brown, a headline stories this hour, the russian foreign ministry vas to retaliate against german media outlets in russia after germany, media regulators and brought a large t b. also ahead, the u. s. nato responds to russia's proposed security guarantees. is li published bias, commerce newspaper. the document rejects russia's key to mountains including keeping neighboring ukraine on the 3 of the you could soon pull the green label on the gas than you killer power paving the way for subsidies

and tax cuts. member states flash over the switch to renewables in the midst of an energy crisis. with many live from moscow. this is our t. my name's unit o'neill and 30 minutes of news and views start. not russia has pledge to take action against german media, atlanta 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 all betrayed early and unreasonably deleted the channels

accounts from their platform. 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 r t d earlier r t accuse the german regulator of suppressing free speech after r t d was hit with a full bond, including online use, the networks production arm, he's taking the regulator to court. now after it was raleigh nate and does the channels broadcaster ortiz, deputy editor in chief and belkin. i gave my colleague research shay a breakdown of the dispute via a license that was obtained with absolutely all reporting european rules and regulations, according to the european convention on transferred to your television. and we are free to broadcast via the license in 30 plus territory across europe. they are saying that our tv productions, which is an entirely independent production company,

is actually the tv channel that broadcasts from germany. and there's generally absolutely no broadcasting happening from berlin at all. r t d e. the tv channel is oh broadcasting right here for moscow in, in fact, there studios are essentially next door to where we're sitting here. and we're here all launching the channel mid december. yet nevertheless, the regulator is asking the production company to stop 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 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 is, or it's being present there, you know, and they are under fire not just under, from authorities. in, in germany, the youtube channel was taken down within hours of the, of 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 monster! 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 for or for the last number of years. and we believe

that, you know, the r t d production 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 while the russian foreign ministry spokeswoman maria, a horrible house accused germany of breaching its legal obligations, leaving moscow with 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. while the r t, the saga has been going on really for months now, since launched de ortiz nikki, are in, takes a look back now at the turbulent events surrounding mitchum. the all t d e launch date 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 youtube, just a short time off. it went on and then just days later was a finding increasing interference and the channel signal of that was taken off. one of its 2 softer lines off the juvenile 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 which i know about the closure of bank accounts and so on. there's a large number of tactics they're using say r t d concert 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 to saw, 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 national laws and the schools, the danger of this self proclaimed tv broadcast that requires action at all levels

. so could this be the end of the road for the short live channel? well, our c, d e is already preparing to fight on. but we also spoke with rock legend, roger waters co founder of pink floyd. he believes germany is seeking to block alternative viewpoints which challenge the western normative. they want to create and may have a monopoly of media that only express is the accepted western narrative that comes down to them to those major outlets from the ruling class in western society. and then when in the western countries state, russia today actually provides an old son as ship view it to the view that is given by certainly every single american tv network. you cannot watch

network g b in the united states because it's all nonsense every single minute. i don't care if it's fox news or m s m b, c. it's all made up nonsense. so, russia to day, which you can watch in the united states and which i do watch russia today. but it gives every appearance of being much more direct and truthful about the reality of our lives on this globe than folks years or m. s. m b, c, or any of the other set. certainly. net network television in the usa or the b, b, c, o i g, b, or channel for any of the stations as well. they would like to shut down, shut down any voice that doesn't necessarily tow the line and

agree with big brother on every single issue down to the last crossed t in da, to die and full stop. this is so or, well in this is 1984 come to life. they're looking in a mirror. when that, when they accuse are see a big dissemination of disinformation particularly now with all this nonsense about the grain. they're looking in america. that's exactly what they are all dirt to another over a headline story said a before tax of the confidential us nato response to russia. security concerns has been leaked. the purported document was published by spanish newspaper l pi east, or my colleagues neil harvey and south. taylor discussed its contents. over the past few weeks, we've seen the highest diplomatic levels, riley's, of accusations of verbal sparring,

and that's just what's been happening and public's. we can only imagine what's going on behind closed doors, but now a fresh document leak has offered us 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 open hasn't managed to get it comes 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 for the 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 under article 10 of the washington treaty. we have of course, requested comment from both nato and the us state department. but if we take just this document, it seems that it is an open shot case. them, 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 postage, just because when you much listen carefully to us, i say, in ukraine's own duck, try no documents. it is written that they plan to return crimea, including by military means that it's not what they say publicly. you imagine for yourself that ukraine and nate 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 pitch and set it there in a slightly different context. but what do we do? what's versus reaction? been to this. moscow has already sent follow up questions to this document. so clearly that there is a desire for continued a dialogue. but most disposition 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 thought is not what's being disputed. here. the issue is when a country's choices have ramifications beyond its borders and actually pose a very real physical threat to someone else. and let's just be clear. a potential natal 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, ignoring really shows abortion is ignoring our concerns, the u. s. and need to refer to the rights of states to freely choose how to ensure

