ah, ah a headline stories this hour, the russian foreign ministry vows to retaliate against german media outlets in russia after germany. media regulators slops are broadcast. bon ortiz, history channel, r t, d live reaction on about coming up. also i have the u. s. nato responds to russia's proposed security guarantees is a lead. i'm published by a spanish newspaper. the document rejects russia's key to months, including keeping neighboring new drain out of the military alive than the you could soon. but the green label on gas and jewelry power paving,

the way for subsidies and tax cuts as member states plush over this switch to renewables in the midst of an energy crisis. mm hm. around the clock across the world. this is your r t. do the have your company today. my name's unit o'neill. russia has pledged to take action against german media outlets operating in the country. the announcement from the foreign ministry came just hours after our sister channel r t. d was blocked by germany's media regulator. the verdict of the german media regulator is an unambiguous signal that russian concerns have been defiantly ignored. this step deprives us of any choice but to start implementing retaliatory measures against german media accredited in russia. as well as internet intermediaries who have arbitrarily and unreasonably deleted the channels accounts

from their platforms. we repeatedly pointed out to germany, the unacceptability of exerting politically motivated pressure on the russian media outlet, and the inevitability of counter measures. if berlin refused to seek a constructive solution to the problem it had created with our tv. well, earlier, rti accused the german regulator of suppressing free speech after r t d was hit with a full bottom including online news. the networks production arm is taking the regulator to the court after it was wrongly named us to channels broadcaster ortiz, deputy editor in chief on a balcony. i gave my colleague bruce to say a breakdown of the dispute via a license that was obtained with absolutely all fording european rules and regulations, according to the european convention on transferred to your television. and we are free to broadcast via that license in the 30 plus territory across europe. they are saying that our tv productions, which is an entirely independent production company,

is actually the tv channel of that broadcast from germany. and there's generally absolutely no broadcasting happening from berlin at all r t d e. the tv channel is o broadcasting right here for moscow in, in fact, there studios are essentially next door to where we're sitting here. and we were here all launching the channel mid december. yet nevertheless, the regulator is asking the production company to start broadcasting, which they are not even doing. and to do it not just on television, but to do it on the all the online platforms, apps, etc, etc. which again, the production has absolutely no control over all of this is centered right here in moscow. and the tv broadcasting as well is done from here with the you think they were afraid of something that we do here at our team? i mean, it definitely seems that there is quite a lot of apprehension about a different voice, like r t or it's being present there, you know,

and they are under fire. not just under it from authorities. in, in germany, the youtube channel was taken down within hours of the over the beginning of the broadcast. that is obviously an american company. and then indeed there was pressure being put on an independent, independent satellite operator. util sat to take us to, to stop broadcasting our feed as well. so it really is a multi pronged attack when one of the comments that you've made regarding this, you say, quote, we will not be removing our feeds or channels voluntarily and encourage all platforms not to be bullied by the media watchdogs, illegitimate minds that does it seem like bullying. yeah, absolutely. and we've seen those done not just with regards to the broadcasting, but various productions have had all of their various partners, bullied, including banking, banking, relationships, other operational relationships, pool or for the last number of years. and we believe that, you know,

the rtp productions position is entirely not just legal and in accordance with all the rules and regulations, but is beyond substantiated. and that we're hoping that the courts are going to see that and side with them. likewise, our tv channels position is entirely legitimate within germany and other european markets. and we will be defending that position on the russian foreign ministry spokesperson re, as a horrible house accuse germany of breaching and legal obligations leaving moscow at no choice, but to retaliate. just don't let berlin now say that they weren't offered a way of staying within the international legal framework. we offer that repeatedly and at various levels. we've pointed out solutions to problems that were not created by us. but if germany has steamrolled through its obligations in protecting freedom of speech,

