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 dog. inquire, it's like a dog as 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 world where a single company controls the distribution of all daily products and the infrastructure of our economy is loose. the world according to amazon. ah, ah.

hello and welcome to cross doctor. all things we considered. i impede rule about exaggerated rhetoric, massive arm shipments and endless threats. this is how nato presents its vision of pan european security. meanwhile, moscow wait for the u. s. and its allies to respond to its demands and vision for the say. the status quo is untenable. ah, to discuss these issues and more, i'm joined by my guess, philip jer all the and personnel is a former cia counter terrorism, specials who was now executive director of the council for the national interest in raleigh. we have ray mcgovern. he is a former c i, a analyst, and in brussels. we have pierre in many well tom and he is a ph. d. in geo politics and a lecture at leon university gentlemen crossed up,

there was an effect. that means you can jump any time you want, and i always appreciate it. so let's go to re, 1st here, re in raleigh. where do we stand right now? we've had 2 weeks plus of very high profile meetings. well, with the u. s. with russia, the nato get the whole works here. where are we right now? because the western media, particularly american and u. k, they're on nothing less than a war path. how do we stand? the media is on a war pass. the question is, what is going on behind the scenes? now we know that love are off and emb lincoln agreed less than a week ago. to continue to talk sion that blinked and promised to give a written response to russian demands are russian request this week. so we're on tenterhooks with respect to that. but that's the other reality. the reason that the media doesn't write about that is twofold. one is there on the stand it,

and number 2, they want emphasize it in favor of all this war mongering. now i'm not, i have seen like of this weapons of mass destruction in iraq and some of the same people. david sanger, the new york times, for example, who was judy miller, was the prime culprit, or this channel about weapons of mass destruction. so the media is not yet with it, whether the me will come around and do what i think blinking and biting are trying to do that is satisfy the russian desire to be accepted as it equal to be taken seriously to have what the terms are. spect ok respect, that was the terms say that it means a lot more than just or the english thing respect. that's what the navy commander said and got karen for this last going on. the alliance of falling board,

the german, the still important congo. the alliance is it, the germans are making clear that they're not going to be treated like vessels anymore. if you bridge want to fly arms and so you can, you better find some of the route, go around, you know, go around this. and so, so a lot of things are happening, but hopefully by friday we will know what the u. s. written responses, the business about progress should know, you know, getting a requirement that that's, that going to happen. but that can be finished. you know, every, every country could ask to join nato. what it takes a unanimous vote by a 30 day to get 30 whatever it is down. yeah. that 30 native con trish unanimous to kept now are the, the germans and the french or anybody has any sherry ends are definitely i'm no at this point here. let me, let me go to fill here, fill it seems to me that the, the, by the ministration is paid of itself into an impossible corner. i mean,

this is so artificially generated here, and it's so many missteps here. lincoln is obviously out of his li biden. has a hard time staying on the same page as his own administration here. me. and it's really the, the, the, the responsibility now to resolve this is on the american side. but there is a piece meant in the air, i mean, and then you know, and this is also a result of russia gate, you can't make any kind of have any kind of rational conversation because this is the, these people are worse than hitler. i mean, they painted themselves into an impossible corner bill. well i, i agree with that and a lot less optimistic and maybe gray is over the issue of what is going on behind the scenes. i think in fact, if you, if you look at the record, both the white house and blinking and the nato leadership are singing the same tone,

which is essentially that it is up to natal to decide if it is going to expand, introduced further into eastern europe, and this is the, i think the, the fundamental objection that people have that this is a major threat to have a hostile alliance sitting on your border sitting on your front door. and so that is the issue where we should have seen some flexibility because the other issues are devotional, you know, the, the kind of missiles that are in eastern europe, the eventual solution for what the don bad say she was, these things are to go shovel, but the fundamental issue of having a hostile ally and sitting right in front of you is not the vote. and i fear that this was i was a start by washington, essentially to prolong to be discussions when there was no intention whatsoever.

