ah, ah, with ah, ah hello and welcome to cross doctor. all things are considered on peter labelle. is this the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning? russian nato are at an impasse. both have presented their visions of pan european security. needless to say, there is no meeting of minds has diplomacy been exhausted? ah,

to discuss these issues and more on joined by my guess, glen deason, and also he is a professor at the university of se or norway as well as author of the book, great power politics in the port industrial revolution. and in budapest we have george m, u l l e z, a podcast to read the gaggle which can be found on youtube and locals. are gentlemen cross up rules and effect, that means you can jump any time you want, and i would appreciate it. ok, let's start out with glen glen. as i said in my introduction, um, are we at the end of diplomacy here? at the end of negotiations or at the beginning of something? because we are obviously at an impasse. we have the leaked reaction to russia's proposal through a spanish media, which probably was intentional. the russians are not happy with it, at least a, as a reaction, not official reaction to it at this point, but they made it very clear that they're not pleased where we are. where are we

here? and has nato really played its hand? go ahead. well, hello, this letter was to returned from the nato and not a states the proposal. so russia has been leaked to see the difference as their predictable wish was. that nato would deliver a letter which would be very complete ideological regress. say that these are values, principles, ideals, all this is taking their uncompromising stance. but this is again to uphold the hour or 2 within the block. so this was necessary. so was always kind of given that the response directly from the united states would have more stuff stance, which is why russia roles or even wanted to discuss directly with the u. s. and even less video out of this whole thing because well, they can really contribute to anything. so from the united states,

i think there was more substances, substances, answers, and something to work on and discuss further. and i think it's moving towards the end. overall, the key conflict areas, what is being secured, the russia saying, listen, all the time. they're being agreements being very specific in the visible charity here at the expense of us. again, maybe logic says that, you know, we're just the columbus democracies. we saved all of this thing so, so for this reason that even if we expand towards the borders with set up missile systems there, none of this is threatening. we're just looking after our democracy so, so by the, by their argument does not contradict because indivisible, security. and again, this is also fits why, by within the american analogy of dividing the world between democracy and the state. so legitimate and illegitimate, defensive and authentic states. so,

so this is why you can't really have your pin security agreement under this ideological narrative. so there's still some room to speak with americans, but i think nato is, is, there's not much more express you there. yeah, george, you know, and looking at the nato response, forgive me for saying this, but it, they don't really talk much about security. they talk about everything now, don't they? and i don't understand what values have to do with geo politics. okay. and nato doesn't seem to really want to explain that. and the russians, obviously, is going to just said here, i mean, the russians were expecting it was boiler plate. nothing new. we could have actually been written before russia's proposals. in fact, the american reaction there is nuance there and maybe something to work towards. go ahead george. yes, that's right. and if one considers about what happened during the past couple of weeks, it tends to reinforce rushes contains. because just during the last few days,

we have the united states made so pushing its forces even closer to russia than we have. france and the united states now deploying additional causes in romania. we have the united kingdom announcing grandly and new trilateral alliance with the ukraine. and poland, we had an additional also sent into the baltic state. so, you know, was there confirming precisely what russia has been saying that you have greatly enhanced your geo political advantages to the detriment of ours. you would just move your courses ever closer to our borders as your women. and when i even look at the north atlantic treaty, it is very, very specifically defensive. everything in that moment as a treaty is about the defense of the member states of the of nature has nothing to

say about anything else. 5 of those men the stage. and yet they're obsessive preoccupation with ukraine. and if you to read the major document and even the, the united states response, it's all about ukraine, ukraine, your brand new brand, which isn't a member of nato. so you have was why you preoccupying yourself with ukraine? because your brain is not a member of nato, and even if everything you say is true and even in russia is threatening your brain and rushes about the baby grand. what's it got to do with you? i mean, it's a member of nato. it's outside of your jurisdiction and yet you're obsessed with it . so you can just suggest that all the issues that russia has raised when chance and he goes the heart of the indivisible. if you have security of a lease agreement that we assign with your health, think it vinyl like the java barons, the oldest, the documents,

