ah, ah i'm ashan or tanzania watching a special edition of going underground less than 20 days before vladimir putin, his schedule to be cheated, paying at the winter olympics in china, while britain focuses on personal catastrophes for morris johnson and prince andrew . this has been a week of critical talks between nato and russia to avert possible global conflict of ukraine as they reach a seeming impass moscow's hopes of turning back the clock on nato expansion. a beer rejected as jo, biden's threats of massive consequences dissolve signs for optimism or pessimism in

what could be a global existential crisis. joining me now from cambridge is the ex u. k. p. m, tony blair's former ambassador to russia. so tony branch and thank you so much attorney for coming back on the show. i want to be slightly optimistic before we get into some of the statements being bandied around europe this week against oldenburg. you need to at least said that the missions were going to open in moscow and in brussels, or between nato and russia. so at least that some good news talks is that the smoke is a good news. i gather is still disagreement about how many diplomats each site is going to hatch or well, you're going to go on to the business department. i'd have to go there. i am going to use research, i believe. let me just say one other for sure. it is good news that after russia produced its draft treaties and etc, demands the west. united states in particular didn't simply say, get lost. what it said was ok, let's talk and he's good news to that, the west. okay. we can get on to what they disagree with,

but they have offered some things which the to size can discuss constructively, like arms control, like where people put nuclear weapons like those sorts of things. now, you're about to go on to. yeah, this. yeah, there are those good things. suppose good things are missile deployments, i should say, of course, for our audience around the world, the britain is in the leadership crisis of sorts of a corona virus restrictions. and of course, actually this all was taking place in europe. well, north korea tested, i was on a miss, i'll the can it valet in 30 minutes, but that, that aside from that, the polish for ministers, a big me of rouse, said, europe is the closest to war in 30 years. stoughton berg says it's the situation is dangerous, possible armed conflict, these are the actual words being used. and i mean, i think sensually adam schiff at the, in the u. s. chief of the us house intelligence committee claim that the invasion of ukraine by russia is very likely. i do believe it's very likely i have

notes and i actually, i see your students. so i don't think russia wants to do it. and obviously the west doesn't want it to happen, but i mean, the 1st, once i got that is that even if russia does invade ukraine, it's pretty clear that nato would not get involved militarily. there would be very strong terms and so on. but the idea about the europe wide war between nature and russia as a result of what's going on in ukraine, very like going back to ukraine itself. russia's been very clear on its determination that ukraine will never join nato. nato has been equally clear on the principle. countries can join whatever alliances. they like. both sides have spent a series of meetings this week saying those things to each other. so i think is the question for mr. rob costs it today. the talk so far have failed and it's an interesting question where things go now, but i wouldn't, i mean, there's

a solution to this which, which is pretty obvious one. everybody knows that ukraine, it whether or not it joins next. in the, in the term, the future is certainly not going to do that. within the next few years, there's contested territory between russia and ukraine. it, of course, in crimea, is a small civil war going on in ukraine. was russia involved in the dumbass in those circumstances? make sure it's simply not going to take it. so a sorry to tell you, but what would they have if the russians hadn't put a $100000.00 troops across the border in russia will be 200 miles. i think away from the ukrainian border. yes, i mean the presence of those troops is ineffective. had the effect of getting the discussions that are not taking place going. they haven't shifted anyone's positions so far as i can see, so far at all. and the fear is that those troops will actually be turned into an invasion force, which i say,

i suspect that both sides would vastly not to have so much of finding an elegant solution to the difference of you, which prevents that happening. and if i, i don't wanna, i don't shop for too much like for let me just say there is an obvious solution to that. as i said, you can is not going to join nato for the next decade to decades because of differences of crimea, differences about the dumbass. so it ought to be possible engineer and agreed statement between nato, the west and russia, which says flash, says ukraine is not going to join a. so for x years of, for some time, i. e, not an offending against russia's principal, is never going to join a so nor offending against nature's principle. we can't say it's never going to join nature, but establishing some agree ground a few years, which then give us more time to sort out the disagreements between the 2 sides. well, no sign of any statement like that from st oldenburg,

