment is of how to move it into your grade. and of course, that justifies all the military expenditures the justifies the hysteria. and it was, justifies nato, continually expanding or we have to expand because of russia. but the fact is that it is nato. that seems to think that it somehow has a right to me in central asia. that is, or what we need to conduct the activities, the central asia. we need to set up military bases in special ed. it's always

defensive. so well, i know it doesn't take a genius to figure out what you may call to defend it, but somebody else does not see this defensive. so that's why they all think you final acts, then security is indivisible. you can't just simply say, well, we say it's defensive, therefore it must be defensive. no, it depends on, well, who is it directed against? what do they do? they think that the deployment is defensive. if not, then, and other than then it's not acceptable. you know, in patrick, i mean, it's coming to a head right now. i mean, do these lincoln's at sullivans? are these people look the caliber to understand the historic moment that we're at right now? because this is the russians are saying, you've gone far enough and we're not going to take it any longer than line has been drawn. i mean, are these people serious enough to understand that i'm looking at the current foreign policy gaggle and for lack of

a better term. it is led by people that i don't think have that sort of depth in the current administration, or any recent usaa administration for that matter. but there's also, you know, the u. s. is in a very tight spot right now because of the emergence of a military union in europe. that if that, if that becomes the sort of the lead defense force for europe, then that takes the u. s. ability to have its hand directly into the glove of europe for all things military. so there is a competition in the background, a little bit between nato and european military union in pasco. so that's, that's not good for washington because washington is always relied on nato to act multilaterally without being seen to act directly. and so if you take away nato as a, as an instrument for u. s. international hedge or money, for instance, that's not good in european military union or an army, for instance,

in the future. the u. s. will have to somehow negotiate with it rather than from inside it. and so this is a really important, so they're kind of in a bit of a competition in a bit of a race to maintain their influence and their foothold in their post world war to orientation in europe. so this is difficult for the u. s. and there, i think there's a little bit of panic setting in, in recent years, is finding a way to stay relevant, finding way to stay in there. no charge if washington and its allies reject these 2 documents. so where do we go from there? because it seems to me that they are not taking this seriously. i think they're blinded by their own ideology. i think they're blinded by the sense of them being morally superior, which has nothing to do with international relations or international law. i mean, we're really in a quandary right now, but i don't think they understand the, the unstable situation that they have created. because russia is not going to

surrender it's, it's national security full stop. yes, yes, i think so. and i think this goes together with the crisis in ukraine, which is what we were talking about at the beginning. but the rest of the very comes with nato converging ukraine into just one giant aircraft carrier with dumping this huge amount of military hardware trainers, especially everybody essentially trying to turn ukraine into a torpedo director of russia and russia. you know, sooner or later is simply go to act against regular cannot allow essentially, the very hostile, heavily stays on its borders and which basically is just the pool would base for nato and then russia, when i act and i think that's why the situation is dangerous. and i think that's

why the rest of these do treaties are saying, well, you know, we need to de escalate what's going on in ukraine as we've agreed. and you know, it's unlikely that the major above will do anything about it, which case, i think it was crisis and ukraine could certainly come to ahead sometime in the new year. and i think that will be a disaster for everyone or the west. and will russia, but basically russia come up, allow this to continue because this is, there is an extra central, right? the russia, you know, it becomes, not. cynicism stinks, but i haven't because this has nothing really to do with nato, doesn't, i'm sorry, with ukraine, doesn't ukraine? is not really not particularly concerned, one way or another is the ukraine is a cudgel in the problem is it's been built up in the u. s. media, this russian invasion that's meant to happen according to intelligent sources in

january. both sides both democrat and republican of kind of bought into this narrative. so that might hamper any efforts by biden ministration to want to be seen as the piece savior and come and do some interim deal. there's going to be pressure on from democrats, not to do that to be more aggressive. and you know, if the republicans are, are aiming for on this, they want to see more intention ratchet it up. so, because that's good for the military industrial complex. so it's a, it's not a good situation politically this week, the week administration that you have in the white house now is not good at all for this situation. so that's one thing that a lot of people should be very concerned about. you know, george, that we got one more minute here. joe joe biden desperately needs a win somewhere. and this could be that even if he tries to deescalate, with the limited locking thinkers around him, he's going to be crushed for compromising. this is what is happen to american

foreign policy. go ahead. yes, that's, that's it. i mean, he basically could easily, if you could just pick up a phone and say, look, you know, you've got to be realistic. you've got understand geography, you know, a gambling, you know, you're playing with by, you know, you're blanding with the future of your country. you know, work something out with people that don't, you know, work out a modus vivendi with your giant neighbor, russia. and i will be happy with eisen is incapable of doing so. so this is a problem that actually has a relatively easy solution to problems that have difficult solutions. this one isn't but, and i think of a by isn't going to do so, and that's why i think that the situation to escalate and deteriorate, i think is gonna have a bad outcome policies there. but the politics are and that that's one side. i want

to think, my guess, and in budapest, watching us here at our pc and next time remember, oh ah, the world is driven by dreamers shaped banks. 10 percent of those with dares sinks. we dare to ask in orland, gas manufacturing, electricity, telecom transportation, all of them now have

a t type of infrastructure connected to the internet. well clearly realizing this disruptive potential so that those countries can't ignore it because it threatens national security issue. but if we take the name to you countries, virtually all of them subscribe to certain doctrines and maintains selling but tell us forces. they are a cyber army on behalf of a country that's their job. oh, working room or should never, she popped in. she said, well, i'm getting ready to go shopping for christmas. and we, we snuck up, there was a good, you're buying another, shooting, another safe part of american life. shattered by violence. the gunman was arm a r 15, semi automatic rifle. when the issue comes home, it's time to act when we're silent on this issue, the other side wins by default,

lady that lived over there, i was walking. one of the dogs says, why do you wear again? were you scared with nothing could take it off. it, i think the people need to take responsibility into their own and be prepared if those kinds of weapons were less available. we wouldn't have a lot of the shootings. we certainly wouldn't have the number of deaths ah clashes and violence in europe as governments. tough and restrictions to combat the ramp and omicron cobit strike. i'm risking people's christmas plans for a 2nd year. under the scientists including nobel prize would have called the u. s. to change its nuclear weapons strategy and dropped the 1st strike option. we hear from one of the signatures.