which i mentioned specifically the indivisibility of europe. if you are prepared to address, you know, you're going back to the essential boiler blade as you say, all values principal open door policy, which even then they miss interpreting. because if you read the article 10, it just may or may by you and i them is decision. all the members invite in a new member say, if it is in hans as the security of major. so the idea was that opened up all the level. everyone going to come in, whoever feels like it's, you know, make nature assistant, not addressing the rushes concerns and in fact it's, it's spending to confirm rushes anxieties. well that's it. that's exactly it. glenn, i mean, in georgia is absolutely right. i mean, your crane is really not at the heart of this, it's a, it's the, it's the symptom of the problem and it's being used as, as a cudgel. and it is obviously being directed against russia. what else, what other threat isn't being directed against?

and again, going back to what we've said previously on previous programs about the issue of individual ability of security. explain that to our audience very, very clearly, because this is what it is all about. go ahead. well, indivisible security simply means one side should not expand is security at the expense of others. so in other words, and then this is to resolve the key problem, international security because it tries to increase, don't think it's very easy that these weapons and the neighbors. so, so in other words, when, when, when you have a security architecture, you're attempt to find ways i'm having and elevate the common security. so you can have many issues. you can have transparency, they will do this a lot of initiatives for once i just seen that idea expanding military blocks pushing with a system closer to the board or some other countries that this is secure. i mean the security for one. but in security for the other, and this is forcing russia to respond. and again, this is the whole problem. since the 990 s,

they conceptualized need to as an insurance policy against russia. so they, so this is that you will process the needles been taken on one hand, say, trying to reassure russia at the same time to the turn. so the, so the messaging is, is very biggest thing. listen, you have nothing to fear from us. we're just peaceful, however, if you resist any of the things we're doing, then you're aggressive and we will come from you. and this is james baker referred to us the danger of this insurance policy. george kennedy said the same thing. this was, this was so contradictory in his nature, i think part of what has nato to go along with the simpler to be biggest and it's only been a thing that talking to him big language values and you know, rush us threatening it. but again, i think you're really demonstrates george point the others will, that this principles of country will be but crime, but with this effort to secure the security of ukraine,

george is actually making it more insecure. it's counter intuitive. ok, by wanting to bring ukraine into the alliance, you're actually endangering the entire alliance. and is this what nato countries from the very beginning, signed up for to be put into a position of intense insecurity because this is exactly what the expansion is doing. yeah, well that's right, because in fact, and ukraine by any definition that nato criteria for membership, ukraine fails. ukraine has ongoing conflict within its own borders. ukraine also has a conflict going on with its neighbor, russia. so any attempt to bring ukraine in all what's really happening now, the fact of bringing it in. so even when they know countries say, well, no, no, we don't have any media plans to bring a to in, you know,

no rush is getting paranoid and whatever. you think that george, if but by even considering membership, is a violation of their own treaty, their own ardor? exactly. it is a violation. and by doing so they are, of course i endangered all of them and a small countries. i think ok, well this is all right. you know, we've got all these guarantees. but you know, basically what's really happening with this aggressive policy of getting itself involved. it was never any reason for nato and nathan pals to get it to get themselves involved in ukraine. they did brilliant just to, you know, suck into the russian. and that's why they got themselves involved in 2013 and so on. you know, ukraine has to make a civilizational choice and so on. so they got involved. but by doing so, of course, you know, they endangered what i was because, sooner or later this will lead to a very nasty conflict. i mean,

