or a gentleman class of rules and effect, that means you can jump in any time you want, and i always appreciate it. well, it's going to glenn 1st. when you know, we had about 2 weeks of meetings i different formats are essentially on the same topic, at least from the russian perspective, and trying to get nato on the same page. to talk about pan european security. i watch the presser is law, and blinking, blinking is 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 say it doesn't know what who didn't want is they love to say your assessment? go ahead. oh, i agree, and i think it the way the meeting began kind of demonstrated the well how far apart they were and not even the discussing the same thing. because when i most met with the washington, they, the main discussion of americans came prepared to speak about the claim and

effectively for the russians. that said, no, well, the crane is a symptom of a broader problem we've had for the last 30 years, which is there is no pan european security system and there are no, i'm european secured 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 underpin security has to be one side, does not expand the 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, if russia fringes on this, then this is an attack on, you know, democracy, freedom and you know, this is the usual so, so, so, so this is kind of where we were to started off and took a while to even move away from simply talking about russian troops on russian soil in, in there, in approximately on ukrainian borders to actually discuss european security agreements. and again, it hasn't been successful because there are no,

that's 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 sort of limited the response to stating, to looking for ways of punishing russia and forcing it to do their told effectively . and this is why the last meeting between london blinking 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 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 someplace are not with him on this one. the british might be about the europeans or not. and so he didn't really have that much to, to percent. and this is why they don't know what to do, because again, this was the whole approach of the nuclear. we could ignore russia because all the

power was in the west. but now of course, the problem is russia is not afraid of. it is anxious and more diversified. it has the military advantage along its own borders. it's effective saying we have 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, slow steady vassily. 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 a painful decision americans are in because they're being able to, you know, simply dictate them demanding a lateral 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 going this program. i'm lincoln's cause play because that's exactly what it was . ok, i want to reiterate a point that going make. it's very important for our audience because of the very distorted narrative. it's going on right now. right. 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, it makes it all our hair out. is that the very stilted narrative that is being presented to public 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 they have a plot to over, but on the part of the russians to overthrow the government the here. and to put in that people in place and know that that's it. and then they believe the americans immediately say, yeah, yeah, we agree that's our finding to so you know, they,

they're now, not only insisting that it's all about ukraine, not about a russian security concerns. about building a security architecture in europe. it is all about the great end of the any more 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 issued these 2 extraordinarily vituperative statements about russian lies of this information. so this is really the problem that the, as far as the western by western re, i mean the u. s. and the u. k. a concerned that it is all about russia trying to evade threaten a so. busy ukraine is,

are they pretend not to understand what russia is talking about? and i think it does come to a very dangerous situation because i know who i think we're, we're heading to work best to be a crisis during the beijing olympics. if the government in care tries to state some kind of a provocative incident and which might trigger a russian intervention that bad. i mean, russian always is a russian, obviously not want anything like that. but it's, it's a possibility. and given the way the british and americans presented it, oh wow, that's it. that's what we were saying. you know, russia just in the business of invading you. great. you know, glenn,

and i'm glad the george brought up those to the state department reports on just information this information, whatever it was, because it seems to me that the us state department is actually trying 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 us that. they think this is provocative here. and then we have, we have a president 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 spending actually more time trying to keep nato in line. and he is actually having a dialogue with russia because that's a dialog dialog and the deaf and dumb when there was no arguments coming out of britain as well. that when they were making the argument that we shouldn't bind to

the russian narrative, they were specifically referring to the europeans that they are starting to repeat the russian propaganda. what about again, propaganda or misuse word in this, i mean 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 new expansion or we have a russian serv influence in your grant. and this and you know, so we have to choose this or this is how can this work? and this is, and it's so ridiculous which is why a lot of this discussions have been very dishonest because most of the comprise of slogans aim towards an uninformed public rather than making any common sense. i mean, surely there are a 3rd option here. russia's 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 point, for example, a neutral ukraine, which russia is always been happy with. but again, this, this very this on this 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 it in 1900 kissing it was saying, well, we can't say that made us defensive anymore to the russians. now that are 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 this illegal score by illegal or by the way, but they're not defensive so. so just call it defensive a line. so it doesn't make any sense. also. also the only recently the senior official to the bomb administration, fucked us. i think her name is argued that russia, u. s. would actually go to war against russia, not just over ukraine, but, you know, take by crimea, push russia out of south. so you can have it both ways. you can't say the brush