let alone blinking at last time you were on the program. you said, i think i challenged you and said, why is boris johnson sending in warships into the black sea? what is going on and you end russia can send its troops where it likes, in a sense saying in international waters and recognize international areas, they can do what they like. that's not true. we realize from statements coming from the white house, from the, by the ministration that russia is not allowed to move its troops within its borders in russia, according to the way nature of things, no one says that they're not allowed to. what people have said is that if they behave as they have done, that raises tensions and raises questions. and, you know, if you want to maintain decent international discourse, particularly when the question of noise involved, it's helpful to have some transparency and predictability and for people to know from russia why it's doing what it's doing. so if for

a similar situation to, if russia based it's war ships and so on, nose and special forces to mexico because the united states and britain have special forces in ukraine as far as i understand it. if you look at the parallels and make it all things being equal, that's a situation you're quite right. there are parallels. and i think the reason why our special flight and we have special forces, we simply setting up a training facility in ukraine at the moment is that we want to help you crane to acquire the abilities and itself extended doesn't evidently, doesn't have at the moment. i can't, for example, when the war and dumbass are behavior and you may disagree with it. russia may disagree with it, but it is entirely transparent in objectives that it has. the pulling together of those $100000.00 russian troops around ukraine. they're so far, no nation for 2. you see, i'm all,

you have what you mean saying does not tally with the kind of bridge is clearly the idea that putin is bent on invading ukraine. imminently let alone and his strengthening of expansion of russia in kazakhstan and in belarus, and the where is your saying look, reason probably not going to do it. where are these, where these briefings can, who are these people? these mysterious, often anonymously brief briefings to journalists in nature, nations, who is there some sort of vested interest here, saying the opposite of what a prior ambassador to moscow like yourself, is say, not sure that the briefings of that absolute is what the press is publishing and some of our press is well known that is hot over against russia. but what do they want more than a rigid just to say what i suspect, i'm not seeing the briefings. my suspect the briefings of said here are these troops. there are an awful lot of them, quite whilst to the borders of a much smaller and less well defended state. pretty clearly,

those troops are there for a reason. and pretty clearly, that reason is to intimidate ukraine in a case and arguably, nature don't know it, but that's what it feels like. and that you're saying the truth to me. i mean rush rob, as he says they're military training. but ironically, all of these briefings, and i mean they're pretty straight. and i mean, as i said, the house intelligence committee chairman adam chef says we have the intelligence. that's what the intention is. it's not too intimidated to invade the of course the, i can see, i don't think shifted. say that he's a, does he play on the invasion? is quotes very likely. that's what he said. very likely. okay. i suspect he's gotten ahead of the. okay. but them, ironically this kind of some might say, scare mongering does have one impact the winter olympics are coming up and letting me put in his schedule to be going to see she jen ping. why do you think western policy makers don't realize that every actually seem to take is drawing beijing in

moscow in ever closer embrace and seeing nato great countries as enemies? so once we agree entirely, i say exactly the same, same western, the bad relations between western russia. obviously i'm pushing russia more and more into, into china's arts. and that i think is a mistake. i don't think that mister putin entirely welcomes it. and i think would be helpful, a key results of our finding better relations with russia would be indeed to attract russia into a more how can i put this in more? he could live room position between the western china. now, i haven't seen you much on british media, it has to be said, but during the kazakhstan appalling atrocities in our mighty and so on with so many people died. what did you think when again, we had the same kind of anonymous briefing, that same report is telling us, you know, the fact that the, the russian troops have been invited together. it's done. we'll create tensions

between beijing in moscow. where do you think such a geopolitical analysis emerges from again, i agree with you. like the briefing, what the newspaper said felt to me to be pretty ignorant and prejudiced. i mean, obviously the russians will assist you were invited supply troops to back up because ext on government, they went there. now leaving, it seems to me in international terms have been entirely defensible operation. and on the position of the chinese, i would guess the chinese, i would guess that russia and china and since improve their relations if they were unprovable. there's also because china has lots of stakes. instability in catholic and russia just made a significant contribution to the stability. well, of course, one could think there is some kind of method in this perceived redness. even if russia says they are unsuccessful. these talks recently we had china, of course, in alaska, that famous blink and meeting when biden became president. when china started

