speaking the yes, when the world politics spoke, business i'm show business. i'll see you then. ah ah ah ah ah

ah hello and welcome to cross talk. we're all things considered on peter lavelle. it was not a showdown, but rather an exercise in placing markers. the russia, u. s. 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, glen beeson in oslo. 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 lee. he's a pod, castor at the goggle,

which can be found on youtube and locals are a gentleman. crosstalk rules and effect. that means you can jump in any time you want, and i always appreciate it. oh, let's go to glen 1st. glen, you know, we had about 2 weeks of meetings, 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 log off and blinking, blinking is move 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 most school met with the washington, they the main discussion. well, the americans came prepared to speak about ukraine 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 anymore. that works so. so they want to highlight this principle that, well, the 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 side, does not expand the security at the expense on the other. so invisible security and the american say no, no european security is based on the right of natal to expand. no russian fringes on this, and this is an attack on the democracy in freedom and you know, this is the, the, the usual slogans. so, so, so this is going to 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 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 interest in making any compromises or, you know, attempting to meet anywhere in the middle. you know, at least this stuff, some understanding of what bothers russia. but again, so far the americans have limited 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. 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 sublease or 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 present. and this is why they don't know what to do, not because again, this was the whole approach of the nuclear. we could even though russia because all

the power was in the west. but now of course, the problem is russia is not afraid of an anxious and more diversified. it has the military that there's along its own borders. it's effective saying this and 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 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've been able to, you know, simply dictate the 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 going this program, lincoln's cause play because that's exactly what it was. a i want to reiterate a point that the glen make. i think it's very important for our audience because of the very distorted narrative that's going on right now over russia. 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. all our hair out is that the, in this very stilted narrative that is being presented to public around the world. go ahead george. 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 on the part of the russians to overthrow the government the here. and to put in that people in place. and you 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 your grade, not about a russian 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 this 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 us take over. busy ukraine

and is, are they pretend not to understand why russia is talking about and i think it does 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 here tries to state some kind of a provocative incident and which might trigger a russian intervention that bad. i mean, russian always is a russians, obviously not want anything like that. but it's, 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 in the business of the

invading you. great. you know, glen and i'm glad that george brought up those 2 state department reports on just information this information, whatever it was. because it seems to me that the 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, 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 expanding actually more time trying to keep nato in line. and he is actually having a dialogue with russia because that's a dialogue that's a dialogue 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 general binding to the russian narrative, they were specifically referring to the europeans that they're starting to repeat, the russian propaganda. but again, propaganda misuse board and all this, i mean with propaganda. you have the intentional framing of any conflict then a very common technique, for example, is to use their simple binary framing. and this is what need to propaganda is, which is suggesting the only solutions to this is either we have an expansion or we have a russian serve influence in your brain. and this, and you know, so we have to choose, these are the 2. this is how, how 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 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 ross has always been happy with. but again, this, this, this on the statement, they must, 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 were defensive alliance. i mean, really, is that i remember that in 1900 kissing or was saying, well, we can't say that made was 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 war by illegal or by the way, but they're not defensive so, so just call the defensive 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 argue that rushes us would actually go to war against russia, not just over ukraine, but, you know, take by crimea,

push russia out of it. yeah. so you can't have it both ways. you can't say the brush even in the future can be no threat to rush on at the same time. are you that are, are you, we should use force against them. also, this idea that rush should have no b. 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 and you should not have any say over it. i mean, this is an absurd statement. obviously russia will have, you know, either it 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 not expressed as 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 nato, russia founding 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 the principle with both ways. you can find an agreement, you know, on tenure, p security, one co troops there and then say no there, well, this goes against our principles. we can't follow the agreement with find other. so it's very, it's very strange discussion. 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 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. 20. thank is, before we go to the break, george, go ahead. yes, glen pointed out. i mean, they are expansionist, which means that that by definition they are not expensive. i mean, defense. it 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 hear, it says explicitly in that 9097 agreement, which is no common a nation i in the home a country is of the was okay. and then when the russians point this out to them, hey we, you know, we have an unconditional right to do whatever we want to know. all that you're going to go to a break it up, that's your break. we'll continue our discussion to really stay with us. oh, there may or may, we should all be may or may, we should all be angry because a was going on, right. can't understand united states history and the role that slavery play is already very formal institution. by the time united states became a nation, it actually to find the nation,

the rise of capitalism clearly on the backs of flight. and it's laid down, if you had investigated lynching said a great extent. you can't believe a country. and country still stands in brick. i'm from the south. everybody know, know what this figure. to some extent, i would argue that we're still fighting the civil war. and the south is winning with ah, welcome back to crossed up. were all things are considered? i'm peter labelle. this is the home addition to remind you. we're discussing real news. i

was returned to georgia. just wanted to talk about the presser and it wasn't jointly held in geneva, which, you know, says something. and i thought it was very interesting that, you know, the russian says that the u. s. will respond to russia's written proposals next week. that's how the the russians interpreted. and here. ok robin 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 just will willful, not understanding. he said, the us 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 had 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 i and my question here, george again, we have out of washington saying that they want to have this as secret diplomacy. russian 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 document. i think that the extent that they will present a written response. i think it will be a familiar literally of complaints about the crimea a done by the scripture. now on the, on the very, in our elections breaks and whatever it is, just going to be the usual for complaints. 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 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 we're just going to keep talking about, you know, pointless, things like well on control. transparency. no mutual confidence building measures with military exercise stuff 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 commit not to bring in any place into the collective security treaty organization as a ok. so for everyone else, neutrality,