conceding the basic point that was essential to concede. yeah, because they've been talking about this for 30 years. okay. and then fight. and finally, the russian side says that they're, they, they have no other alternative but to, to, um, safeguard their, their national security interest, which, which is being that it's been revealed, is that nato doesn't believe russia has any national security interest whatsoever. and that's why we're having this problem here, is let me go to up here and emanuel. the way the media's of phrased this all constructed their narrative. it's all about ukraine, but it's not about ukraine. ukraine is a symptom to this problem here. and the further you go from the european conduct, the more obvious that is and, and we have seen the, the, that the divisions grow very publicly. now within the e. u and the countries that are part of nato here, there are fought. they are not on the same page. stolen bird can say on speed dial,

you know, we have major unity collected unity, but it's anything. but right now, again, the european union and nato. specifically, it's put itself into a real pickle because there isn't a, a unified position on this. your thoughts? yes, you are totally right. actually earn your e r weakness seeing in the world a jo, vertica fragmentation. and we need to on the way, it's exactly the same process geopolitical fragmentation. but since the beginning of the european project, also the your or the i need or configuration for fresh germany, italy as young the founding number states where, or so different and do it for success here at large money became even more diverse . and or at the moment, re ever, bailey, the country was the closest to a position of russia, or val,

and not to totally, you don't agree totally. is france because of a low, a go to stick se, transit. it would like to engage in negotiations for new europe and security treaty, or why? because in the goal is to approach trans for its own jawbreaker margin of minute or who would like to have more and more people. i want to move balance with in europe as well, because after germany unification and germany only thinks the europe and project as a sub product of the euro, atlantic space. because he doesn't ever nuclear weapons. so it depends on the u. s . for security. so france would like to not only balance the united states in the world is too small to do with their own, but also germany. and or this is why the franco russian or

sugar is important from france east has always been in the past. but problem is a menu or macro, or try to propose or to negotiate, but view of a member states a new 20. you would disagree and he does an immense 40 what he says, money as in of a position. yes. a double strategy on one side. he said, economic power in the middle of europe, and it doesn't want to have this side with russia. are you once to the germany, it wants to, to, to maintain itself. i say, for her son, charge power, but economic power and, and it needs russian gas. an impairment, i've always said, you know, leave the politics of europe to the french and leave the policy. have you heard of the germans and it can kind of work out re, i mean, they're the famous phrase from the, from the cold war when it comes to europe,

keep the russians out, the germans, that in the americans in as being tested right now. because the germans are saying, why should we send down? and actually russia is part of europe, irrespective of what the blinking have to say. i mean this, this, this, all this, this off of this very idea is being tested now. it made it 30 years after the cold war, but i think it's a spent force dos. actually, i think this is the most important development. oh, but last week, now we're seeing the german high officials state as to merkel stated when she was in power. the idea of giving lisa weaponry ukraine is a 60 day. she said the idea now that way. all right, because i was going to do, well, they're not going to attack russia with them, but they will attack those russian friendly call, separate tests. but really,

people in the done boss who want to have a really good bit of regional autonomy. now the good news, a good note today is at paris. the normal, the for our meeting to see if they can breathe a little bit more life. and so that makes records, which is obviously the way out of here. let me just ask you this one, a few things that they're filled. are all there and i have ever disagreed on. but my position on the nato broadening is it's easily finished. the us can say, sure, we agree, and the russians can say, everybody agrees. anybody can shake membership in nato. that's good. all right. but the native trees says it requires unanimous consent all the other members and the president i states as was that going to happen a near term and our diplomats and key of the been telling the ukrainians in 10 years it couldn't happen to so so that's something you could finish ok,

it sounds like a big deal. everybody makes a big deal, but your confession is around what you can finish just what they're really talking about. and those are those medium and intermediate range. missiles said that bite has already promised. get this not to installed in your crane. that's break. that's a quid. now what the russians gonna give in terms of the quo will probably learn this week. but fell on the i or the past few weeks. i've used the analogy of the cuban missile crisis and me versus that. is that a good analogy for what we're seeing right now? i think it is a metaphor. anyway. it's basically a situation where one country feels its national security is threatened by having a hostile enemy right on your border, or the case here. but just, you know, over the water. and i, so i think the, the analogy kind of homes for how russians are perceiving, that's read by nato,

not conceding the issue of unlimited expansion. and so i think where we have that i think of bothers me most about the media and hold that thought, all that we have to go to a hard break enough about our break. we'll continue our discussion on russia. you stay with oh ah, [000:00:00;00] a

a d c because of the african and engagement with so many find themselves will support. we choose to look for common ground. with james all down through here. oh, mr. larry over here. so your claims are always a little nicer than this. this is evidence of absolute poverty, despair. people in our city and other cities all across america are living like this, where the original need and village been opened up in 2018 right now. there's 31 homes on the property, it's a little over 4 acres with 31 homes and a community center. unfortunately,

