of our economy. is this the world according to amazon? ah, ah. hello and welcome to cross talk. we're all things considered on peter lavelle. it was not a show down, but rather an exercise in placing markers. the russia us talks in geneva settled basically nothing. however, the biden administration can no longer say it does not understand russia's position on pan european security. the ball is in washington's court. ah,

discuss these issues and more, i'm joined by my guess. well, in these, in our slow, he is a professor at the university of southeastern norway as well as author of the book, great power politics in the 4th industrial revolution. and in budapest, we have george samuel. he is a podcast or at the goggle, which can be found on youtube and locals, or a gentleman. crosstalk rules in effect, that means you can jump in any time you want, and i always appreciate it. ok, let's go to glen 1st. glen, you know, we, we've had about 2 weeks of meetings or different formats are essentially on the same topic, at least from the russian perspective. been trying to get nato on the same page, to talk about pan european security. i watch the presser is laudrup, and blinking, blinking has moved though, got a little bit in the right direction, but not very far in my opinion. like as i said in my introduction, basically nothing has been done. but i think it's also fair to say that washington can't say it doesn't know what who didn't want. is they love to say your assessment?

go ahead. no, i agree. and i think it the way the meeting began kind of demonstrated, well how far apart they were and not even discussing the same thing. because when moscow met with the washington, they the main discussion. well, the americans came prepared to speak about the claim and effectively for the russians. they said no, well the crane is a symptom of a broader problem we've had for the past 3 years, which is there is no pan european security system and there are no and european security agreements and more that works so, so they want to highlight this principle that, well, this main main tension, which is, you know, we have 2 different principles in europe. the russians are saying the foundations of pioneer p and security has to be one that does not expand its security at the expense of the other. so invisible security on the american say no, no european security is based on the right of natal to expand. and you know, it's russian french on this and this is an attack on, you know, democracy and freedom. and you know, this is the, the, the usual, so good, so, so,

so this is kind of where we were to start off and took a while to even move away from simply talking about russian troops on russian soil in, in, you know, there, in approximately, on the ukrainian borders to actually discuss european security agreements and again, that it hasn't been successful because there are no, that's no, no interest in making any compromises or, you know, attempting to meet anywhere in the middle. or, you know, at least this stuff, some understanding of what bothers russia, but again, so far, the american, some limited response to stating, to looking for ways of punishing russia and forcing it. they're told effectively. and this is why the last meeting between london and lincoln was a little bit awkward because, you know, lincoln obviously came prepared to say, here we are, we're united, west, we're not going to give you anything. now you do us, we're told otherwise. you know, we're going to all the sanction oldest punishment. however,

he showed up with realizing that the continental european settlers are not with them on this one. the british might be, but the europeans are not. and so it didn't really have that much to, to present. and this is why they don't know what to do, not because again, this was the whole approach of the unit, or we could even though russia because all the power was in the west. but now of course, a problem is russia is not afraid of any sanction, more diversified, it has the military advantage along its own borders. it's effectively saying this and we have the security concerns. if those are not respected, we have to act on them. let's have proper agreements where both securities are taken into account and, you know, slows that have a fully lincoln's kind of realizing that they can't dictate what the outcome will be here. so they have to find some compromise. and this is very painful. decision americans are in because they've been able to, you know, simply dictate a demand, unilateral concessions for 30 years, and, you know, it's coming to an end,

so it doesn't surprise me that this is a difficult pill to swallow for washington. yeah, george, i'm calling this program. i'm lincoln's cause play because that's exactly what it was. so i want to reiterate a point that the glenn make. i think it's very important for our audience because of the very distorted narrative that's going on right now. rush, you want to have good relations with its neighbor ukraine. it doesn't want it to be a hostile country, and most importantly, it doesn't want nato in ukraine. it's not about ukraine. it's all about nato expansion, and it is so irritating and makes it awful. our hair out is that the in this very stilted narrative that is being presented to publix around the world. go ahead. jordan. that's exactly right. and that's why it's hard to see whether any real compromise is possible. so over the weekend we had the, you know, you are about this issue, this extraordinary statement, saying that