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 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, isn't 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 have just gone on expanding. and sooner or later, russia was going to say, you know, already, i'm going to do something about this. you know, i want to go back to something i said in the 1st part of the program here is that there's, there seems to be, we hear this man to problem. 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 capitals looking 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, the think tank suburb, you know, with air conditioning, but you know, the germans and how we get to, how is russia? what is that was energy? i mean, your ne european union countries, you know, the importance are 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, and georgie, and you're both pointed out in the program years and even as so called negotiations are going on. us senators are showing up in campsite sanction sanction, sanction me. you know, 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 the very worried about that. go ahead. well, that its purpose on it. i mean, when, during the cold war made, it was a necessity to balance to somebody after the cold war,

the person nato was collective hedge money. so you join it and you know, we were unilateral to make the decisions, obviously. and then the main problem having now is that it will, 1st of all, keeping this grouping together because in america, kind of suggesting that we 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 keep the cohesion between nato is strategic ambiguity. already in the ninety's, the americans could go to french and german sing. listen later, we're just going to have 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 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 or, but the same as a threat to tomato. 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 or see what's called escalation dominance. which means if the u. s. dominates all along russian borders. they can 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 complete. 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 have to floss. 1 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 hit back on the europeans very hard. i mean, the russia spent at least a past 8 years making its economist sanctions proof. and it's getting very close to

having, it's a fully group, i mean they, they have a diversify their economy, the financial instruments. and if, if they would crush 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 declare 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 part of now talking to listen case. i suppose a more l and g 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 allies together. they will be more, there will be a bit older to go off to russia. so it's just, it's a huge problem because they can't keep us all of that together. the possibility of having the strategic ambiguity is not working and overall is just the whole thing.

seems to be melting down. i mean, at the same time, the british american saying we're where we're standing and i think guess, right. so you have my own saying, and we have to re imagine european security results are gone like this. also jermel showing some understanding for, for the russian position. you know, it's not absurd to russia. have security interest shop in 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 a mistress. and i 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 leaves us with pulling russia out of this with 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 what, 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 then what, why should russian a care? i mean, you can have, with that talks for 30 years of gender. nothing. i mean, there could be a very serious russian reaction. are they taking that into account? i think it's an excellent one because you know where everything that nato has done is very much, you know, it can be seen to be all containment and the closure against russia and an attempt to diminish and eliminate russian power and influence in the world. i mean, that's actually, you know, they've,

they've scooped up all of the members of the also back. they have now a full mouth soviet republics. they indicated that in every intention of scooping out more so. so the 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 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 as any kind of a whole. so the, well, it's not dissimilar from what napoleon tried to do, not the symbol of what, what hitler tried to do. that is, that, you know, that's the situation and we're better move now, before in

a decade it could just be too late. and i want to simply go surrounded us with hostile satellite states of nature. and 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. absolutely would be the next step. yeah, i mean they, they tried this in the ninety's and there's no question i mean, but if you know what was 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 goes on the line is long independence movement among all the various i'm a republics within the russian federation. that would 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, you know, how, what else could russia respond other than this was a long we've had enough, you can either discuss this now you a bubble way. what got some mutual acceptable framework or we just going to have to take steps. no, you know, to, to ensure our security. but what you've been doing can now go off and just simply forming us off with, well, there are no immediate plans to bring ukraine into nato. a plan out of time here. but i think we're all in agreement on talk is just talk about all the time we have when i think my guess and also included as to what i think will be worse for watching as e r t c. and next time and remember, ah ah a wrong i

just don't a to shape out the scene because of the african and engagement. it was the trail. when so many find themselves will depart, we choose to look for common ground. ah, 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 isn't trying to get into to step by step. the amazon empire has extended its group on the world that walks like a duck inquiry 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, it's a private arena, a wild where a single company controls the distribution of all day. the products and the infrastructure of our economy is loose. the willows, according to amazon. good ah bit i was top headlines live on r t that us puts 8500 troops on a high lud pentagon, so they are ready for deployment in eastern europe if russia types ukraine despite moscow saying it does have no such class. a british government administered, quit swell, slamming the prime minister, was quote, lamentable track record and tackling claims of massive fraud in the government's co with loans. with emily found a truly mythology wins the right to a.