made in the future company, no threat to rush on at the same time. are you that are, you 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 it made was going to monopolize so security in europe that and the biggest country in europe should not have any say or, 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 this military in order to uphold that, you know, which is now express a red line. so nothing makes any sense. and the last one is nato secretary general, explicitly saying naval does not discriminate against new and old members. well, this was the whole point of the navy, russia funding act of 1997. this very explicit promise committed not to putting metal to permanent troops in eastern europe. and now they're saying, no, no, this goes against our principal. well, it both ways you can find an agreement,

you know, on pioneer p security one co troops there and then say, well this goes against our principal so we can follow the agreements with sign other. so it's very, it's very strange discussions, and i think it's good to get for us to get some of this out in the front because it, to me, it doesn't make any sense in any sense, in a church, in 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, it just creates all these false byne areas. ok. and it, in my mind that's intentional because they have no intention of recognizing rushes national security interest. the 20 think is before we go to the break, george, go ahead. yes, glen pointed out, i mean, they are an expansionist, which means that by definition they are not expensive. i mean defense. it means you stay in place and defend what you have. they have been expanding and they insist on

their right to continue to expand. and when they, it says quite explicitly in that 9097 agreement, which is no common a nation, a form, a countries of the warsaw pact. and then when the russians point this out to them, hey we, you know, we have a unconditional right to do whatever we want a break or break, we'll continue our discussion to really stay with us. oh, a l look forward to talking to you all. that technology should work for people. a robot must obey the orders given by human beings, except when such orders that conflict with the 1st law show your identification. we

should be very careful about personal intelligence at the point, obviously is to create trust rather than fear a very job with artificial intelligence. real. somebody with a robot must protect its own existence with a may, we should all be angry or what's going on. right? can't understand united states history and the role that slavery play is already very formal institutions. i became a nation, it actually find the nation, the rise of capitalism, clearly on the back. and miss lea,

a lynching, any great extent. you can't believe a country. and a 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 in the south is winning. join me every 1st day on the alex simon, sure. and i'll be speaking to guess on the world politics sport. business. i'm sure business. i'll see you then. ah, welcome back to cross stock, were all things are considered? i'm peter labelle. this is the home addition to remind you were discussing real news. ah.

it was returned to georgia, just wanted to talk about the presser, and it wasn't jointly held ok 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 proposals next week. that's how the the russians interpreted and hear. ok. robin blink and they were heading to different delegations and it was shortly after they were talking. but blinking, he told the press court something very different. is it bad memory or dis, will willful, not understanding. he said, the u. s. a whole hoped to share it's 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 a secret diplomacy. russian is committed in this process to public diplomacy. got 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 the extent that they will present a written response. i think it will be a familiar literally of complaints about the. busy crimea of the, the don't last well now me a very in our election breaks and what it's just going to be the usual a. busy 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 they're just going to keep talking about, you know, pointless, things like well on control. transparency, no mutual confidence building measures with military exercises, stuff that i've been talking about decade. but this isn't really what the russians are after. 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 commit not to bring in any place into the collective security treaty organization as a ok. so for everyone else, you're trying to say,

and there's something wrong when you try to, no one's interfere in your domestic affairs. just means that you're not joining any military life. i mean, we used to have, during the cold war, the normal line movement, the gigantic movement of states that were very happy to say, we're not a military. 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 just gone expanding sooner or later, russia was going to say, you know, already, i'm going to do something about, you know, going 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 mantra problems. don't worry. we're just a, just a depend alliance. over and over and over again is that it's on speed dial or something . but if you look what's coming out of european capitals like you're like, you know, going to the new killer ops, you know,

growing rush out of this with system. you know, that's easy for somebody in washington, you know, in a think tank supper, you know, with air conditioning. but you know, the germans and the say, well, how we get to, how is russia, what is that energy? i mean, you're in the european union countries. you know, they important, they're a 3rd of their energy from russia and it's only going to grow mean, throw them out of the system and how do you pay? i mean, is anybody in washington thinking like this? because it seems that you know, it's georgie and you're both pointed out in this program here isn't even as so called negotiations are going on. us senators are showing up in camps exemption sanction, sanction me. did 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 the after the cold war,

