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 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 are 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 where i go 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'm actually go there. i am going to have your sales visit, i believe. let me just say one other for 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 they disagree with. but they have offered some things which the 2 sides can discuss constructively, like arms control, like where people but nuclear weapons like those sorts of things. now, you're about to go on to it. yeah. 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 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. stolen 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 had not, and i actually, i see your students except 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 nature would not get involved militarily. that would be very strong, thanks and so on. but the idea about a year wide war between nature and russia as a result of what's going on in ukraine promotion as a very like going back to ukraine itself. russia is really clear on its determination that ukraine will never join nato. nato has been equally clear on the principle that 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

western farmers as a real cost today. the talks 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 is pretty obvious one. everybody knows that ukraine, it with a lot of joints next hope 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. in, 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 troops across the border in russia will be the 100 miles, i think, away from the ukrainian border. yes, i mean, the presence of those troops is, in effect of had the effect of getting the discussions that are 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. and i said, ukraine is not going to join nato for the next decade to decades because of differences in my crimea. differences about the bus, so it ought to be possible engineer and agreed statements 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. last time you were on the program, you said, i think i challenged you and said, why is more johnson's ending in warships into the black sea? what it, 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 but russia is not allowed to move its troops within its borders . in russia, according to the way nature thinks, 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 war is 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 there is similar situation to, if russia based of it's war ships and so on, no send special forces to mexico because the united states and britain have special forces in ukraine as well 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 so i don't know that we have special forces, but we certainly setting up a training facility in, in ukraine at the moment, is that we want to help you crane to acquire the abilities and itself. it's w doesn't it? 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'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 the expansion of russia in kazakhstan, and in belarus, and the where is your saying, look of even probably not going to do it. where are these? where are 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 the absolute is what the precious publishing and some of our press is well known that is hard over against russia. but what do they

want more than to reject? just to say what i suspect, i'm not seeing the briefings. my suspect the briefings of said here are these troops. there are awful lot of them quite post 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 captures like the truth to me. i mean, rush, rob, as he says that 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 the of course the, i can see, i don't think shifted. he's a does. russian e k 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 jin 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 sing nato 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 the 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 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, the russian troops have been invited together on we'll create tensions between majoring 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. well, the c s t o were invited supply trips to back up because exxon 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 sing. 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 blinkin meeting went by and 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 replying to blink and saying don't if i read basically don't, if i russians a jew, houses guests because they'll stay longer than they should. and of course, the russian said you're more likely to be raped or robed if 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 imaging that we've not seen for a long time. the best thing is to up the ante i, i doubt that i think we can statement this was actually stupid, sang doing by the russians in and now down there we go there and it is now proven

wrong. and, and it's 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, and getting into a big disagreement with russia is obviously not helpful to that. and i think instinct was absurd and hopefully they would have learned from the 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, the lose

kaiser's financial survival guys. i don't buy a i guy on the features of the friday at the last time i buy it from a future soccer watch. kaiser reporting 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 on a terry cindy. it began a feeling that ahead you have to deal with our practice who you putting in a uniform cover bands is a powerful thing. different tabs, like money in play, tricks, people mine a big bad nose. wolf is out the door. very bad. johns are coming. good news. you have job security because the world desperately needs that you have a good welcome back. i'm still here with ex u. k. p. m, tony blair's former ambassador to rochester, tony brandon. sorry to keep dropping on about the media element of this, 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 was

a defensive of defensive organization. i know this is a point that russia and china and went to the global south and says, how can they call themselves a defensive organization? how can journalists not challenge that idea, given the iraq afghanistan and libya, yugoslavia where i think you're wrong, nature is a different position and specifically so in the european context is 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 the rush, they said 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 going to 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 when they build a new gustavo, that was a mistake when they, when they attack russian installations in syria, that sort of stayed the, the native nations as well. as you could say, rather than 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 sylvia in the run up to the war to try to liberate costs. 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 customer at the time. well as all this, talk about an alleged chinese intelligence agent here in westminster, in the house of commons. christie lee, you're 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. now, 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 actually a response to a lead 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 on 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 pasco? 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, 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 did the gas and eventually the americans act 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 is dead for decade or so. and 40 percent, europe's energy. no, europe, we're not string to. is this it is not just not seem to obviously the other bipolar no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no rushes 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 was going on. russia is maintaining that policy. you have an argument about what they're doing on the side and not shifting such gases for market is 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 advisor i would look back was on the show. this week people can 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 l f. they're looking at obviously a resurgent military presence around taiwan. they're seeing a continued attacks on china about what's happening in jin chang. how long do you think the shanghai corporation, organization, states which include russia, of course, on china. i just going to say, hey, we are 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 is 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 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 that as my sense 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. that 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 minister intervention policy. and it felt right at the time, there are a lot of really quite nasty governments around the world repressing, repressing massacring there in peoples that included of saddam and 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 is 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 in interfering for humanitarian reasons. in however, got countries on government. 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 coverage, 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 have gas done. i think that was all was right. i was involved. right in the beginning, i've got to start, i was in washington d. c. time and evolve 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 unaffordable. 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 is 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 use for the die out. that's very straightforward. you can't then just turn your back and walk out again. you have to rebuild the society somehow. why 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, when you 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 year, 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 leader as they would call it and then try and rebuild societies in their own image. wasn't haggle. he 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 assuming that 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 they did. and then you turn, they are pulling back on various arms supplies, deals with sandy. it's quite striking the saudis and 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 rabbit colder climate, towards saudi lease, from washington d. c. my suspect or so therefore from i haven't gone into the details. i would say without is, did i any a wrong doing? and they say actually they're the army. when contracts are being honored, vollmer bassett, beg you q, that's over the show will be back on monday when after golden globe success 1st 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, let us know which side you'd be on in a war between nato and russia and china. ah, now we have the cigarettes, i was just heard that there 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 story in the united states talking about human rights talking about press freedom. if you're going to talk to talk, you don't want to book. in other words, she's got to be consistent. you can start over on the one hand we believe press freedom. but on the other hand, we're going to exclude julia massage. and i think the hypocrisy of the united states is tracy. what really makes a lot of people really mad about the caching. turning here in australia where people just don't understand them, right. want to start in citizen, which comes down with a,

with breaking news on our see this, our a good one is taken people hostage at the synagogue in the u. s. state of texas. a swat team is currently responding to the situation local report. they the arm, so steak is trying to free a pack is sunny sciences, building counter terrorism circles, as lady al qaeda. she serving 86 years and it takes us jail said moscow. blum's washington alleging that brushes preparing a whole like operation to justify it's supposed to ukraine invasion plans are guess size of the chances of the military conflict. need someone. so coming, we're always going to week to tensions we have here in ukraine. the plan to be miss of 5 minutes from moscow. the big question is how do you, how do you deal.