the hello and welcome to cross stock where all things are considered. i'm peter lavelle . the rest of us talks in geneva were highly anticipated, but expectations of a positive outcome were low, very low rushes. chief negotiator says americans underestimate the gravity of the situation. these are ominous words. what will be the cost of this failure? in the cross talking the geneva negotiations, i'm joined by my guess married to ship sky in london. she is a columnist for the independent on foreign affairs and nobody thought we have earns read. he is a political analyst, as well as a guest expert at the russia international affairs council. and in budapest we cross a jordan, samuel we, he's a pod cast or the goggle, which can be found on youtube and locals are cross stock rolls in effect,

that means you can jump in anytime you want. i always appreciate, mary. let me go to you 1st here. i'm titling this program, geneva deadlock, i suppose even that is a positive spin here. i mean, what was the point of the meeting and what is the outcome as you define it? go ahead. marion london. well, i think it's probably sad to say that there was deadlock as the outcome, but i don't think that that's necessary quite as negative as it might seem. because i think the very fact that the meeting was held at the time of work is really quite high tension between the u. s. and nato on the one hand and russia on the other. i think that is a degree of progress. and i don't think that the actual state of deadlock was quite as negative as the word deadlock would suggest that it seems to me that things are sort of it doesn't mean break down. deadlock means they're stuck, but it doesn't mean things of broken down. and that nobody is coming back to talk

again. so i think what it looks hard, it's probably not as bad as it might have been. okay. and to may go to george in budapest, but ga, the us and russia have been talking about these things for 30 years. okay. i mean, i'm all for talk, but i'm for substance as well. i mean, the russians presented one document to nato. want to the united states, essentially, they were treaties and they, they want them to be legally binding and they want him to be public here. so i have to agree with mary. i mean talking is okay, but this is what the u. s. and it's nato allies are the best dad. go ahead. i agree with you. yes, it's true. talking is good. as long as you're talking, you're not shooting. the problem is that russia has before with these sets of demand. and there's nothing new about them. and it's something that they feel very strongly about, and they feel that they have to be addressed. they and they can't just be what

would be farmed off forever with point. so. so let's build some mutual confidence measures and then we'll have a greater transparency about the military exercises because that sort of stuff, that's just stable nature. russian relations. russia is very, very insistent upon no further nato expansion. very concerned about that. and therefore, they want to see some kind of action on the part of the united states and nato, which it would show that they have no interest into the nature of expansion. but just simply going to talk then ultimately i think we're still going to go on trying to corral as many of the former republics with us as intimate as possible. so maybe tomorrow, but next week or the week after, when we go to internet here, i mean 30 years. yeah. the, the, the alliance need to alliance has doubled inside more than doubled in size. here,

after all this talk here. i mean, let me quote the, the russians deputy foreign minister, he says the, the west is lost, the art of deal making and has been reduced to threats and sanctions. i mean, that seems a very fair characterization to me. yes ma'am, in this this meeting has been long. oh, would you wait and see? oh the yes. as you mentioned in assess yes, this has been an ongoing and ongoing debates between russia and the u. s. in nature or maybe talk about 99 seats. we can't really talk about 9 russians national security interests, 19 ninety's because there was no one in russia. so articulate those demands. are we talking about the past, past few decades? ever since the foreign concepts for

a policy concept of 2000 russia as in reasserting his self and what he forwards a list of demands regards to security and nato time and time again has been ignored as if we look at the old ways later last 9099 ne, in 20 its hands miss on the fence infrastructure and check republican poland, watchers major, major issue. you're in the ocean and along as administration as well. i assume this is definitely the right sign. arise time for this event, mary. i mean, a russia, it said that nato should no longer expand east, were particularly with ukraine in georgia. but let's all, that's all be frank here. and ukraine really is already be a factor. we're member of, of nato. and the u. s. is continuing to send arms, their army of greater lethal capacity here. i mean, the russian say, we don't want to see nato expand to include ukraine. but if they,

they move these types of systems in, we're getting a reversed cuban missile crisis, aren't we? well, i've been very interested that with this, this new term that has appeared, which talks about ukraine not being in nato, but nato being in ukraine. and i've, i've actually been surprised, and this is not really anything new, but in the, in the past for a franco government in, in ukraine. what we saw was not just joint training exercises between nato and ukrainian forces and supplies of equipment to make it compatible with, with, with nato. what we also saw were nato officials, actually serving in quite high advisory positions in the defense ministry in care and hold. when i 1st heard about that, which was, i mean,