the purpose of nato was collective hedge money. so you join it and you know, we were unilateral to make the decisions. now obviously, the main problem having know, is it, 1st of all, keeping this grouping together because america kind of suggesting and willing to fight the russians down to the last european, you know, those obviously are p and i getting some, some cold feet. here we go for just quickly, a little bit back up with what you're saying, as well as a lot of what have been able to keep the cohesion between middle is strategic ambiguity. already in the month of the americans could go to french and german saying, listen, they don't, we're just going to have made us a democratic club, you know, 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 that 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 this very big us to the specific and, and that's why also,

that they don't want to go down this route either. but, but the same as this threat to, to need. or 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 dominance. which means if the u. s. dominates all along russian borders. they can, a said should 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 a to say that need to be a threat. i mean, it's just, you going to can repeat this until sounds like make sense, but a 1000. and they had to floss on this cutting rush from swift. and, you know, this fall out, they can amik, oregon, the against the russia. obviously, this is going to get back on the europeans, very hard. i mean, the marshal spent least a past 8 years, making its economy sanction proof. and it's getting very close to having. it's

a fully proof. i mean they, they have a diversify their economy, the financial instruments. and if, if they were cross off switch, then obviously this will bring a lot of pain to european economies. but also the question then becomes 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 the clear global 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 u. s. f for enhancing negotiations . tactics means this is actually empower now talking to listen case a suppose a more l and g to the or p. and so, because if they feel more secure in the energy and we can, you know, then we can keep this up, i rationalize together, there will be more, there will be a bit older to go off to russia. so it's just a huge problem because they can't keep the solid there together. the possibility of having the strategic ambiguity is not working. an overall is 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 my grown saying, listen and we have to re imagine the european security we found going like this. and also jermel showing some understanding for, for the russian position. you know, it's not the absurd. if you have a rush, have security interest shock in and then it'll be a for us. yeah, i mean, 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 a mistress. and i'm a 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 lease 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 an equally hostile way. me how, 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 are always right. and the only their security matters. and so what, why should russian a care? i mean, you could have with that talk for 30 years, the gender, nothing. i mean, there could be a very serious russian reaction. are they taking that into account? i think that's an excellent one because you know, everything that they do has done is very much, you know, it can be seen to be all containment and enclosure against russia and an attempt to diminish and eliminate russian power and influence. busy in the world, i mean that's absolutely, you know, they've,

they've scooped up all of the members of the also back. they have now the full mouth soviet republics. they indicated that they have every intention of scooping up more for soviet 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 a kind of 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 do they often they are eliminating, eliminating us is any kind of a course of the well, it's not the sort of of what the polian tried to do, not the symbol of what what hitler tried to do that is that, 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 around us with hostile

or satellite states of nature. and if it's because, you know, any, any kind of leadership in russia, you react in 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. that's absolutely with the next that. yeah, i mean, like i 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 is the sign is law miss independence, movement among all the various, some a 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. russia respond other than this was

a know we have had enough. you can either discuss this now in a proper way, work out some you should 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 off and just simply fall being assault with, well, there are no immediate plans to bring ukraine into nato. a lot of time here, but i think we're all in agreement on talk is just talk about all the time we have want to think, my guess, and also in budapest, what i think will be worth for watching us here to see you next time. and remember, ah ah, ah, a financial survival guide. daisy,

let's learn about fill out. let's say i'm actually a great time grief on banks of the fight. c wall street pod, thank you for helping with enjoy that right. fell out slavery. ah, is your media reflection of reality in the world transformed? what make you feel safe? ah, i salacious whole community. are you going the right way or are you being led somewhere? direct. what is true? what is great?

in the world corrupted, you need to descend, ah, join us in the depths or remain in the shallows. is the earth 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 is i'm trying to get into to step by step. the amazon empire has extended its group on the world. if it walks like a duck, inquire, it's like a dog gets it out. so amazon looks like monopoly trades like a monopoly makes money like a monopoly. behaves like monopoly. amazon essentially controls the market place. it's not really a market as a private arena, a world 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? ah ah, not his state sends a 2nd lethal aid shipment to ukraine while promising a severe united response from its allies if russia shows any aggression. but german statement suggest not everyone in the block is singing from the same shoot. the british media sounds the alarm over alleged aggression against ukraine as the foreign office claims for us as plotting to put a pro russian candidate in charge something the man himself flatly denied and also on the way this out with .