why do, what were they fighting for? nobody bothers down to write that contractors i live in with the russian foreign minister goes to retaliate against german media outlets in russia. that's after germany, media regulators plus a broadcast done on r t this the channel r v. the u. s. need to respond to russia's proposed security guarantees. is leap and published by a spanish newspaper. the document rejects russia's key demands, including keep in neighboring ukraine, out to the military alliance. and the you could, through the green label on the nuclear power paving the way because of this in tax

cuts, it comes as member states clash over the switch to renew both in the midst of an energy crisis with from moscow to the world. this is our international. i'm peter scott. and these the top stories this, our russia has pledged to take action against german media outlets operating in the country. the announcement from the foreign minister came just hours after our sister channel. our c 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. well, earlier archie accused the german regulator of suppressing free speech. that's after all the d with hits with the full bon, including on online use. the networks production is taking the regulator of course, after it was wrongly named as the channels broadcast. will are the deputy editor in chief, unable can gave royce to say a breakdown of the disputes 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 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. or to d e. the tv channel is oh broadcasting right here for moscow in, in fact, their 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. what do 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 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 demands that. does it seem like bullying? 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 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. well, russian foreign ministry spokesman maria the carver, has 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 the r t. the saga has been going

on for months now. well basically since day one, our teeth nicky are and takes a look back at the now turbulence events surrounding the channel. the r c. d 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 you chip, just a short time off. it went on air, then just days later, there was a finding increasing interference and the channel signal, after it was taken off one of its 2 satellites, after german 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 and the independence of broadcasters which constitute an indispensable

basis for their broadcasting policy. most of them 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 route 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 pirates station of the enemies of democracy and lateral thinkers, this repeated attempt to circumvent european and national laws, underscores the danger of this self proclaimed t. v 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. we spoke with rock legend roger waters, he's the co founder of pink floyd, and he believes germany is seeking to block alternative viewpoints which challenge the west, the narrative. they want to create and may have a monopoly of media that only expresses 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 alternative view it to the bureau 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 yours are, m s m, b, c, or any of the other set. certainly. net network television in the usa or the 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 cross

t and dottie di 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 your grade, they're looking in america. that's exactly what they are. all the full text of the confidential us needs. a response to russian security concerns has been leads. the performance of documents was published by spanish newspaper, l pipe. and earlier my colleagues, neil harvey and suskin taylor discussed its contents. over the past few weeks, we've seen at the highest diplomatic levels, riley's of accusations, verbal sparring, and that's just what's been happening and 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 in 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 finish 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 with thing 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 know, documents it is written that they plan to ton crimea, including by military means that is not what they say publicly. 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 refused to budge and let him have pitch and set it there in a slightly different context. but what do we do? what's versus reaction?

been to this muslim has already sent, follow up questions to this and a document. so clearly that raise a desire for continued a dialogue. but most 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 thought is not what's being disputed. here. the issue is when a country's 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, even though you know, shows abortion. 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 one should not allow the strengthening of any one security at the expense of the security of other states. so the washing liters, asking why must we sacrifice 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 nato 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 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 going to 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 cooperative, but do nothing in any way to address your fun demand 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, as you just heard in the report, the russian president mentioned ukraine states, a goal of re taking crimea through military means. but the white artist dismissed those concerns comparing putins ukraine policy to folks in hen house. and the fox is screaming from the top of the hen house that he's scared of the chickens, which is essentially what they're doing. that fear isn't reported as a statement of fact. and as you watch, president putin screaming about the fear of ukraine and the ukrainians. that should not be reported as a statement of fact. we know who the foxes in this case. we can now cross live to rich rebecca until it's of is the answer. coalition the welcome to the program rich and thank you you as we just heard them. putin was called basically a fox and i hadn't house previous head of the chickens out by the white house. what

do you make this remark in light of the 3000 us soldiers being deployed eastern europe? i think that the propaganda war, this under way becomes more and more ludicrous here in the u. s. with each passing day. i mean, and the latest one here that say potent is afraid pretending to be afraid of the ukrainian. so russia has, i think, legitimate concerns about the stationing of nuclear missiles, very close to the heartland of russia, a western russia, the main cities and economy and agriculture and all of that. and that they know is determined to move ever closer. and that's where i think this is really about well, yesterday we didn't preach in say that there was a possible threat of ukraine invading crimea if it with a joy, nate, so do you think the 100, the millions of dollars of lethal a given few claim by the west will in any way influence its policy. it was crimea.

