ah, i'm ashley and jeannie watching a special edition of going underground less than 20 days before vladimir putin, his schedule to be teaching, being 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 over ukraine as they reach a seeming impass moscow's hopes of turning back the clock on nato expansion appear rejected as jo, biden's threats of massive consequences dissolve signs for optimism or pessimism in what could be a global existential crisis. joining enough in cambridge is the ex u. k. p. m, tony blair's former ambassador to russia. so tony brandon, thank you so much 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. you installed in burg,

you need to at least said that the missions are going to open in moscow and in brussels, or between nato and russia. so at least that some good news talks in that that's a small is a good news. i gather is still disagreement about how many diplomats each site is going to have. well, you're going to go on to the business department. i am going to have your sales please. i know, but let me, let me just say one of the sure it is good news that after russia produced its draft treaties and it's such a demands, the west united states in particular, didn't simply say, get lost. what it said was ok, let's talk and it's good news to that, the west. ok, we can get on to what i disagree with. but they have offered some things which to, 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 this. yeah, those good things. suppose are good things. a missile deployment, 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 the hypersonic missile, the can it l a in 30 minutes, but that, that, aside from that, the polish for ministers, a big me of route said, europe is the closest to war in 30 years. stolberg says it's the situation 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 u. s. 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 it, 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 they would not get involved militarily. that would be very

strong 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 it was pretty obvious one. everybody knows that ukraine, it will not, it just makes hope in the, in the term the future is certainly not going to do that. within the next few years . there's a contested territory between russia and ukraine, is 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 i'm sorry to tell you, but what would they have if the russians hadn't put a 100000 troops across the border in russia will be 200 miles and i think away from the ukrainian border. yes, i mean the presence of those troops is ineffective. had the effect of getting 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 crane 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 nato for she is for some time. i. e, not an offending against russia's principle, is never going to join a so nor offending against nature's principle. we can't say it's never going to join nature by 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, 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 bible ministration that russia is not allowed to move its troops within its borders in russia, according to the way native things, no one said that they are 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 it is similar situation to, if russia based of it's war ships and so on, knows 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 panels. and i think the reason why our special flight and we have special forces that we certainly setting up a training facility in, in ukraine at the moment, is that we want to help ukraine to acquire the abilities and itself. and stephanie doesn't evidently, doesn't have at the moment. i can't, for example, when the war and dumbass behavior, 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 the of what you've been saying does not tally with the kind of briefings being given to british journalists in this country, or us journalists in the united states, which 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's your saying look,

curb even are 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 nato nations. who is there some sort of vested interest here saying the opposite of water. prior ambassador to moscow, like yourself, who say, not sure that the briefings of that absolute, this 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 to reject? just to say what i suspect, i mean, i've seen the briefings. my suspect the briefings of said here are these trips. there are awful lot of them quite post to the borders of a much smaller unless, well defended state. pretty clearly, those troops are there for re is 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 adams, jeff says we have the intelligence, that's what the intention is. it's not too intimidated to invade. and of course the, i don't, i don't think shifted. he's a does rush a claim. his vision 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 running me a boot in his schedule to me going to see she jen ping. why do you think western policy makers don't realize that every action they seem to take is drawing a 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 weston, the bad relations between western russia, obviously are 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. the results of our finding better relations with russia would be indeed to attract rusher into a more how can i put this some way 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 context on 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 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 to be an entirely defensible operation. and on the position of the chinese, i would guess the chinese, i would guess that russia and china in the sense, improve their relationship. 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. all these talks. recently we had china, of course, in alaska, that famous blink and meeting when widen 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 a statement by the russian foreign office or replying to blink and saying don't if i wrote basically don't, if i russians and your 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 may be 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 doubt that i think we can statement this was actually stupid saying 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 statement was absurd, and hopefully they would have learned from experience. so johnny bernard, i'll stop you there more from x u k. p. m, tony blair's former ambassador to russia after this break. ah

ah, ah, who's the un sorry? did the united states talking about jamie ross talking about press freedom. if you go to the top, you don't want to go. in other words, she's got to be consistent. you can start over on the one hand we believe in press freedom. but on the other hand, we're going to exclude julian massage. and i think that your property of the united states and his choice is really makes a little bit really mad about the caching. turning here in australia where people just don't understand them, right. i want to start in citizen, which comes down with waller officers, are facing and increasingly dangerous environments. 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 amazon vehicle we acquired through the 1033 program and very free program with the government program that follows military property. that is no longer you feel the law enforcement with boeing an army over here. and i can't believe the people. i see a thing of terrorism here, cuz this began a feeling that hey, you have to deal with our practice. who you putting in uniform cover bands is a powerful thing. is sometimes like money in play tricks. people might think they've gone the bad knows what was out the door. very bad. chandler common good news. yep. job security is world desperately needs what you advocate mm. welcome back. i'm still here with ex u. k. p. m. tony blair's former ambassador to rochester, tony brandon,