reading the riot act about native american genocide to the united states. and we saw that tweet or, or no, it was actually statement by the russian foreign office and replying to blink and saying don't if i wrote basically don't, if i russians and you house is guests because they'll stay longer than they should . and of course, the russian said you're more likely to be raped or robert of american stay in your house. maybe the americans, maybe nato. maybe they have their people. they're saying, look, there is a resurgent and certainly a rhetorical anger from moscow badging that we've not seen for a long time. the best thing is to up the ante i. i dont that i think lincoln statement is actually stupid, sang by the russians in another. i'll never go there, and it is now proven wrong as an surprising to go back to a point you made a bit earlier. america's key as it sees it, your political concern at the moment is somehow containing china and getting into

a big disagreement with russia is obviously not helpful to last. and i think ben can stick with is absurd, and hopefully they will have learned from the experience. so tony branded, i'll stop you there more from x u k, p. m, tony blair's former ambassador, russia after this break. 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 ah, we have recently, of course, are you in the united states talking about human rights talking about press freedom. if you get to talk the talk, you don't want to walk. in other words, you've got to be consistent. you cast out on the one hand, we believe press freedom, but on the other hand, we're going to respond to a massage. now think of your property of the united states and this tracy is really

makes a little bit really mad about the caching. turning here in australia where people just don't understand them, right. what is the starting citizen which comes down with a welcome back. i'm still here with a to katie and tony blair's former master to russia's attorney brandon. sorry to keep dropping on about the media element of it, but that is after all, where normal people are normal. people inform their impressions continually the idea unchallenged. i heard on the b, b, c, the other day that nature is a defensive or defensive organization. i know this is

a point that russia and china and we went to the global south often says, how can they call themselves a defensive organization? how can journalists not challenge that idea, given iraq, afghanistan on libya, yugoslavia, no, there, i think you're wrong. nature is a different position and specifically so in the european context, it has found it some doing things overseas that there's no other western organization to do. like keeping a gas done and getting involved in iraq, you say, but in the european context, i, in our dealings with russia, nato is it is very much a defensive organization. and one depressing fact coming back to the current disagreements about ukraine is that each side is treating the other as a threat to security. whereas in fact, nature is never going to attack russia. and similarly, russia is never gonna attack nature. we're quite nice for both sides to recognize

that fact and begin to get the temperature down. yeah, but i mean, they donations avatar china and russia having the, i mean, i know it was a mistake with him on a slab that was a mistake when they, when they attack russian installations in syria. that's a mistake. me the native nations, as well as you could say, rather the nato as a whole. but there's no doubt that they 2 nations have attacked russia and china. no nato nations. well, i know the incident, your furniture, which was, i think, the well, the nato bombing was plain, but the nato bombing off serbia, in the run up to the war to try to liberate cost. if i was already turned into a mistake and i was a bad mistake and the chinese responded really quite dramatically to it. and i hope that nato learned from that mistake, but it wasn't america or nato attacking china. it was an error in the course of a war which was entirely justified given what the service of doing it was over at

the time. well, there's all this talk about an alleged chinese intelligence agent here in westminster, in the house of commons. christine lee, you're a diplomat. what do you make of britain saying? they're not going to send diplomats to, they went to games in china as the global. so there's vladimir putin arrives there . a good idea? no, i think it's a mistake. i mean, you get to choose to slee stub, we introduce you to the snob, anybody, but you certainly don't get your sense, the snob, the 2nd most powerful national plan. yes, but the british government, as you know, says it's not gratuitous. it's of actually a response to alleged human rights abuses. yeah. and those human rights abuses are real. but nevertheless, we need to maintain a constructive relationship with china. and i think doing this sort of thing is petty and doesn't achieve anything. yeah, in a week when guantanamo had its van diversity with 1st detainee, i think human rights are pretty relative,