it's already clear from everything the russians have said. this is something they will not tolerate. and the law that may do insist, oh, well, you know, you know, this is all defensive and we're going to help ukraine defend itself. and so on. right there, see direct threats and sooner or later something very nasty is going to happen. and that will affect all 30 members of nature. so glen has nato overplayed its hand. oh, i would say definitely here for many reasons. again, that's one of them. a really stepped into an area where it's this is considered essential to ukraine. i mean, all this in this narrative being spun that russia has nothing to share from you, but the crane is seen as an instrument of american power. is us our projection again, russia? so this is going to be an existential threat. so, as you can definitely not get more security from this native will not get more

security because russia will now we'll have to mobilize the new weapon systems align closely with china. so the, so it's is overplayed by definition because it can't win this for russia. it's more, it's more important, so it's, it's also within the closer proximity of russia. so they have, they have their will. and they means in order to say this all the way through a day they, they're willing to go much further. i mean, there are many, many people that really recognize the significance of bringing premier in that quickly in 2014 into the, into the russian federation. because at that time, this was immediately after the cool it could have inconceivable that was in the next few weeks. then, you know, your credits will take the push out the russians. nato will be coming in and it will be little like i want you to hold that we have to go to a hard break. and after that hard break will continue our discussion and some really stay with our key. ah

ah ah, well, they directly re sell advertise, says content to us and decide who sees what content when and how much of it. facebook claims that these algorithms are there to learn about our specific preferences. actually, this is untrue. they are shaping preference. if tomorrow the person finds a fake for the video, we're saying the flat, then this content ranks. huh. at least 20 percent or maybe even 40 percent. pretty true. it's a very dangerous thing. what

happened? i make no certainly no borders to tease parish as a merge. we don't have a charity. we don't have a back seen. whole world needs to take action to be ready. people are judgment, common crisis with we can do better, we should be doing better. everyone is contributing each in their own way, but we also know that this crisis will not go on forever. the challenge is great. the response has been massive. so many good people are helping us. it makes us feel very proud that we are in it together with the welcome act across the dock were all things are

considered. i'm peter lavelle. this is the home edition to remind you were discussing some real news. i okay, let's go back to glen glen. i had to interrupt you before we went to the break least finish up. sure. well my, my, my point this after this is the coup. if you're not a states would have been and then you got the key when i tried to pressure russia. ukraine, crimea, that will have a dilemma. do they have a conflict with america? nato, or will they withdraw? but instead they recognize crimea, and that they're a friend them to make part of the russian federation. that's a very, this is kind of a game of chicken. what they're saying is, there's no chance in the world we will ever give up our own territory. so now you have to decide you go to more with us, which includes nuclear wars. you're going to take back to the crimea,

or you're going to have to accept the reality when you're not going to push us out . so it kind of explains all demonstrates to what makes well, how important this is russia? again, that is, the idea is it's better to have a conflict now and even the war rather than wait 10 years to sound robin americans, i've taken over to put the weapon systems and on perhaps targeting russia. so if they were, they wanted more than willing to take much greater risk. so yes, there were quite or have this is russia can't walk away from this us putting in 2014. there's nowhere else to retreat. that's how they see it. so it's mission because, you know, george over the last few months, i think a few things are really interesting here. number one, nato led by the united states cannot say any more. what do the russians want to okay, what does food didn't want? that's a very familiar headline. well, they know exactly what they want. now. a 2nd interesting thing for me is,

and from the russian side, they've seen what the reaction from nature would be. it's been quite awkward. it's been quite sloppy. ned price, priceless ned price with his press conference about some video that the russians are for this information or whatever. i mean with such an embarrassing press conference, but the russians have seen how they're going to react and the different variations, the lack of unity and it's actually, of nato is not pleased about this. and they would never say it publicly, but the nato countries are par from unified and how to move forward. they've actually shown a lot of their cards. okay. and, and joe biden, you, with his usual gap actually showed you no minor incursion tells you a lot of things about what was going on behind closed doors. so that the residency, their hands and, and at the same times the rest, the russians have been very transparent. the to treaties wonder they want to be united states. what do you say guys? ok. and the even that has been a sloppily re replied to. so this is