sorry to keep harping on about the media element of this, but that is after all, where normal people are normal. people informed their impressions continually the idea unchallenged. i heard on the b, b. c. the other day that they to, as a defensive or defensive organization. i know this is a point that russia and china, and we went to the global south and says, how can they call themselves a defensive organization? how can journalists not challenge that idea, given iraq, afghanistan and libya, yugoslavia where 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 i keep buying a gas done and getting involved in iraq, you say, but in the european context, i, in our dealings with rush, they say it is very much

a defensive organization. and one depressing fact coming back to the current disagreements about ukraine, is it each side is treating the other as a threat to security. whereas in fact, nature was never going to attack russia. and similarly, russia is never gonna attack, makes it 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. the, the nato nations, as well as you can say, rather, nato as a whole. but there's no doubt that they donations of attacked russia and china, now nato nations. well, i'm not the incident. your furniture, which was, i think it was a nato bombing us plane, 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 in the chinese responded really quite dramatically to it. and i, 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 the war which was entirely justified given what the serbs were doing in crossover 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 are a diplomat. what do you make of britain saying? they're not going to send diplomats to the winter games in china as the global. so those vladimir putin arrives, they're a good idea. no, i think it's a mistake. i mean, you get to choose a slee stub. we don't, you could choose to say snob, anybody, but you certainly don't. good choice is the snob, the 2nd most powerful nation. yes, for 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 a pretty relative, as all countries seem to be saying and have done for long time. what about the role of germany? nod 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 19 eighties 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. well this time, but it's been come, bound up now with the whole ukraine issue. and i suspect that at the moment, the 1st russian ball drops in ukraine, which let's hope it doesn't. at that moment, no stream to date for decade or so. and 40 percent, europe's energy. now in europe, this is not string to is that it is not just not seem to obviously the other bipolar no, 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

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're 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, the 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 from moscow and b james point of view, they're 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 i left. then looking at obviously a resurgent military presence around taiwan. they're seeing a continued attacks on china about what's happening and jin chang. 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 ascending to all these places and, and armaments. i don't see the shanghai corporation organization, wonderful organization that is actually challenging the power, the united states. and it's obviously a bit of an arm wrestle going on at the moment about control of the ceilings in the south china sea and so on. that's principally between the united states and china. i 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 that has been sight of say,

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 the 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 can no longer trust them. obviously they, china abstained on the olivia un resolution that libya was lying 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. it produced 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 withdraw 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 don't get it done. i think that was all this right. i was involved right in the beginning, i've kind of start. i was in washington d. c. time and involved since and started off. well, 1st of all, it started off as a result of $911.00. i'm going to check on the twin towers. it's on avoidable,

and they then turned into an effort to turn afghanistan into a western style democracy, which i always 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 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. why the same time not becoming the enemy domestically to, to whatever the 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, as 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 where we take out a dictator out here or there are a terrorist leaders, they would call it and then try and rebuild societies in their own image. wasn't hagel, who said the one thing we learn from history is that no one ever learns anything from history. conducting 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 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 that the change of us attitude is very visible. i'm not following this closely for the u. k, but the united states is now criticizing the saudis for what they did to show me

that unfortunate journalist they 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 begging bo should other bits of the middle east who have the rockets that they need. i suspect that what you're looking at is a rama colder climate tool. 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, went off to 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. up to 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. with

now we have e cigarettes, i was just heard that it was a healthy alternative to cigarettes and do we trust tobacco companies with their message that these new products are actually going to reduce are these are making the tobacco up into over 2 years. join me every 1st aid on the alex salmon. sure. i'll be speaking to guess of the world of politics, sport business. i'm show business. i'll see you then. mm . it really is happening here now on day outside the door, then to be known globally as the home of big going to city. and we're witnessing the demise of gold as a monetary. the monetization takes place. ah

moscow slow washington for alleging that rushes preparing a full flying operation to justify it? suppose it ukraine in patient or guess size all the chances of a military culture was always going to waste tensions. we have here in creating the plan to be miss all 5 minutes from moscow. the question is, how do you, how do you deal with a bully? also head on the program today must have chemical fire in north new jersey is sending large plumes of potentially dangerous smoke into the air could be headed in the direction of nearby new york city.