a plot to over on the part of the russians to overthrow the government the here. and to put in that people in place. and, you know, that's, that's it. and then they believe the americans immediately say, yeah, yeah, we agree, that's our finding to so, you know, they are now, not only insisting that it's all about your brain, not about a rush and security concerns about building a security architecture in europe. it is all about the great end of the any moment . russia will invade or a, you know, organize a coo and install some obscure person in charge in here. so, and then even last week, we had the day before, lincoln would love wrong. the state department issue these 2 extraordinarily vituperative statements about russian law isn't dis,

information. so this is really the problem that the, as far as the western by western really, i mean the u. s. and the u. k. a concerned that it is all about russia trying to evade threaten take over. busy ukraine and is, are they pretend not to understand what russia is talking about? and i think it doesn't come to a very dangerous situation because i think we're, we're heading to work a crisis during the beijing olympics. if a government in care tries to state some kind of a provocative incident and which might trigger a russian intervention,

not that bad. i mean, rush of always is a rush is obviously don't want anything like that. but it's a possibility. and given the way the british and americans are presented it, oh wow, that's it. that's what we were saying. no rush is just, this is a great, you know, glen, i'm, i'm glad to. george brought up those 2 state department reports on just information this information, whatever it was, because it seems to me that the us state department is actually fine to corral nato members because they see that it's great. ok we had last week, we had the u. k. a sending weapons to ukraine and they avoided german airspeed. the germans don't want to say they think this is provocative here. and then we have, we have a resident with chrome, head of the rotating you presidency. and you know, he's come out with a statement about respecting security of all countries and very nervous about publications. it seems to me that state department is, is trying to,

it's spending actually more time trying to keep nato in line when he is actually and having a dialogue with russia because that's a dialog dialog. the deaf and dumb. lin. yeah, well that was the arguments coming out of britain as well that when they were making the argument that we shouldn't, you know, buying to the russian narrative, they were specifically referring to the europeans that they're starting to repeat the russian propaganda. what about again, hope again, those are misused. we're doing all this with propaganda. you have the intentional framing of any conflict. then a very common technique, for example, use very simple binary framing. and this is what need to propaganda is, which is suggesting the only solutions to this is either we have the expansion or we have a rush and serve influence in your brain. and this and you know, so we have to choose this or this is how this works. and this is, and it's so ridiculous which is why a lot of this discussions have been very dishonest because most of the of slogans

aim towards an uninformed public rather than making any common sense. i mean, surely there are a 3rd option here. russia not that doesn't have the capabilities or intention to exclude exclusive influence in ukraine. it but, but these are the only options either military lines towards russian borders or russia takes over your grant. surely the whole point of security agreement is to find this middle points, for example, a neutral ukraine, which rushes always been happy with. but again, this, this very this on the statement, same as, you know, the secretary general nato is talking about. he was saying, russia doesn't have any legitimate reasons to be afraid of nato because we are defensive alliance. i mean, really is still, i remember that in 1900 kissing it was saying, well, we can't say that made was defensive anymore to the russians. now that the bombing the serbs and also later going after the libyans, i mean this, you can try to justify the source in any way you want is illegal or by illegal or by the way, but they're not defensive. so, so just call it the fence of

a line so it doesn't make any sense. also. also the only recently the senior official to the bomb administration article. i think her name is argued that russia, us would actually go to war against russia, not just over ukraine, but, you know, take by crimea, push russia out of a call to have it both ways. you can't say that brush in the future can be no threat to rush on at the same time. are you that are you that we should use force against them? also, this idea that rush should have no beat. so this is also, you know, we say over and over again as if it makes any sense. i mean, if i made was going to monopolize and security in europe that, and the biggest country, new york should not have any say over it. i mean, this is an absurd statement. obviously, russia will have, you know, either has it within institutions or it will have to rely on its own, on the military, in order to uphold that, you know, which is now expressed as a red line. so nothing makes any sense. and the last one is nato secretary general,

