of the country, that's their job with ah, working room or should she popped in? she said, well, i'm getting ready to go shopping for christmas and i wish there was a good buy another shooting another safe part of american life. shattered by violence. the gunman was armed with an 8 or 15, semi automatic rifle. when the issue comes home, it's time to act. when we're filing on this issue, the other side wins by default, lady that lived over there, i was walking one of the dogs. so why do you wear again, were you scared me? nothing could take it off of me. i think the people need to take responsibility

into their own hands and be prepared if those kind of weapons were less available. we wouldn't have a lot of the shootings that we certainly wouldn't have the number of deaths a ah hello and welcome to cross stock where all things are considered. i'm peter labelle, the bide ministration says it believes and diplomacy well, now what has a chance to prove this? russia is presented to white raging proposals, to recast and regulate its relations with the west, in general and nato. specifically, we are living in, in this stuart moment. oh,

the way we discuss these issues and more, i'm joined by my guess towards m u l e. in budapest, pizza podcast or at the gl, which can meet on youtube and locals and implement. we have patrick headings and 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 in anytime you want and i would appreciate it. okay, let's 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 less than what has been going on in ukraine since the 2014 has been a very serious from russia's perspective. because because obviously there are a great cultural,

linguistic historical connections between russia and ukraine. but more seriously, the more that nato has embedded itself into your grain, the more russians feel very, very anxious about. and they chose ultimate intentions here. and so what russia has done with these 2 documents is gone back to the helsinki final act of $975.00, and has gone back to the 1997 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 group of countries can enhance their 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 feel like because it's in our charter that is, you know, the is a unilateral step and it's something that is clearly threatening to russia. and so what russia saying, ok, now we say, well you to pledge that you will not expand any further, you know, you will not invite didn't you members the model, you will not do anything that threatens our security. you know, going to conduct military exercises, neighboring countries, you know, going to set up military bases in the neighboring countries. and then, you know, we're not asking for that when i'm saying that, you know, we want to set up a military basis elsewhere. we can not military exercise where then we can then have a mutually respectfully reaching respectful security agreements. well,

extremely well said and those are the 2 points to 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 into 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 we'll get something at 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 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 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, inter situation, they have done a move that says reset the situation and allows for diplomacy. the question is, will the west reciprocate so charge. if i go to you here in budapest, i mean i read the to document. it's a, it's, it's, it's a, it's very legal like, but it's extremely familiar as well. i mean, and i, 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 mentor that we get out of stilton bird and brussels. your thought, yeah, that's a very good point because essentially what made the single russia has no right to veto anything at all that we do. we can go anywhere, do anything that we want, you know, right? so what we, on the other hand, have a right to veto anything that russia does. 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 blowing any a month, but they can't tell us what to do. so when you consider these are what russia is saying, it, everything that is insisting on in the street is that 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, if the parents, whatever nature with us officials of them are just completely outrageous. well, why is it outrageous for russia to insist on the security guarantees of the se, but they are the countries that are our neighbors, the countries with which we were partners in the former ussr. these country should not be the base for nato activities ever, but it's the nato think he's 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 up spirit and then phones. but in fact, it's made out it's creating a sphere influence at the expense of russia and in security. 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 decades been about collective security packs with both sides coming to the table to start to 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 piece is to justify their expansion for saying that it's russian aggression. i think this is a really important point in history because now you vitamin put in the russian government are 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's a lot of political details there, like lustration, the 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 service to pull. they were there already, and there was a, there was a transition to crimea was reunited with russia and have 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. you just seem to be reacting to russian aggression. so i think this is a really important point. you know, george is a b, 2 documents 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 someone one way street, it's very hypocritical, 40 seconds before we go to the break in time because made those attitude and then

you know, they were us and the u. k. government and the rest of them attitude is russia has no, the gentlemen here are the concerns of it. and therefore, whenever russia does address, it says security need, then that's just aggression and we have to defend ourselves against russian aggression. and so, you know, that that's, that's the center of the, roger. any, any russian demand 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 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 l look forward to talking to you all. that technology should work for people. a robot must obey the orders given by human beings,

accept where such order that conflict with the 1st law show your identification. we should be very careful about artificial intelligence and the point obviously is to race trust rather than fear i would like to take on various job with artificial intelligence, real somebody with a robot less protective phone existence, with herman by address shaped by frontier. so those with

there's things we dare to ask oh no, it shows the wrong one. i just don't know if we have to figure out this thing because the kid an engagement, it was the trail when so many find themselves, well the part we choose to look for common ground. ah ah,

welcome out to cross og. we're all things considered. i'm futile. a bell. this is the home edition from bunch of we're 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 nato sultan burge, his army, and 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 aide, they've been pumping into ukraine. this is effectively from the us 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, 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 as 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. complaint me, 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 be or go ahead. there's 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's, it keeps repeating this over and over again. and just as the mito is repeat, well,

nato 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 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 him and russian invasion. that is why no journalists ever goes to ukraine off the bus and in the city. 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 you gradients 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 in 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. know, it? well, who is it directed against? what do they do?

they think that the deployment is defensive. if not then, and then it's not acceptable. you know, in patrick, i mean it's coming to a head right now. i mean, do these lincolns and take the elements of these people, but 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 for lack of a better term in or is led by people that i don't think have that sort of depth in the current administration or a recent usaa ministration 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, 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 the, this goes together with the crisis in ukraine, which is what we were talking about 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 the regular channels allow, essentially, the very hostile, heavily stays on its borders and which basically is just the poor, would base for nato and then russia will act. and i think that's why the situation is dangerous. and i think that's why the rest of the full of these 2 treaties are saying, well, you know, we need to de escalate what's going on in ukraine as we've agreed. as you know, it's unlikely that the major basel do anything about it, which case, i think this 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 cannot allow this to continue because this is, there is an existential right. the rush or not isn't 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 intelligence sources and january both sides, both democrat and republican of kind of bought into this narrative. so that might hamper any efforts by biting 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 what the republicans are or aiming for on this. they want to see more attention ratcheted 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, just that we have 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 lo off pain thinkers around him, he's going to be there be crushed for a compromising. this is what is happen to american foreign policy. go ahead already, so yeah, that's, that's it. i mean, he basically could easily, anyone, you could just pick up a phone and say, look, you know, you've got to be realistic. you've got understand geography, this gambling, you know, you're playing with fire, you know, your landline with the future of your country. you know,

work something out with people as a dumbass. you know what? got a notice of andy 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 they by isn't going to do so, and that's why i think that the situation is going to escalate and the theory, right? i think he's going to have a bad outcome policies there, but the politics aren't and that's balter one side. i want to think, my guess and in budapest want to think of you were still watching us here at our pc and next time, remember, oh, ah, oil and gas, many factory, electricity, telecom, guys, quotation, 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 a few 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 remember should in the back 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 armed with an a ar 15, semi automatic rifle. when the issue comes home, it's time to act when we're sorry i was on this issue. the other side wins by

default, lady that lived over there. i was walking one of the dogs, which is why you where again, where you skin doesn't quit ticket. often 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, ah, the plan she is in violence in europe is government toughened restrictions to combat the ramp and upon the comp coverage strike or to the san france is on the ballpark. and amazon over the ferns, cheap booked in a breeze, and it under cut local stores with the government even adopting a new bill to force the company to charges customers more. and in the absence of.