then we have no reason to be shy about retaliating. if it feels as if we've been here before, the r t d saga has been going on for months there really since launched a r t nikki, are and takes a look back now at the turbulent events surrounding the channel. the r t. d low in states was an exciting day, but within hours it wasn't just reporting the news. it was the news with the channels live stream deleted from you chip, just a short time off. it went on air, then just days later, there was a finding increasing interference in the channel signal after it was taken off one of its 2 satellites. after germany authorities claimed it didn't have the license needed to operate in the country. but the thing is it doesn't need one having obtained its broadcasting license in serbia, which just like germany is a signatory to the european convention of trans frontier television. the member states of the council of europe and the other states party to the european cultural convention,

or reaffirming their commitment to the principles of the free flow of information and ideas in the independence of broadcasters which constitute an indispensable basis for their broadcasting policy. most of them, which i know about the closure of bank accounts and so on. there's a large number of tactics. they're using c r t, d cons operate, they're infringing on freedom of speech and that's very bad. but the european regulator is clearly under a different impression. the license must be issued in germany and the application must also be filed here. first of all, this is a real irritant, and we will take care of it. so what's the reaction from the german government? what it seems they've decided to stay out of the ralph and now, although you don't have to dig too far to find the kind of tone being set by some in the ruling coalition, the media authority and youtube rightly pulled the plug on the pirate station of the enemies of democracy and lateral thinkers, this repeated attempt to circumvent european and national laws underscore the danger of this self proclaimed tv broadcaster requires action at all levels. so

could this be the end of the road for the short live channel? well, archie, d. e is already preparing to fight on while we can now speak to journalists on the best selling or 3rd thomas route, or on this thomas pleasure to have you on the program today. at germany's foreign ministry, i'm alina burbock said, during a recent visit to moscow that the german government had nothing to do with the media regulators, actions against r t d. do you find not plausible? well, no, i think that shows our sense of humor. oh, of course, you know, you see the problems in germany, they are very, very concentrated. it started with comerica bank with, with which close to the accounts for r t. and the main shareholder of the bank is the german state. so it was,

would have been a simple order to say, hey, let's fight for freedom of press and open their cons again. and now again, the regulator state organization and the government can say, yeah, well, this is of the button to lunch of the region. they are responsible for it, but again, there is a telephone that can say, hey, we have a we have a constitution in which said there is no censorship. so hi guys, what are you doing? so no, it's absolutely not plausible. just reading a bullets at the german media regulator, thomas, it's funded by the taxpayer. it gets around a $150000000.00 euro a year in compulsory fees that all high sold are obliged to pay. that's even if they don't have a tv. is it? there are 4 possible to avoid government influence given that fact of course not. oh, yeah it's, it's a state organization somehow and the money is collected to found the state media. ok. we have a special word for a german there for the right nationally not, not,

not state, but anyway. they are owned by the state and they are controlled by police politicians who are sitting in the boards. so to say that there is no connection or inference from the state, it's just not true. and the russian foreign ministry say it's going to retaliate against german media. i played in russia. no one wants to see journalist caught in the crossfire, but it is not justified because moscow said it's been left with no choice here. well, i agree. moscow has always very much patience. let's remember the case of the of the b b. c journalist from london didn't let in the russian coast correspondent for how many. yes, i don't remember the russians always said, well, sometimes we have to rick and they reacted and then said the bbc journalist, out of the country and, and he had the same, the russians showed very much patients, but sooner or later, i think. gotcha, well, we'll have to suffer. well, let's remember the protest one, what is it 2 years ago when you actually invited people to protest against the

russian government it before elections. so they showed to my very high level of patience and russia, but somehow i think everything is we'll come to an end was a question of time. and another aspect to this r t d production is launching a legal challenge. it say's its been incorrectly named as the broadcast or in fact it just mix pre recorded content. the broadcast happens here in moscow. does it sound like they have a reasonable case in not to if it goes to trial? i'm not alive but, but i feel so because let's start with the fact that them as far as an o r t a received the letter license in a legal way for point the whole you. so it's quite interesting how the german authorities then can the stop that i'm so i'm not a lawyer. you have to ask a lawyer. and this in this case. but for me, it sounds possible that russia had that art. he has a real chance. now for our point, germany is the only european country we're online streaming is regulated in the