it must have been 56 years ago. i was really surprised about that because i knew there was european union involvement in the economy in ukraine. but the idea that there was such defense involvement by nato. and i thought that was very questionable. and, but i also think you have to look at it. you have to say, well, whether it's nato in ukraine or whether it's ukraine in nato. the fact is that i think the americans are on record. this administration is on record. as saying that the u. s. nato would not fight for you crying right. and got to me that means that nato membership is not, is certainly not imminent. and you go back to 2002008 the bucharest summit. whether it's this huge disagreement between the americans on the one hand and some

europeans, but or, or being in favor of ukraine and ga, joining the, joining nature. and on the other hand, france, germany and some other nato members who were absolutely cheat again. and they fudged the final statement to leave it open whether that would be membership or not . and the fact is that in those he is 1213 years since there's actually phoenix, no progress on membership for those 2 countries. and i don't think the will be because that split still exists later. yeah. but i mean george with it. that's a distinction without a difference. ok, because and, and my disagreeing with mary, but it's a distinction without a difference because the threat level in the way the russian see it is only being in hands here. so, i mean, we can have deadlock and we can, you know, talk, talk, talk. but the russians are saying, this threat is, is imminent here. that's why i keep using, you know,

the cuban missile crisis in reverse with kennedy told krisha get those missiles out or we'll do it ourselves. i think it's apt, george. yes, i think so. and the way it works with the united states and nato is that even if something is the odds now all of to morrow and next year or in 5 years time they get, they just going to go on pushing and pushing and pushing, which is what they've been doing aah with ukraine. i mean, after all, de facto nato membership was part of the e u association agreement. that usually overture or refuse to sign, but which are, you know, his b, his successes this side. and so that what it's already baked in that ukraine becomes a de facto member of her nature of the problem is also that they could well be some kind of a promo cation, some, some incident, whether it's a grain. oh,

using force against the people of the dumbass, whether there be somebody, they told us military who do something of provocative on the russian border and russia will be forced to intervene. this is something that they talk a great deal about that they, the ukraine, or the americans might say some kind of a provocative incident to trigger a russian intervention. and once you trigger a russian intervention, then the resistance to having your grading nato will disappear because suddenly, why god, we're, we've got this horrible russian menace threatening all of europe. we have to do something for ukraine. so ukraine could then become accepted by everybody as a member of nato. also the staging some kind of a provocative incident. well, i mean are areas that, i mean ukraine could become part of nato a one day, but it will not be the same geographical size that it is now. ok. i think you know,

it, my, my, my point is here because it's not expansion into you. ukraine. it is to, to extinguish a threat that is in ukraine. there is a distinction there. go ahead, ernst. well, certainly it's a, it's a, it's a tricky. it's a tricky issue with russia. we'll actually cross over the water and go into boston and see crane on one hand. the russians brushes representatives always spoken about sovereign c, respectful, sober, unseen to total accuracy. but when it comes to the saying that rushes interest, and especially for those who have those who are part of what's called what's known as russian. well, i sent you seen examples of 2008, the russian ga stand where russians were bats across the border and 2014 rushes from operation. i station in west station in the east.

and if you want to don't bass, what we need to keep in mind is that you have a certain amount of people that will rush past with russia is not allowing hunger reason poems, similar initiatives. i mean having carried out by poem elsewhere in europe. i had to now ross and passports to the those insurance i have to jump in here. we have to have we have to go to hard break. and after that hard break, we'll continue our discussion on the geneva negotiation. stay with ah ah,

well, now we have e cigarettes, i just heard that it was a healthy alternative to cigarettes. do we trust tobacco companies with their message that these new products are actually going to reduce these sugars are making the tobacco with a emotions medieval institutions. and then i go to like technology and the combination of the st. very, you could say, historically distinct seeks fixes within our psycho physical makeup. i have rendered us pretty dangerous to ourselves to the, to the planet. and while our officers are facing an increasingly dangerous environment, we are seeing

a growing debate about so called warrior cops. the term that i've heard in the militarization of believe this is an ama vehicle we acquired through the 1033 program, very free program with the government program that follows military property that no longer use local law enforcement with building an army over here. and i can't believe people, i see the thing and agency elder a me because it again a feeling that ahead you have to deal with your higher practice who you putting in a uniform because the bed is a powerful thing and sometimes is like money in play tricks and people mind they think they go bad know is the walk is out the door very bad. johns are coming. good news. you have job security because the world desperately need, but you ah, this is survival guide. stacy use, my goal is stored safely at the federal ether research. so there are you. don't

forget about po hectic. oh heck, no. what is a recreation came when we get the rest and 7 years still with kaiser report. ah, welcome back to cross stock were all things are considered. i'm peter lavelle to remind you we're discussing the geneva negotiations with okay, let's go back to mary in london. let's change gears a little bit marrying. what could we possibly expect after? you know, after russia gate bled in to policy, i mean, what american administration is going to make, quote unquote concessions to the russians, because it be akin to appeasement and it's munich, and it's all these things we hear all the time. i mean, you know, when i, you know, when i look at the negotiators there, i mean, they intentionally wanted to talk