well, you know it's, it's very interesting that in the last several days and some of them have retracted us, but ukrainian leaders have been raising the question, why is why all the talk about war from the west? we don't think there's going to be a war. but the, the pumping in hundreds of millions and over the last few years, billions of dollars in weaponry is clearly intended to prepare the way for war. and wouldn't be just a war by you, by ukraine. it would be a war if it were to come to pass. i believe we believe that it would be a natal war against russia. richard before this next question, let me show you a quick clip from cnn. what kind of weapons do you have at this position? do you have any heavy weaponry? i don't see any, but i just want to make sure that you don't know are seen by the enemy. doesn't

need to see me. he says, but we have everything. so we appeared here, ukrainian soldier confessed to see it and that it was in possession of heavy artillery, which if true would be a violation of the men's faith accord. do you think there be any consequences of ukraine for this? and is it fair just accuse worse of the escalation in that case? well, i think that it's clear that any accusation against russia is now considered valid in the most of the western media. certainly the mainstream media here in the us. and i think you heard earlier in your broadcast and much of the of europe as well. there's no questioning of these, of the allegations against russia. and there's no questioning of supporting everything that either the training and leadership wants to do, or nato wants to ukrainian leadership to do moving across the us. now,

the former president from a few days ago said the biden should protect america's own borders and not the look in the bought the ukraine guest, referring to the migration situation in the u. s. what your thoughts on the do you think is true as binding? got more pressing problems at home. well, there are a lot of precedent problems inside the united states. the failure of the main bills in congress and so called build back bettered that i don't agree that the, there's a crisis of immigration and united states as a matter of fact, right now there is a great shortage of workers, particularly in the most difficult jobs and that's why they do to the blocking of migration, immigration into the u. s. and the really terrible persecution of migrants here. and i and the massive deportation there's been going on. so i don't put much stock or any stack at all. and we're either biting has to say,

or trump has to say. and this leads documents from the us and nate. so the one that was published in the spanish newspaper. do you see as an outright rejection of russia's demands? was some of the rejection of the main demands and then demand not to have to have a guarantee that ukraine not be brought into nato is really critical. because if ukraine was brought to where to be brought into nato, then that 1300 mile border could be a border between, between russia and ukraine. could be a border where us missiles, including intermediate range nuclear missiles, could be just a couple of minutes away of flying time from side of that some of the centers of population in russia. so that's a very critical demand. and so 2 is the demand and such missiles not be,

never be stationed in you can. so that's really what this is revolved around. and the u. s. is decided after many, many months to just turn it into a crisis. but i don't think that the us ever accept the idea that, you know, mexico or canada could join hospital military alliance and station nuclear missiles, very close to the, to the major cities in the united states in the united states at all. richard, we could go on talking about this for a long time to come. i'm afraid that so we have time for, for now, but richard becker onto watch wasted unsecurely and thank you for your insights on those events to the head of cnn has resigned for lying about when an affair started with a colleague. jeff's book has spent 9 years at the news network, which was a period of largely falling ratings, his ortiz keller bolton with more. no 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 this e mail 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, 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 at, 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 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 step down as governor of new york. now there's been another recent 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. 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 would look at his watch or say, call at, that's it. they put the sheet over the patient. cnn is gone. many people, if they're expected to be fairness, many people believe that c n n owes them a duty of fairness, people will say, this isn't fair. cnn. there, journalist, 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. they're hoping somebody notices now 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. in the news, natural gas and nuclear power could soon be classed as green energy. in the u. european commission supports the idea which has been slammed by environmental groups as green washing or your correspondent pizza oliver takes of the story when 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. odds, green energy investments. what the 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 countries. 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 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 gases 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 that 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 delegated act tabled 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 as it poses significant environmental and social hazards at all stages of its supply chain. while there'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 on that 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 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. what are so for now? money is peter scott's and i'll be back again in 30 minutes. ah. as long as human are is at the end of the day self interested. you.