same ways. tv, so our td's online platforms, they've also been blocked. should the rules be different for tv channels and web services? where do you lie enough the bit? well, i think that there should be different because because one thing is the real expensive thing like really open a tv station. the other thing is, well, let's say a hobbyist, you must and flogger. so block us with make videos and, and to license them like like t v stations. well this is for me kind of censorship because it really stops there for free sharing of information. so i think there shouldn't be such relations for a few months. okay, interesting. get your view thanks very much for coming on the program and sharing them, journalists and best selling author from germany, thomas ripper. bye bye. now the full tech savvy us, nate, so response to russia's security concerns has been leaked. the document was published by spanish newspaper, l pious, and the u. s. state department has not confirmed that it's genuine. earlier my

colleagues knew harvey and saskia taylor discussed the contents over the past few weeks. we've seen at the highest diplomatic levels, riley's of accusations of verbal sparring, and that's just what's been happening in public. so we can only imagine what's going on behind closed doors. but now a fresh document leak has all put off a glimpse into what is indeed happening behind those doors. and it's really showed that moscow and washington, alongside nato, a very, very far from reaching any kind of consensus with regards to ukraine, issue, uninsured. well beyond move, not that does seem to be almost a blind unwillingness from the military alliance to recognize any of russia security concerns. now, the spanish language paper hasn't managed to get its hands on the nato and us response to russia. security proposals now will remember those proposals they were sent back in december. they fin triggered a flurry of diplomatic talks and calls, and essentially they requested legal guarantees restricting,

farther nato expansion, specifically with regards to ukraine. the document that we're seeing now though, reveals a very blunt response from washington and brussels. and it's in all states should respect the right of other states to choose or change security arrangements and to decide their own future and foreign policy free from outside interference. in this slide, we reaffirm our commitment to nato's open door policy on the article 10 of the washington treaty. it seems that it is an open shop case that they will not compromise, that is despite flat and person warning. but this is a very reckless disregard of russia's concerns. it's not well for help because do people realize that this could potentially set all nations involved down a very dangerous path of no return? because when you much listen carefully to what i say in ukraine's own doctrine, the documents it is written that they plan to return crimea, including by military means that is not what they say publicly. imagine for

yourself that ukraine and nato members will begin military operations in crimea. what do we do? go to war with the nato block? has anyone thought about that? so the situation is it seems to me both sides refusing to budge and let him put in said it there in a slightly different context, but what do we do? what's versus reaction? been to this moscow house already sent, follow up questions to this document. so clearly that there is a desire for continued a dialogue, but most because position on this has been consistent from the beginning. it recognizes, of course, that every single country has the right to determine its own policy and assure its own security that is not what's being disputed. here. the issue is when countries choices have ramifications beyond its borders and actually post a very real physical threat to someone else. and let's just be clear, a potential nato launchpad located in ukraine is just a couple of minutes miss all away from, from russia. so it's essentially, i think this fear that really underlies russia's concerns in that area. shows that

ignoring our concerns, the u. s. and need to refer to the rights of states to freely choose how to insure the security. but it's not just about giving someone this right. after all, this is only one parts of the well known formula for the indivisibility of security . the 2nd integral part says that once not allow the strengthening of anyone security at the expense of the security of other states. so the russian leaders asking, why must we sacrifice our security that someone else can feel safe? but said it would be remiss if i didn't point out that the document has some encouraging moments. i'm talking about reestablish communication long military channels, reinstating the nature office here and moscow crossing arms control also reducing missile deployment to ukraine. but if we get to the bottom of it, that's the plan. according to this document, the west responds to an almost existential concern of russia, as we hear you. but we don't care enough to do anything. and this is in fact case

closed. we're not gonna discuss it further, but here's a list of much smaller things that we feel that we can give you to protect an image that we are listening and being co operative but do nothing in any way to address your fundamental concerns with that kind of inflexible rhetoric combined, of course, with this ongoing footage of millions of dollars worth of weapons being sent to kiev. it's very difficult even with the best of intentions to see where to move from now or kevin. oh, and earlier discuss the story with dunning mcadams, executive director of the ron paul institute for peace and prosperity. he thinks the biden administration's high paying off the ukraine crisis to boost its own ratings. we have a present in the u. s. is deeply, deeply unpopular. he's just but to do something to rally americans behind him. and this is viewed by the u. s. foreign policy establishment as a sort of a risk free way of boosting his numbers, which is the rest of us who are saying believes it's