a different game completely because their hands are tied. i mean, you know, the way the, the trump administration was treated when making entreaties to russia. there's this administration is going to go down that path because joe bite knows there's a lot of bin mins around. okay. they don't love joe biden. i mean, if they, if joe biden breaks the rules crosses the line, he can go to mary, your thoughts. i wouldn't be quite so pessimistic as you because i think one of the young, one of the differences between the biden has only been in office for a year. and we had 4 years of trump before when trump's almost the so element of his foreign policy was to improve relations with russia. and the whole of the american security establishment. and the whole of the democratic party refused absolutely to let him do that. and yet, it seems to me that almost the moment biden came in, he's almost been doing in practice what trump wasn't allowed to do. he

held a very early summit with the oh, with with fulton. and they followed up by establishing all sorts of working groups, including a working group on cyber warfare, which was completely extraordinary because that, that, that, that, that, that particular term, the very suggestion that the americans of the russians might talk about cyber under trump. those all hell was let loose. that was the last thing that anybody was going to happen. and yet it was one of the things that was named that went almost a mentioned as a result of the of the geneva summit. so it seems to me that, and you can look at the withdrawal from afghanistan to that this was something that trump had been trying and trying to do, but he couldn't do it. he couldn't get it past the political establishment in washington or the military establishment. biden managed to do that. yes,

it was chaotic. yes, though. it problems with it. he did it. and it seems to me that he's pursuing quite slowly, quite quietly. the very same thing that trump was trying to do, which was to talk to russia, to keep doors open and to try to make progress. and it was very interesting to me practically, on the eve of these geneva tall, the 1st or 2nd, 2nd grade level. that from the white house it was said that they thought that russia needed something diplomatic space over ukraine. and i mean, i've taught that now for, for the, for the best out of 6 years. and that russian needs to be, isn't diplomatic space. i the americans by nato, for the to be any useful outcome in ukraine. and it seems to me that i'd appreciate . okay, well, and george did the,

does this administration or any administration want a good outcome? i mean, again, i'm after 30 years, so he marries right. talking about cybersecurity, that's great, but it doesn't change the calculus on the ground. i mean, again, that's this, you know, talking about issues on the margins. again, i want to remind everyone, this summit was based on 2 documents. the russians had presented one to nato and one to the united states. and you know, we can talk about all these other things on the side, which are all nice and fine, but it doesn't change the calculus on the ground. and it isn't addressing the core issues that russia has made very, very public, very often. and pub, of too many different officials, different for i mean, they're very serious about this because we have the russian negotiator saying that the americans are just simply not serious people when it comes to these core demands. you know, i agree with you because one only has to listen to entity blink and the press conference last friday when he went on this extraordinary and to russian

tirade leveling every kind of accusation. every single vision in the book, again, russia once or in terrorism, they using chemical weapons, especially political opponents on european soil. they're, you know, they've attack no, georgia, ukraine, an on and on on. and then you have to think what, what, what does united states and they really want. i think that, that quite happy to cause russia headaches. i mean, they, they think, but what they've done in ukraine is actually very nice with a relatively low cost for the wes, they've given russia headache. why should they try to help russia sold this problem? if they really wanted the help brush and sold the problem, they could do very easily, they could get on to the landscape and say, look them in because you know,

it's clear what you have to do in order to comply with the bench the court. please do so, and then this whole thing will be over. that's what they want. they, they like the fact that this, this will continues. it's a very, very painful for russia and whatever russia tries to go to read down very badly on russia. so i don't see any real upsides for the, by ministration to do very much, to help out. roger with the exception of what they call the strategic stability to nuclear weapon. and that's an issue. i think there, there is a kind of a us interest in restraining the sort of the arms race when it comes to an intercontinental ballistic missile. that's a separate issue from major to expand your they, the americans are very happy just just to make life difficult. rush, well, you know, in the same theme here and we go to ernst and novice out the is. we have nato steve

sultan berg. he said right before the summit, he said on nato states are fully prepared for a quote, new armed conflict in europe. i mean, what kind of language is that going into a summit? ok to de escalate tensions and all of that. and what is the, what is he mean by that? what i mean, how do you think he's defining what a military conflict is? because nato is already said, and the united states separately said, they're not going to intervene in ukraine. if there is a confrontation with russia. i mean, it seems to me as usual from the, the nato chief suttonberg, this empty words. but it's loose rhetoric at the same time. go ahead, ernst, the new novi sat, i mean, they certainly, it doesn't seem like they have the house and all it is a certain back said one thing. and what is it quite the other by this it was an american troops on the ground. the cran events rush invasion which they keep talking about is not on the table. and britain's secretary of state for defense and