a lot of people don't make it out of edition more homelessness, like, i'm sure i know you with welcome back to cross stuff. were all things are considered? i'm peter little. this is the home addition to remind you. we're discussing some real news. ah ok. so let's go back to phillips. i entered the 1st part of the program by bringing up on the metaphor of the cuban missile crisis in reverse. and you started entering the can you add on a little bit b, helsinki, final act, which made it clear that one country cannot improve its security at the expense of another. i mean, this is,

this is part of the dna originally of the western alliance of nato itself. but now it's completely void. it's not even given credence. ok, i think that's one of the things that a room fundamentally basing right now is that who is allowed security? go ahead. oh, yeah. that, that is a fundamental point. so how the russians are not allowed to have it and to be is the major criminal in the western media. essentially where, you know, we're seeing the situation where they're not getting down to the basic fact. now the basic fact here is if you go back to the nuremberg trials, an aggressive war against the country that has not threatened you actually is the ultimate worker and united states is threatening essentially war against the country that does not threaten it in any way. and it's on behalf of another country

with which it has no national interest search critique interest, except things that are being invented or the media we are, you know, i think it's probably saw the, the editorial she had over the weekend where she said, she's creating a false narrative, which is that the russians are intending to drive the united states out of all of your this is, this is going to be, this is going to be the way to explain that there is a threat against the united states. and this kind of nonsense of proliferating and unfortunately it's, it's, it's obscure of the very basic fact that russia does not threaten united states. ok, but it's still the, it's not the peer a menu of what is, what is ukraine worth to europe? i mean, what we have that the french sir, that i send some material and troops, maybe to romania and austonia, sending some missiles to you pray. i mean, what,

what is the strategic value of ukraine? because it seems to me, the more you invest in it, in one form or another. i know the european union a few days ago as san an emergency, 8 of 1200000000 euros that will disappear. like all the other international aid. it doesn't, it just goes away. i'm sure that it goes into a swift account in switzerland in a matter of minutes. ok, this is obvious. ok. i me ask hunter biden. he knows how it works in ukraine. so, i mean, what, what is it worth to europe and is it where is it europe's economic health and, and prosperity worth this because the way i look at it, you know, trying to isolate russia a sanction russia, all to me the gets the europeans is least economically, they will get the short end of the stick on this offer. ukraine. go ahead. i think your but program is in europe. oh,

security perceptions ever difference for the french you quinn has no value. because for the french, early on, many interested in you know, a fighting again, islamist inova, southern africa, crisis in north africa, and near east and in africa. oh. from the german point of view is sort of a different because the ukraine is very new to jumps of territory is saying buffer zone, i guess, against russia and or germany as economic power would like to and not the european come on the market to wave or more, more, more room, more, more consumers are old. sure. you pull to, you know, people from ukraine, young people, we don't, don't find

a job in ukraine. they come to germany like, or, or eastern european states, and full by chicken, poland. or you could not only evaluate what we can russia, and that's why they make a strong i used to be united states for 2. and they would like to include you credit, a $22.00, only 2. we can russia for italy or so, but they don't, they don't care about a talk about your grade, but or they would have to maintain or kind of make links. but we've united states and russia then i mean tell and maybe i should rephrase. the question is ukraine worth going to war for? maybe that's the question i'm asking. you know, nobody, nobody will go to war for ukraine bus, for sure. it's only or a question of perception of security and or so seems barney or defense of nate to the right to choose a, b, i,

and c's. but actually the europeans does agree, the bur maxima maximisation of the, of the position of united states on the british. i mean, i, i think it, i think there's one word for it, and it's not even english. it's a greek word. it's called hubris. ok, that's how i see it all. no race. it is the way the media is presented. this is so in responsible. i mean, obviously we all remember the drumbeat to war against iraq. ok. and in there nobody's learned anything in the media from it that they should have been punished for it. but there are way. there is something called finland ization. remember that or on the austrian neutrality after the for the 2nd world war? i mean it's, there are tools out there to do this that and i think that that, that will allow a lot of russian concerns wouldn't be exactly what they want. but that is, that is more than a half lozier. why hasn't anybody empower actually said a maybe there's