a very dangerous game to play who to know. so said officially, ukrainian government documents show they want to use military force to seize crimea, while ukraine has been asking for so much military assistance from the west who will go for it? no, i mean, that's not going to happen. ukraine is not going to take crimea back, you know, we, the us government love to talk about self determination. there was a vote in crimea. they voted to rejoin a russia that had it had been part of, for hundreds of years. russian troops were already there. the americans love to say that russia invaded crimea. russia was already there. it had a lease up until i know the end of next century. so no, this is a good argument to not let him in. but you know, the u. s. is not interested in a good arguments, the u. s. is interested in the political when the by the administration, i should say the head of cnn has resigned for lying a bond when on the 1st started with a colleague, jeff sucker spent 9 years up. the news network,

a period of largely falling ratings. let's get the full story now from r t kilobyte and in new york, i caleb, on the face of it, then a pretty ignominious end for the cnn shave. take us through what led to him stepping done. sure, jeff zocker surprised his employees with an e mail this morning announcing that he had been having an affair, consensual affair with an employee, one of his colleagues, and he did not disclose it under cnn's policies. what started out as a friendship, evolved into a romantic relationship and because of that, he is stepping down from cnn. now many looked at his email and we're a bit surprised because it seems like many wonder if the ratings and the decreasing ratings over the past 9 years has more to do with it than simply this matter of reporting or disclosing a romantic relationship. and at this point, cnn has stepped up and named the successors of jeff zocker,

that he will be replaced by a triumvirate of sorts. michael bass, the current vice president of programming amy a, tell us the current vice president of talent and content and can jot the executive vice president of cnn will. all 3 of them together be stepping up to replace jeff soccer and take on his roles at the primary news network in the united states. cnn layer will be hoping, i suppose, a pretty dismal last few months or forgotten, but because it isn't a standalone event. what happened today? cnn staff, they've been caught up in several scandals recently. and they oh, sure. back in december, john griffin, a producer at cnn, was arrested by the f. b. i on rather serious charges. he was taken to federal prison where he waits trial. ah, and john griffin was charge with setting up a facility to run interstate commerce for the purpose of learning in young,

under age girls and their parents and training these under age girls to be sexually submissive. i mean, quite a serious allegation and he's awaiting trial. now this is not a low level employee, john griffin, this is a high ranking producer. this is someone who rubbed shoulders with chris cuomo and you'll recall that chris cuomo also stepped down because it was proven that he was colluding with his brother andrew cuomo when he was facing scandals and eventually stepped down as governor of new york. now there's been another recent dust up kate rosenfeld. cnn commentator kat rosenfeld. she compared jo grogan's audience podcast joe rogan, who's been at the center of some controversy recently. she compared his audience to people that are overweight and made some other comments that many did not appreciate about the audience of joe rogan. here's what she said. here's people who you know. they like something that we consider ourselves more enlightened. don't

think it's good for them. you know, we think that they're internalizing this misinformation that they're using it to make bad decisions. now, many found these remarks to be somewhat ironic because the listenership and viewership of joe rogan's podcast is roughly 11000000 people regularly, 11000000 people. listen to what joe rogan has to say, whereas cnn, despite being the primary news network in the united states, they struggled to get 700000 people to watch them. many times, despite the fact that they're on the air and airports, they're broadcast regardless. you know, you know, 700000 eyes, sometimes the numbers that they get viewing them and many have looked on at this. and they've noticed that trust for mainstream media in the united states is certainly declining according to polls. and now i guess we see that jeff zocker, after 9 years the head of cnn is stepping down not good times for cnn, and for american mainstream media. taken us through all of us,