wallace asset. a similar thing as well. not granting isn't a member states, and it is very unlikely that anyone's going to send troops, archie, crank, change. russia. however, it's clear that biden's administration really wants to be close to europe if trump didn't really care much for your very muscular strength. and it would everything in every way could biden's administration. ms. john nash, i'm mentioned that last year that of ministration sees europeans as these children who need to be protected. they need the u. s. pastor nash, and so they're going to be present in europe. and you see for sure, and just not going to go into ukraine, it's very unlikely that they would ok, mary, would i want to go back to russia's core demands of that were a lead up to the summit here is that if the united states and other made the nato

countries continue to supply lethal weapons. the ukraine. we have to expect because it's been tell a ground for months now, rochelle will react. and that is why we had this meeting. ok, i think the russians are saying, you know, we put it on the board, we've told you exactly how you feel. we know that for the past 30 years, you have no recognition of our legitimate security interest. and we're stepping up in public. we want the world to know. this is why we have tensions here. and if you go over the line, we're going to react sanctions. you know, who cares. ok. because our national security is saying is it, is it when it's challenge in an existential way, the russian is going to react to it? no one should be surprised. that's my major take away from this summit. don't be surprised if we go over your red line because you're challenging our red line, mary. i you think that at the moment it's a bit early to talk about people crossing other people's red lines. but i do think

that the in the documents, the to treaty documents that russia handed to nato and to the us. that they're actually very, very interesting because there are ideas that wouldn't necessarily, i mean, not the u. s. is not going to accept everything that's in those documents, may be almost nothing that's in those documents. i think nato is almost secondary here. and i think russia appreciates that they have to do with the united states. and i think the united states understand that to and i think the stalking bug in particular, in the last 2 years has been very much out on a limb. i mean, if we go back to afghanistan again, the nato simply wasn't, it wasn't consulted. no arrangements were made with nato for the if that for the ultimate withdrawal from from afghanistan, even though it was in name and nato led operation, nato was ignored. and i think the same thing is happening over ukraine and russia.

you're dealing with in very traditional terms, between the us and russia. but i also think that in the past, the been a lot of questions from not just the united states, but from specialists and from politicians in western europe, in particular saying, we don't understand russia. we don't understand what does russia want? and my view of these to treaty documents is that nobody know, can complained that they don't know what russia wants. it spelt out there in black and white. that is what russia wants. and i would say that is an opening position. russia wouldn't expect to get everything that it's, it's a demanding illustrated documents, but i think they need to be studied because nobody can complain anymore. they don't know what russia we know. okay. george,

20 seconds will do. do they actually care what russia wants? 20 seconds, george. i think they, those attitude, the russia has been you on all the soviet union. you do not deserve the respect that we according to the soviet union. we have a fan of that nature and we will go on trying to expand nato. not only what we'll do, we want to get your brain to georgia and we want to go into the caucasus and then for the far east. and i think that and there's nothing that you can do about that plate is avager. and russia said yes, we're not going to accept it. and there is something we can do about town that note there we've run out of time many. thanks them, i guess in london, budapest and no be sad. and thanks to our viewers are watching us here at ortiz. see you next time and remember process roles. ah, ah,

join me every thursday on the alex salmon. sure. and i'll be speaking to guess of the world of politics, sport, business, i'm show business. i'll see you then. oh, i think wrong. i just don't know. i mean you have to figure out this thing because the applicant and engagement equals the trail. when so many find themselves will depart, we choose to look for common ground july, an annual festival in st. petersburg, dedicated to dostoevsky, a great writer, thinker and psychologist. people often turn to his work to understand russia and

russians, perhaps even themselves. they put they sing on, what do you see, what they think about the matter vehicle while you feed them changing a reader, transforming them as they read that does digest, is unique ability to stay on ski wants to tell us you can better yourself. he makes you face your true self or we cooper beyond conventions. rules of schemes beyond the boundaries and time does de aski is a global brand whose classics. everyone knows. i'm never out of style with price fixing is the problem. if you want a free market, you've got to let the market be free, you can have half of the market free. and then half the market fixed, the you end up with the problem that we had today.

ah, the headlines this, our russia and nato folks wrap up in brussels, would be aligned chief saying dialogue was difficult but necessary also to come. the british prime minister forest johnson apologizes for attending a lockdown drink party at number 10 in 2020 and had previously denied tightened part. but now says he thought it was a work event and cuddly. all passed the star jumps. if you want to stay warm this winter, a u. k. energy firm failed the heat from its customers after giving the 5 as the cost to fuel. so i think i've completely lost the floss on that one. i have to 1st, when i was she paid really crazy did our in house because we're trying to get the.