a very interesting time. that's why we're doing this program. go ahead. george. it is very interesting because the russians of now then what that issues are with nature at the heart of it is the indivisibility of the euro is resigned onto this. all of these agreements, you know, going back to the, the health think you'd find the like, they will talk about the indivisibility of security. you must have meant something, but when you signed on it, you know, what did you think you meant? and nato really doesn't have any on that. i mean, the united states kind of at least address that issue, but not in a very effective way in their response. but they indivisibility of security means precisely what is what he said, which it, nato cannot go on expanding at the expense of russia and was threatening russia. and so now you move nato in the us,

not really addressing brushes concern us at least and said ok, well we're willing to talk about the deployment of short range intermediate branch miss. we promised we're all going to launch it to the station miss on ukrainian territory, but they don't address rushes or interest or directing it. but they promise not to expand one into the kremlin and you get this letter, which of course is a far more nuanced in the ridiculous nonsense, the nathan replied. but you know, if i were in the kremlin, say, when you, you said years ago that you wouldn't do it and you did this and that in this, in the me, it must be people on the problem must be exasperated. and then they keep saying, yeah, we can talk about, that's a really good point, but it doesn't seem to be get into the mix. i'm sorry. yeah, i'm sorry. finish up. ok. so i mean, that's right,

it's not address. and the fact is that the united states and nato said to the russian, hey, well, nothing was the right thing. okay, so baker said this or whatever, but you didn't put anything. we didn't put anything in writing. so there you are, you know, yahoo! but now, okay, it wasn't writing, now we want it in writing. so we want legal guarantee. you don't provide us with legal ganges. then we will have to address our security concerns unilaterally. we try to go sheet with you try to work out some kind of modus vivendi and use the yahoo. your preferred to do that. you want to just mess around with any peripheral issues. okay. then we're going to have to just do it ourselves. yeah, yeah. they'll open up the nato, russia to bay in brussels. that's a bone. they're growing, i guess. i'm sorry, go ahead and jump in. and i was just going to keep purpose i on this, it talks to begin with is that even the mission is to get

a mission from the united states. that nato can be a threat to russia. i think that in, on his own would be a great victory, because if you listen to the michael next whole song, the world, there are certain things. there's no way they will come different russia. but if this is the case, if russia never reacting to nato that mean no, the west can never be a threat to russia. that means all the rushes policy can only be driven by internal ideas. which means, you know, dream on restoring the soviet union put in a democracy, trying to hold on to power. and again, these are the only arguments to have because to count it well if it's only internal reasons for russia to do this. maurice and never reacting tomato. these are kind of the silly arguments you get. so i think if they can are, if they can get that mission. yes. ok. perhaps nato expansion threat. russia, then at least you can go, then you can define the concept of invisible security in a way that both sides can accept. do cause expand the military block and then

simply say, oh no, no, it's just a democratic club and nothing to fear unless you fear democracy, which is legitimate. so it, i think it's very important to get that mission. yeah, well, i mean, in georgia is it, you know, i'd like to remind our viewers, if this is about protecting ukraine's democracy, then why did the why, why was the west involved in over throwing a democratically elected government in ukraine in february of 2014 this, this democracy argument, it's placid, it's hollow, it's vacuous. and this is not about democracy or any other form of government. it's about security. and that's why i think that the nato has reached the end of its row because it doesn't want to talk about security. there's nothing to talk about george. yes, that's right. and really it thinks back to the moment at which the, the wall so back was dissolved and the soviet union dissolved. at that moment,

russia was active in extraordinary generosity in just simply giving it all off. i mean, a different leadership brought maybe a more realistic leadership. you're even off to the opening of the building was going to say, we are going anywhere. you know, you may have democratic governments in here and then so, but we will insist on neutrality and neutrality treated them that way. you're not going to leave because there are still outstanding issues we'll, we'll do. which concern us. the gentleman security, interesting role. we were invaded, not so long, terrible invasion, and we demand commitments from our former allies that they will not join any hostile military airlines. they go to visit and they're going to be treated. busy like, along the lines of the australian neutrality treatment might be that the 5 that basic medical happen in russia didn't do this. and nato sees this opportunity,