corresponded kill apartment. natural gas and new killer power could soon be classed as green energy in the you. the european commission supports the idea which has been flooded by environmental groups as greenwashing or europe correspondent peter oliver takes off the story for you. entered. she's been in focus for quite a while with energy prices across year of being through the roof. but what we've seen on wednesday with the e u commission outline their plans to reclassify some natural gas projects and nuclear power projects as green energy investments. what the u commission, hope that this would do is that it would well take a couple of boxes, really one that it would get investment cash flowing into energy projects to get more energy projects off the ground for to supply much needed energy to the european union. country also that it would help the european union take some of it

or meet some of its climate goals that it's set. the commissioner in charge of these type of things outlined exactly why they've gone down this route. we need to use all the tools that are disposal to achieve climate neutrality. we putting in place strict conditions for their inclusion. they're subject to clear limits and phase out periods. some will use this instrument and others may not. but whoever invests will be certain that the product they're investing in should it contain nuclear or gas. they will know, well not everybody is happy with this, but some will start with those likely to be pretty particularly pleased with they saw france and germany will start with paris and swell from generates just over 70 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. well, they may well just become one of the greenest countries in the european union if this eventually goes through because of their use of nuclear, it's also likely to be quite well received here in berlin. germany does use an

awful lot of gas to generate electricity and awful lot of renewables as well. but gas is seen very much, is the bridging fuel as they try and transfer more and more towards renewables. the gulf stream to gas pipelines, the much talked about. thus, infrastructure project between germany and russia looking more and more. should this plan go through and gas ultimately be designated as that green feel? we'll see more or more investment towards gus in and across the european union. i said not everybody was happy though, and heading into this meeting on wednesday, we heard from austria, denmark, sweden, and the netherlands all saying they didn't want to see gus added to the list. there's also a whole host of environmental groups as well. who say this is essentially just moving the goal posts to fit what you want to hear and what you want to see. and amongst a little more than green washing. the complimentary delegated act table by the european commission sacrifices the scientific integrity of the taxonomy on the

altar of fossil gas and nuclear lobbies. firstly, labeling fossil gas is a sustainable activity is completely incompatible with limiting global warming to $1.00 degrees celsius and with the use 2030 climate targets. secondly, even if ignoring the risks of catastrophic nuclear accidents, it is evident that nuclear does not apply to these key principles is it poses significant environmental and social hazards at all stages of its supply chain. while it's still a few hoops to for this to jump through before it could come into force. in fact, there was some questions, put the money out. and again, as the commissioner about potential legal challenges from so member states no confirmation or not other yet, but it does helps to go before the lead is of the 27 members of the european union . once it gets passed there, which it looks like it will, it goes to the european parliament way, more than half of any piece have to vote in favor of it. right now. it does seem like it would squeak by us looking at probably quite

a few months though before we see these new rules come into place and we see gas or some gas projects and nuclear power labeled as green energy projects by the european union. just briefly a little more than this. i spoke with german economists, full cur helmer, he sais. europe's green transition will mean higher electricity consumption, which can't be provided. but i, gas and nuclear power. i think the green transition is right to follow. but what we have to be in mind is that all measures we tank by politicians within the european union in the european states, is to increase the use of electric electricity by electron a, tronic vehicles, whatever. and that means that we will need more energy. we need, if we take the forecasts of the international energy agency until 2050 roughly the same amount of fossil fuels than currently. and in that respect,

we have to understand that in order to have a proper transition, we need the old economy for a certain time. we need fossil fuels, we need nuclear energy in order to set up the allocation for capital for a, for this green transition. i think that's a point that is not being understood. we need a pragmatic approach. and what we hear from those, we're criticizing the current state of affairs are those were rather following ideologies, rather than pragmatic approach it. what's happened to open public debates on will it ever return in the guys we once knew it, cross talk, get stuck into that. i'm with

bring you the very latest every out the day. this is all he's now snow from everyone here with a job gashodi shakeelah. hi sharon, my name is rob with a look over the summer duty with wholesale and kelly recruiting court and i renewed my financial nike issue that i'm getting keep to

a lot of money for she's the best times to i must be lucky. i could fatima mother you know, if that work with you myakea get approved for him. um with oh ah ah hello and welcome to cross the upper. all things were considered i'm peter lavelle, not long ago open public debate was considered a.