explicitly saying nathan does not discriminate against new and old members. well, this was the whole point of the nato russia funding act of 1997. this very explicit promise committed not putting metal to permit troops in eastern europe. and now they're saying, no, no, this goes against our principle. well, it both ways you can find an agreement, you know, on tenure, p security one, control there, and then say, well this goes against our principal. so all the agreements we find other. so it's very, very strange discussions. and i think it's good to get to get some of this out in the front because it, to me, it doesn't make any sense of a united option reflected that, you know, essentially nato is just the propaganda machine. ok that because that's what it invest a lot of money and, and is going is rightly pointed out it, it just creates all these false bind aries ok. and it in my mind that's intentional

because they have no intention of recognizing rushes from national security interest. the 22nd before we go to the break, george yet pointed out, i mean, they are expansionist, which means that by definition they are not offensive. i mean defensive means you stay in place and defend what you have. now they have been expanding and they insist on their right to continue to expand. and when they, it says quite explicitly in that 997 agreement, which is no common the station in the home, a countries of the was ok. and then when the russians point this out to them, hey we, you know, we have a unconditional right to do whatever we want to know that you're going to go to a break and we'll continue our discussion to really stay with that. oh, ah,

ah, there may or may, we should all be may it may, we should all be angry or what's going on, right. can't understand united states history and the role that slavery plate is already a very formal institution. by the time united states became a nation, it actually find the nation, the rise of capitalism clearly on the backs of white and the slave down. if you had investigated lynchings to any great extent, you can't believe

a country and the country still stands in brick. i'm from the south. everybody know know what they're saying. to some extent, i would argue that we're still fighting the civil war and the south is winning a welcome back. across stock were all things are considered. i'm peter labelle. this is the home addition to remind you. we're discussing real news. i was return to georgia. i just wanted to talk about the presser, and it wasn't jointly held decay in geneva, which, you know says something. and i thought it was very interesting that you know, russia says that the u. s. will respond to russia's written, propose,

next week. that's how the, the russians interpreted and here. ok, robert blink. and they were heading to different delegations, and it was shortly after they were talking, but blanking. he told the press corps something very different. is it bad memory or dis, will willful, not understanding. he said the us hoped to share it concerns and ideas in more detail in writing next week. those are 2 very different things. these 2 men just spoken to each other and it doesn't say any kind of explicit reaction to, to written documents that the russians proposed to the united states and nato separately. and before, as a and my question here, george, again, we have out of washington saying that they want to have this as secret diplomacy. russia is committed in this process to public diplomacy docs. yes. yeah. and i think that's a very good point. and i do not think that the americans are going to respond

to the russian documents. i think that to the extent that they will present a written response. i think it will be a familiar literally of complaints about the. busy crimea no the, the don't last the scripture now me a very, in our elections brakes and whatever it is, just going to be the usual a complaint. i do not think that they tend to address any of these issues because they don't acknowledge the legitimacy of these issues. and that is why the situation is dangerous. because i think the russians will feel that the only way that our concerns will be addressed. and that the seriousness with which we're coming to this will be addressed is if you know, in the event of some kind of military action, because otherwise is going to keep talking about, you know, pointless,

things like well arms control, transparency, no mutual confidence building measures with military exercises, so they've been talking about decades. but this isn't really what the russians are also. and really, what has to say that the framework of some kind of a security agreement shouldn't be that hard to find just no nato expansion in return, russia also commits not to bring in any place into the collective security treaty organization as a ok. so for everyone else, you friday, and there's something wrong when you try to know if you're in your domestic affairs just means that you're not joining any of military lines. i mean, we used to have, during the cold war, the normal line movement, the gigantic movement of the states that we're very happy isn't that to say, we're not a military alliance. and so there's nothing wrong with it. but, you know,