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 one should not allow the strengthening of any one security at the expense of the security of other states. so the russian leaders asking, why must we thought provide our security that someone else can feel safe? not 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 discussing arms control. so reducing missile deployment to ukraine. but if we get to the bottom of it, let's be blown. according to this document, the west responds to normal, existential concern of russia says, we have here, but we don't care enough to do anything. and this is in fact case clothes, 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 project an image

that we are listening and being co operative but do nothing in any way to address your fundamental concerns. and 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. kevin own earlier discuss the story with daniel mcadams, executive director of the ron paul institute for peace and prosperity. now, he is of the view. the biden administration's hyping up the ukraine crisis to boost its own ratings. we have a present in the us, he's 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 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. go for it. you know, i mean, that's not going to happen. ukraine is not going to take crimea back, you know, we, the u. s. government loves 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 it, by the administration, i should say, ah, the head of cnn has resigned for lying abide when on the 1st started with a colleague, jeff sucker spent 9 years of the news network, a period of largely falling ratings. your chart is caleb martin with more on the story. 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 were 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, this matter of reporting or disclosing a romantic relationship. and at this point, sienna 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 . back in december, john griffin, a producer at cnn, was arrested by the f. b. i on rather serious charges. he was taken to the 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'm in 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, kate rosenfeld. cnn commentator kat rosenfeld. she compared jo grogan's audience,

so the podcast or 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, 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. we think that there 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. now it's important to note that the viewership of cnn has been significantly decreasing. last year. in the 1st week of january, viewership of cnn was at 2700000. but now in the 1st week of this year, it was only $548000.00 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. if cnn was a patient and a hospital, the doctor would call a co, the doctor will look at his watch or say, call it, that's it. they put the sheet over the patient. cnn is gone. many people expect expect to be fairness. many people believe that c, n n owes them a duty of fairness. people will say, this isn't fair, cnn. their journal is they're supposed to be journalist. this isn't fair. how can you say this? how can you get away with this? how can they do this? first, this is a matter again,

media where you can say anything you want kind of number 2, dare dying. they have nothing to lose. their hoping. somebody notices them if, if they were to exhibit unfairness and non journalistic tendencies, you know what would happen to them? nothing. are there any independent sources for journalistic review? no natural gas and nuclear power could soon be classed as green energy in the e. u. the european commission supports the idea which has been slammed by environmental groups as so named green washing, or your correspondent peter oliver takes up 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 was the commission outline their plans to reclassify some natural gas projects and nuclear power projects on 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 the 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 at our 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 the

saw france and germany will start with paris and swell front 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. an 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 be much talked about, thus infrastructure project between germany and russia, looking more and more and showed this plan go through and gas ultimately be designated on spot green fuel will see more and more investment towards gus in and across the european union, i said not everybody was happy though, and heading into the meeting on wednesday, we heard from austria, denmark, sweden,

and the netherlands. all saying they didn't want to see gas 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 amounts to little more than green washing. the complimentary delegate to that 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 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 of the yet, but it does helps to go before the leaders 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 that. 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. katara has said a can't cover a europe gas shortfall if sanctions cut russian supplies from the european market. the volume of gas needed by the european union cannot be replaced by anyone, unilaterally, without disturbing supplies to other regions around the world. russia is the leading natural gas supplier to the european union,

not counting for 38 percent of consumption, norway's in 2nd place providing around the 5th fears of a supply shortage of intensified with european energy prices surging over the past year. but natural gas price at an all time record in december mid threats of sanctions against russia, delays to the launch of the north stream pipeline. and concerns over the crisis in ukraine or le column is mum to sell a may say it would take many gas exporters to provide for europe to fill in for russia that cannot supply and union because it's a heavy plastic for it. and i would go as well as to say that even if you are the entire exports and by the united states navy and got that in the heart of the

match. yeah. my bad guys that i ship, why are we and you know, seem too good to have them or is it is me. hi, scott. know prices are yes. what's happened to open public debate? some will ever returned to the guys we once knew it, cross talk, get stuck into that. and it's that, ah, [000:00:00;00] ah,

ah hello and welcome across the upper all things considered. i'm peter level, not long ago, open public debate was considered a good thing even essential for a stable and functioning society. today. if you do not follow in propagate liberal parties, you are accused of misinformation and should be banned from polite society. shut up or else, ah, we discussed these issues and more, i'm joined by my guess, lionel and new york. he is a legal in media analyst in ohio. we have all report barrett, he is, america's professor, a bowling green state university, as well as author of conflict propaganda in syria. and in montreal we crossed to

david fry. hi, he is a montreal litigator and youtube or, or a general cross ok, rules and effect. that means you can jump in in time you want, and i always appreciate it. ok, let's go to line or person in new york um, why all this discussion about misinformation? all of a sudden because i don't know, i was brought up to believe that good debate. open debate is makes us all better. i mean, you confronted people that uh huh. and challenge people that disagree with you and be open to a, to your so why all this fuss about misinformation? and, and by the way, who did herman's that while i virtue of my senescence? i've been in the business here does my 35th year since i started in talk radio. and when i 1st started, what would get you really hurt is if you drop the f bomb, or if you said something that whatever that offended a sponsor, if i could bring back colleagues of mine who have since passed and said that today people have been shelved by providing dis, information, misinformation, data, information, whatever you want to call it, they would look at me, peter, and say, you mean for just being wrong?

yes. for being incorrect. yes. who, what do you mean? now what's interesting very quickly is that being wrong is often times how we get to the answer. anybody who has a rudimentary understanding about science or medicine understands, or what we said initially about blood letting in leeches will eventually lead to cancer, cures in the likes or sometimes being wrong. and there's one of a marketplace of ideas is terrific. it is a beautiful tactic to stifle free speech. now i'm a lawyer and i think one of our, yes, a lawyer too. and we know that classically, if you say something that is liable us and defamatory that is not permitted. but this is a new thing. this is merely being wrong, you asked who determines what is wrong, the public consensus of what i call the shadow government overlord, to basically run everything through their wholly owned subsidiaries, platforms and social media. so basically it's a new form of, of thought charity. very well said, let's go to david in ottawa,