a 3rd way out where everybody can win because the western leads and particularly the western media doesn't believe that they have to be when are lost because russia, russia is not lila, neo liberal, it's conservative. it doesn't, it's not part of the, the western world it's woke ism, in all this, it's easy to demonize russia. but if you from to your politic from a geopolitical point of view neutrality, why not re most good idea. and it has been bridget bout anatole, even, for example, if they were expected. former for writer for the london times, i believe, who has a very influential position now at the quincy institute. and i believe is advising people in washington who are wet behind the ears on these issues. so what, what i'd like to just make sure i introduce here is the big factor which changed washington's view. that we better talk to the russians were better here to

their timeline. we better respond to their, their request. we better do this real quick. and it was that all in a month. why? what changed between now and june? china? now, you know, why don't people get it bite and was, was very poorly advised going into the june 16th summit, what he told the chinese with look mr. booking, you know that the, the chinese, a situation here where, you know, you have a long border with try and they aspire to be the most mila and most powerful military, as well as i can. i'm sure you got sure, but we understand you have very conservative and put you missed a lot of work. who should i seen this guy? and so the next several months are made very, very clear that china was the china and russia had

a relationship quote that exceeds in warmth, closeness and effectiveness and alliance. that was, i mean, that's z and putting on the, on the zoom thing with each other, published by the, by the russians. now, if that exceeds an alliance, that's something that bite has to take into account. so even as general serves admirals, don't want to 2 front war. china and russia are in effect military allies right now . and if there's trouble in europe is going to be trouble sanction or see, and i went straight and biting. this is bright enough, i hope to realize that no time to make a little deal, at least with russia, negotiate what bothers russia most. and those are those intermediate arrangements. ballistic missiles, a finesse that they know thing and it will get a more stable relationship, which is what i want to said i wanted was fresher,

even tell up. i mean, who is advising by ms. and fiona hill is a jake sullivan, is it victoria newland? you know, because you know, they're, they're scenario is it, we have to knock russia out, knock it out, and then we take on, we take on china, that is with me going to phil here on this when this child's playing this child's play. what, why, why is the rush in china have a close strategic relationship now it was made in america. go ahead film. yeah, right. is absolutely right about china being a wild card. certainly been presented here. and it will certainly drive thinking among those people in the white house who are actually capable. and the problem there is that there are, there are few and far between the hatred of russia that there's like a rush hour. you want to pass. fraser is bipartisan, you much. we're republican senators,

coming out with the threat about demands to go to war, to send troops. they're right away and done, and certainly to people's job the president is listening to are coming out with a lot of the same thing. so i'm not, i'm not terribly optimistic. i do not believe that anybody really wants to war there. but, you know, these things happen. we remember how the 1st world war developed, how the 2nd war developed. russia has very strong memories of, of both those experiences and united states. there's never been invaded well, much, it's 916. but, you know, the thing is that i, washington is full about advice. and i think the fact that the media has been totally on board of hostile the, the russia, for many years south 2016 certainly indicates to be that, you know, the public is being misled on this. the politicians themselves are big this. and

there isn't that there's no real good advice coming out to wash my pay. always not going to give you good advice, a blanket you know what? one of the things you know, i'm looking at all of us here. all of us remember the 1980s in the, in the, and the fear of intermediate missile under kilo weapons in the protest movement and all that. and then with a few weeks ago, some, a republican senator, you know, he says, you know, we have to bring new to bear. i mean, such rosy responsibility because, i mean, russia is not happening. it's not erratic, it's not panama. it's not renewed. and i think this is what's being forgotten here . i really truly believe that the fear of a nuclear war has been forgotten. and we, unfortunately, we must be reminded of it in the most horrific way. and i obviously don't want to go there for a gentleman that's all the time we've got fascinating discussion. want to make my guess in personnel, raleigh and in brussels. and we're thank you for watching us here. are you next

time remember? ah, ah, a nice history and the role that slavery play, already very formal institution, i think, became a nation. it actually find the rise of capitalism clearly on the backs of late with any great extent. get believe in your country. and 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 with, after months of the west, insisting that russia said to invade ukraine, nato secretary, general maker dunning, you turn admitting the military block. i actually have no confidence whatsoever, but any such aggression will happen at all useful to the ship. if it depends on the russian federation, then there will be no war. we don't want any wars, but we will also not allow our interest to be brutally trampled on and ignored committee growing stand off with the west over ukraine, russia top diplomat. stress if moscow does not want conflicts but it's it's, it's