nato is simply absolutely refusing to acknowledge this. and i think that that's kind of why goes into this mess because they do has gone on expanding. and sooner or later russia was going to say enough already. and we were going to do something about this, you know, again, want to go back something i said in the 1st part of the program here, is that there's, this seems to me, we hear this mental problems. all right, we're just a line over and over and over again. it's on speed dial or something. but if you look what's coming out of european capital, like, you know, going to the new killer ops, you know, growing rush out of the switch system. you know, that's easy for somebody in washington, you know, think tank suburb, you know, with air conditioning, but you know, the germans in to say, well, how are we going to be? how is russia, what is that was the energy. i mean, you're, you european union countries, you know, the importance of a 3rd of their energy,

russia, and it's good only going to grow, mean throw them out of the system, then how do you pay? i mean, is anybody in washington thinking like this? because it seems that you know, and georgie and you both pointed out in this program here isn't even as so called negotiations are going on us senators who are showing up in cam sanction sanction, sanction me. and they understand the gravity of all this because it seems to me that nature was desperate. if it can't get its way every single time, then it's kind of a broken system and no one will take it seriously. i think they're very worried about that. i had a lot of purpose on it. i mean, when, during the cold war made, it was a necessity to balance to somebody after the cold war, the purpose of nato was collective hedging money. so you join it and you know, we, we, we unilaterally make the decisions now obviously, and then the main problem having now, is it, 1st of all, keeping this grouping together because america kind of suggesting and are willing

to fight the russians down to the last european and, you know, obviously the europeans are getting some, some cold feet. here we go. so just quickly, a little bit back up with what you're saying, as well as a lot of what has been able to keep the confusion between nato, a strategic ambiguity already in the ninety's. the americans could go to french and german thing. listen later, we're just going to have made us a democratic club, a russian, and then you have to go to the polls going. of course we're here to balance the russians and you know, so you can't be too explicit because these are all contradictory positions. so this is the strategic ambiguity you don't, and this is why the russians want to go from the very big us to the specific. and that's why also, that they don't want to go down this route either but, but the same as the threat to, to nato obviously. you know, the good possibility of made a war against russia is a possibility, but it doesn't have to be either or a countries per se, what's called escalation. which means that the u. s. dominates on the long russian

border. sticking to such a, dictate everything to the russians and knowing that the americans can bring tension up or down. that will. and it's nothing rush can do under those conditions. russia would always have to capitulate. and this is again the content. this is what collective hedge amount is after. so it's up to say that need to be a threat. i mean, it's just, you going to can repeat this until sounds like makes sense, but it doesn't. and they are just left on this cutting rush from swift. and, you know, this pull out, they can amik, oregon, the against the russia. obviously, this is going to get back on the europeans very hard. i mean, the russia spent least the past 8 years, making its economy sanctions proof. and it's getting very close to having it's a full group. i mean they, they have a diversify their economy, the financial instruments. and if, if they will cut brush off switch, then obviously this will bring a lot of pain to european economies. but also the question then becomes for come, for the germans. how would we actually buy gas from the russians to set up?

but you don't know how the russians will react. if you declare all economic war on them, you know, they might have a counter sanction. they might have something up their sleeve. so they don't want to go down this route at the moment. part of the, the u. s. f for enhancing negotiations. tactics means this is actually empower now talking to listen case as opposed to more energy to the european. so because if they feel more secure in the energy, then we can, you know, then we can keep this anti russian alliance together. they will be more, there will be a bit older to go off. the russia is just a huge problem because it can't keep us all of that together. the possibility of having the strategic ambiguity is not working. and overall, it's just the whole thing seems to be melting down. at the same time, the british american saying we're where we're standing and i guess, right, so you have micro and saying listen, we have to re imagined european security. we come to going like this. and also the germans showing some understanding for, for the russian position is absurd. this idea about russia,