but by doing it and doing it so quickly and so aggressively. they, in a sense now, you know, does their own graves because sooner or later rush was going to get fed up and say, you took advantages of us. and now, you know, we really do face a very serious existential threat. and we will have to rack, you know, you are willing to sit down and negotiate something. now we have to do it ourselves with this expansion. glenn, when you, when you hand out membership like handy holloway me, your, your, your, your handing out liabilities. ok. and somebody may pass it in one day, and that's the great fear. you know, the russia does not fear ukraine, but what it does fear is the ukrainian government attacking the don bass. going back to this ridiculous propaganda film that ned price was talking about. that's the real danger here. and this looks like the trigger because it made me nato has

an empty magazine. it's probably been a serious military alliance. at the end of the day, they're sending re bows and troops, 5000, not a serious military alliance. ok? so political idea, logical alliance. but there is there when you have that, all the security guarantees you diminish every one security at the same time. go ahead. i agree, if you look at the who, who is actually on to go to war in ukraine against russia. because this is the problem if you will give security guarantees to credit that will become a member tomorrow. and text on boss run into names on behalf of them. and then later, we'll have to go to war, probably very quickly into nuclear war with russia. it's hard to see how it is in the stress here. when you say nato has to go to work all 30, or i guess it will ukraine all 31. so that means all 31 countries are a target in a car, in a conflict with russia. correct?

yes. so this is of course, the math math project again which but the reason why they propose this is under this idea that part of nato then russia would be there to do anything. but this is where the calculation goes wrong because this is an existential threat. at some point they have to draw a red line or stamp them out. but again, the, a lot of the problems recently gotten into this is because of this propaganda war which tends to, it tends to shift also gives you mentioned the rest of us, afraid of your current, afraid of the united states and about the americans are pushing very hard to frame, this is a conflict between russia and ukraine. is that a one that when nato and russia in which ukraine has become a pawn after the west, back a qu there so, so this is one of the conflict also. now, you know, then the presence of russian troops is so very dishonest because you know, 50 saying that there to invade the rush, other that not to invade your grades. however, ukrainians have confirmed them out of troops where their position. all of this

indicates that they're not there for animation. they're there to deter you from attacking them bust and you know, all this me, there are sit in a rush ascending blood to the front line and you know, all me the reporting systems fact. and then ukraine is intel just saying no actually hasn't happened. this is made up fake news. so it's this, or this new press conference where they are going russia prepared, they interest video so i can attach this whole science post like operation is just the and when media ask for evidence is like what we are telling you. it is true that no, ever been here. we've only in touch that this, the tip of the iceberg of this entire discussion. i want to thank my guess, an oslo, and in budapest i'm, i think our viewers are watching a, c, a r t c, and exam. remember across ah,

ah, my math either with more of my guide to financial survival. this is a hedge fund, is a device used by professional daily wags to earn money. that's right. these hedge funds are completely not accountable. and we're just adding more and more to them. totally destabilizing global economy. you need to protect yourself and get inform. watch guys record when out. so thing wrong went on just a to see how the steam becomes the african and engagement equals the trail. when so many find themselves worlds apart, we choose to look for common ground. a,

you divide, deepen on russia. the french president traveled to moscow for talk with vladimir pierce it, the monument chromebooks. the criminal court clearly not targeting ukraine to put a reset in nato and you ties a russian official, bronze claims, the countries, it's 70 percent ready to invade ukraine. as us propaganda saying, it's based on the unnamed officials, undisclosed forces, and no evidence in the late the series of accusations of alleged russian aggression being held on a daily basis. candidates capital declares a state of emergency, claiming the city is on the stage by protest against cobit vaccine monday.