as all countries seem to be saying and have done for on time. what about the role of germany, north stream to the russian government? very angry about the noise is coming from washington and from brussels. do you see the new chancellor change leadership in germany being better for us go, well better than they do. i use for you to judge. i'm not stream to is probably not the ideal subject to base it on. i mean, we've been around the north stream to circuit before back in 1980 s when the question 1st arose of russia. exporting gas to germany. another was new nations. the americans tried to impose sanctions to stop it, the new european nations, and particularly germany insisted that they needed the gas, and eventually the americans backed down. now, if all the other noise it's going on what's going on, i would be reasonably confident that's the way this would go as well this time. but it's been come bound up now with

a whole ukraine issue. and i suspect that at the moment that the 1st russian ball drops in ukraine, which let's hope it doesn't. at that moment, no stream to is a date for decade also. and 40 percent, europe's energy. now in europe, this might not string to is that it is not just north gym to obviously the other bipolar no, no, no, no, no, no, no brushes. performance on delivering gas to western europe has been impeccable. russia signs contracts and delivers on them. and it is pretty clear that even through all is the current which is going on. russia is maintaining that policy. you have an argument about what they're doing on the side. they're not shifting so much gases for marketers people used to, but they're entirely within their rights to do that. and i assume we'll want to continue doing latch until unless something goes dramatically. it's magical and all price to them for maintaining that position. i'm not fin to from the point you

delivering current deliveries of russian gas is not necessary, but we'll have to see how things evolve from here. oh, yeah. i mean, the former u. s. u s. senior adviser, i would look back was on the show, this week we were going watch it. and i started by saying to him, for most to be james point of view, they are looking at the u. s. is continue destabilization of latin america as they see it. they're looking at a t o p in the t p a left. they're looking at obviously a resurgent military presence around taiwan. they're seeing a continued attacks on china about what's happening. and jan jang, how long do you think the shanghai corporation, organization, states which include rush or of course and china. i just going to say here allow this to keep on going before they start to militarily engage with the warships.

nato nations are sending to all these places and, and armaments. i don't see the shanghai corporation organization. wonderful organization of it is actually challenging the power, the united states, and it's obviously a bit of an arm wrestle going on. i mention about control of the ceilings in the south china sea and so on. that's principally between the united states and china and, and i, well, those 2 countries will have to decide what level of competition they're ready to engage in. and how much further they're willing to go. the 1st one is obviously taiwan. and again, let's hope fast as both sides of said a peaceful solution to what i don't see. major deep disagreement can be found, but i don't see united states wandering around the world destabilizing places in the south china sea. it is protecting international see ways which are open to everyone. i mean,

some believe in the humanitarian intervention and often point to those who are converted to the policy by the rwandan genocide. you think there are parallels. i understand the libyan elections are, again being postponed. libya to beijing and moscow was a kind of red line. they can no longer allow nato countries to no longer trust them. obviously they, china abstained on the olivia un. resolution that libya was a line in the sand and no longer do russia and china or take for granted the words coming from washington and brussels. i was quite heavily involved and li, dementia intervention policy. and it felt right at the time, there are a lot of really quite nasty governments around the world repressing brutally repressing massacring there in peoples that included of saddam in iraq that included in that fee. in libya,

that continues to include syria aside in syria. and the feeling was, and this is partially related to, at the time the absolute military dominance of the west and of it. so there's a feeling that we should intervene to help these repressed populations. now, in retrospect, it has not been a very successful policy in iraq to produce isis. and a lot of subsequent was in libya and produced an a key which continues to this day in syria produced very nearly a war with russia actually. and syria remains in the cooling mess at the moment, actually, i think there's a lot of chin scratching going on in the west, right. whether this was an entirely sensible approach to life. now let's see what comes along next. but for the moment, i think you're looking at something of the western pause and interfering for humanitarian reasons. in however, got countries are governed. and i was conspicuous example of that obviously, is the rather abrupt u. s. and therefore nature withdrawal from afghanistan. there. what were your

feelings about that? because i have to say, and i know, i mean even with cove it so you don't get to go to as many diplomatic parties as you might have done before. you know, those hawks are still out there who aren't in scratching. we're just saying actually people are defeatist when they complain about the interventions that you just just delineated there. i'm not, i mean i've got it done. i think that was all this right. i was involved right, the beginning of kennesaw, i was in washington dc time and evolve since and it started off. well 1st of all, it started off as a result of $911.00. i'm going to check on the twin towers exam avoidable. and they then turned into an effort to turn afghanistan into a western style. democracy which i was felt was bound to fail and has failed and we would biden, and therefore we were right to get out. but i don't exclude the possibility that somewhere around the world, you have a nasty dictator repressing his people in