how secure with interest. shocking, and it'll be a for us. yeah, i mean, your church that the, that when makes it so bizarre for me is that you from the official nato line. as you know, rush rush is a hostile, aggressive nation, but nato's even even nature's behavior in approach towards russia engenders of mistrust and hostility. i mean, they're generating it because as one just said, i mean, you want to go down the sanction route. you want to do the leaves us with a rush out of the swim system. well, these are, this is a can to war. i mean, certainly, economic war, i mean, russia would be justified in reacting and, and in, in an equally hostile way. me what, how, how does that create pan european security? i mean it's, it's like it's begging a conflict because there's the sense because of the, of the nato world view is that they were always right. and the only their security

matters. and so that was, why should russian a care? i mean, you can now we've had talks for 30 years, the gender, nothing. i mean, there could be a very serious russian reaction. are they taking that into account? and i think that's an excellent one because you know where everything that they do has done is very much, you know, it can be seen to be all containment and diminish and eliminate russian power and influence in the world. i mean, that's absolutely, you know, they, they scooped up all of the members of the also back. they have now a full mouth soviet republics. they indicated that they have every intention of scooping out war and republics. this goes together with extraordinarily belligerent rhetoric, coming from the western capital coming from the nato secretary general. i mean,

the way they talk about russia as, as a gun, monstrous evil place that you know, we have to unite against. and so from the russian perspective, i think it's very reasonable to say, well, what are they off that they are eliminating, eliminating as any kind of a whole. so the, well, it's not the symbol of what the polian tried to do, not dissimilar. what, what hitler tried to do that is, you know, that's the situation and we have to move now before in a decade it could just be too late. they want to simply go surround us with hostile, for satellite states of nature. and if it's because, you know, any, any kind of leadership in russia, you're reacting any other way. using your analogy there your parallels. i mean, then it would be the break up of russia. that would be the next best. absolutely

would be the next step. yeah, i mean look like they tried this in the ninety's, and there's no question i mean, but if you know what russia is surrounded by these natives after i say, lo and behold, we're going to find all kinds of your dentist movement inside russia. we go on the line, very is long a miss republics within the russian federation. that will be the next step would be to just, you know, step by step to break russia. ok. i was always, always been the agenda and so i was good rush response. other than this was a no, we've had enough. you can either discuss this now in a proper way, work out some mutual acceptable framework or we're just going to have to take steps you know, to, to ensure our security. but what you've been doing cannot go on and just simply for being assault with, well, there are no immediate plans to bring ukraine into nato and we've run out of

time here. but i think we're all in agreement on talk is just talk, organize all the time. we have want to think, my guess, and also in budapest, what i think will be worth for watching is here to see you next time and remember, ah, for oh, is your media a reflection of reality? in the world transformed what will make you feel safe for hi selection for community. are you going the right way or are you being led somewhere? which direction? what is true? what is great?

in the world corrupted, you need to descend, have join us in the depths or remain in the shallows. is the earth's still large enough to satisfy the ambitions of jeff bezos? you know, it's got its tentacles in so many aspects of the economy. there's nothing that amazon isn't trying to get into to step by step. the amazon empire has extended its grip on the world that walks like a dog inquired like a dog gets a dog. so amazon looks like monopoly trades like a monopoly makes money like monopoly behaves like monopoly. amazon essentially controls the market place. it's not really a market as a private arena, a wild, where a single company controls the distribution of all day. the products and the infrastructure of our economy. is this the world according to amazon?

or, ah, the u. s. sends a 2nd lethal aid shipment to ukraine while promising a severe united response from its allies if russia shows any aggression but german same is suggest not everyone in the block is singing from the same hymn sheet. the british media sounds the law over to aggression against ukraine is the foreign office claims. russia's plotting to put a pro russian candidate in charge. something moscow denies also had a chaos in olive year with a face standoff unfolds in brussels is and.