a way that we the west could stop and are therefore deciding to go it. what i would say, however, is that the mistake in a lot of these interventions so far has been that you go, it's easy to when we got massive armed forces, you go in, you, when you throw the die out, that's very straightforward. you can't then just turn your back and work out again . you have to rebuild the society somehow. that was the same time, not becoming the enemy domestically to, to whatever politics or just all, just stay out to stay out of it. and, and i mean, well, yeah, we'll say that, that kind of idea, is it precisely why 911 happened in the 1st place, of course, the machine and so forth, which leads me on, i suppose to be asking you at the moment in the past few weeks israel armed by britain in the united states is of course when bombing, syria, and garza and so on creating incredible a inspiration are acting as

a recruitment sergeant for islamists all around the world. which would mean another $911.00. who knows this here, given the hatred for the west, that these kinds of her actions inspire. so again, when we see the same mistakes being played out again of, well, we take out a dictator out here, or there are a terrorist leader as they would call it. and then try and rebuild societies in their own image. wasn't hey, gal, who said the one thing we learned from history is that no one ever learns anything from history. we've conducted these operations. they have not been very successful, but it is not difficult to imagine. as i say, some nasty dictator all over the televisions worldwide. murdering his people and the west feeling constrained to act, maybe with russia. i mean, russia is a country with an international conscience to the trick. yes, but surely. but the point is britain in the united states helping the mass murder

of people in yemen on pay. i mean, is a, you basically say no, i don't think so. the pressure on the saudis now with the people who really found for the saudis couldn't do what they're doing without britain. and we know boris johnson, reputedly jokes about the civilian casualties in yemen. if you use exactly the same ideas you're using to me, they're majoring in russia, could say right enough is enough. these atrocities being committed with british and american aid deserve a response. and the regime change in london in washington. i mean, i think that's wrong and the change of us attitude is very visible. i'm not following this closely for the u. k, but the united states now criticizing the saudis for what they did to show me that unfortunate journalist a did. and then you turn, they are pulling back on various arms supplies deals with sandy. it's quite striking. the saudis are not having to go around with the bigging bow to other bits of the middle east who have the rockets that they need. i suspect that what you're looking at is a robber. colder climate, towards saudi lease, from washington

d. c. my suspect or so therefore from i haven't gone into the details of the saudis . did i any a wrong doing? and they say, actually they're the army. when contracts are being honored, vulnerable, thank you. acute that's over the show will be back on monday. when after golden globe successful squid game, we investigate the rise of korean pop culture. 15 years to the day, the doomsday clock were set to 5 minutes to midnight. after north korea's 1st missile test, and you'll then keep in touch my role as social media and let us know which side you'd be on in a war between nato and russia and china. 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 police. this is an app vehicle we acquired through the 1033

program, very free program with the government program that funnels military property that is no longer use to local law enforcement with building an army over here. and i can't believe people aren't seeing those thing an agency out here. yeah. think of terrorism here because it began appealing that ahead. you have to deal with our practice, who you putting in the uniform of the beds is a powerful thing from tab has like money in play tricks and people mind they think they go bad. no is wolf is out the door very bad. johns are coming. good news. you have job security because the world desperately needs that you have to join me every thursday on the alex simon, sure. i'll be speaking to guess of the world of politics. sport, business. i'm sure business. i'll see you then.

aah! secret squad. a new report claims the cia has been training a leak ukrainian special operations teams on us. revelation likely to fan tensions with russia. guests of debated the widely talented spectra of military comfort need . someone circumvent was always going to weeks detention. we have here in you praying the plan to be miss of 5 minutes from moscow. the question is, how do you, how do you deal with allegations that america intended to commit genocide, the leader of the indigenous shoshone nation tells our team nuclear tests were deliberately carried out on land belonging to native.