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 samuel eli. he's a podcast to read the goggle, 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. okay, let's start out with glen glen. as i said in my introduction, are we at the end of diplomacy here at the end of negotiations, or is at the beginning of something because we are obviously at an impasse. we have leaked reaction to russia's proposal through a spanish media, which probably was intentional. the russians are not happy with it, at least 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, this letter was tor returned from the nato and not a states. the proposal of russia leak to see the difference of their predictable wish was that nato would deliver a letter which would be very complete. ideological regret,

say that these are values, principles, ideals, all this is taking their uncompromising stance. but this is again to uphold our director within the block. so this was necessary. so was always kind of given that the response directly from the united states will have more stuff stance, which is why russia roles or even wanted to discuss directly with the u. s. and even less. you also this whole thing because well, they can really contribute to anything. so from the united states, i think there was more substantial 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 expands here at the expense of us. again, maybe logic sense that, you know,

we're just columbus democracies where you know, 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 out. there are the margaret so, so by the, by their argument does not contradict because indivisible, security. and again, this is also why, by within the american analogy of dividing the world between democracy and the states are 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, but it's still some room to speak with americans, but i think it's, 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 boilerplate, 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 russians 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 horses sent into the baltic states. 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 can 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 major 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. you bring your brain, 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 indivisibility of security of a lease agreement that we find with the health think 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 boyle of life as you say, well, values, principal, an open door policy, which even then they misinterpreting. because if you read the article 10, it just made the may by you and i them is decision. all the members invite in a new member state,

if it is enhances the security of major. so the idea that opened up all the level, everyone can come in whoever feels like it's, you know, make it not addressing the rushes concerns. and in fact it's, it's spending to confirm rushes anxieties. well, that's it. that's exactly a plan. 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 a, 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 expanded 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 of 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 jewel process. the natal has 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 coming to the same thing. this was a did, this was so contradictory and nature, i think part of what has a lot nato to go along this year with the people to be, i'm biggest. and it's only been a thing that talking in big language values and rush us threatening it. but again, i think you're really demonstrates george point as well 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,

i ukraine by any definition that nato criteria for membership ukraine fails. ukraine has a 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 if, 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 the think 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 was never any reason for nato and nathan pals to get itself 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, they, in danger and what else? because, sooner or later, this will lead to a very nasty conflict. i mean, it's already clear from everything the russians have sent. this is something they will not tolerate. and the law that may do insist, oh, well, you know, this is all defensive and we're going to help ukraine defend itself and so on. right. the see direct threat 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. they 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 new weapon systems align closely with china. so, so it's overplayed by definition because it can't win this for russia, it's more is 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 to 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, you would have to push out the russians. nato will be coming in and it will be a little 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, this marks of software is not going to end and the transformation of all industry is with us whether people like it or not. the last industry in the world to be transformed by software was money and big coined rolled into town. and now

money has been dis, mediated or disrupted by this software. this protocol called good coin and of course, bankers hate at central bank or say that, but let's talk fact within 10 years, all major central banks will be gone. and we'll going to be in a post central bank era when you, when they directly re sell, advertise as 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 person finds a fake point, we're legit video we're saying the flat then this content ranks. huh.

at least 20 percent or maybe even 40 percent or pretty that is true. was a very dangerous thing. ah welcome back to cross stock were all things are considered. i'm peter labelle. this is the home addition to remind you. we're discussing some real news. the ok, let's go back to go to before we went to the break least finish it up. sure. well, my, my, my point this after this is the qu, if not a states would have been, and then you got the key. what i tried to pressure russia, ukraine, crimea, will have a dilemma. do they have a conflict with america, nato, or will they withdraw? but instead they recognize crimea, and then the,

the refund them to make part of the russian federation. that's a very, this is kind of 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 know, you go to more with us, which includes nuclear war. if you going to take back crimea, or you're gonna have to accept the reality when you're not going to push us out. so it kind of explains or demonstrates to what makes well, how important that is for us. again, that is, the idea is it's better to have a conflict now and even the war rather than wait 10 years under the americans. i've taken over to put the weapon systems on us, perhaps targeting russia. so if they were, they're wanted more, they're willing to take much greater risk. so yes, there were later have this is russia console going from this us putting said in 2014, there's nowhere else to retreat. that's how they see it. so it's mission because they have to you know, ga, over the last few months. i think

a few things are really interesting here. number one, nato led by the united states cannot say anymore. what do the russians want to get? what does put in while 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 conference about some video that the russians are for disinformation 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 my police about this and they would never say it publicly, but it didn't. the nato countries are far from unified and how to move forward. they've actually shown a lot of their cards. okay. and, and joe biden, 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 the, the russian see their hands and, and at the same times, the rest of the russians have been very transparent. the 2 treaties one didn't 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 are the issues with nature at the heart of it is the indivisibility of yours is the law we signed 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 meant something. but when you signed on to it, you know, what did you think you meant? and nato rena doesn't have any, all that, i mean, the united states kind of at least address that issue, but not in a very effective way in their response. what they said. but the 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, the u. s. at least and said ok, well we're willing to talk about the deployment of short range, intermediate range miss. we promised we're not going to launch. we're not going to station on ukrainian territory, but they don't address russians or interest addressing it. but they promise not to expand one in the kremlin and you get this letter, which of course is far more nuanced in the ridiculous nonsense, the nathan replied. but you know, if i were in the kremlin, say, but 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 in the problem must be exasperated. mean 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, sorry. finish up. okay, so i mean, i tried to address and the fact is that the united states and nato said to the russian, hey, when nothing was in writing. okay, so baker sent this or whatever, but you didn't put anything. we didn't put anything in writing, so you are, you know, yahoo sent but now okay, it wasn't writing now we want it in writing. so we want legal guarantee. if you don't provide us with legal ganges, then we will have to address our security concerns unilaterally. we try to negotiate with you try to work out some kind of a 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. it will open up the nato. busy russia to bay in brussels. that's a bonus growing, i guess. i'm sorry, go ahead and jump in. and i was just going to keep purpose. i think on this talks to begin with is that even the mission is to get a mission from the united states. the needle can be a threat to russia. i think that in the, on its own would be a great victory. because if you listen to the michael makes also the world. if there's a, is this no way they can get russia. but if this is the case, if russia never reacting to nato that mean nobody can ever be a threat to russia. that means all russia policy can only be driven by internal ideas. which means that, you know, dream on restoring the soviet union and put in a democracy, trying to hold on to power. but and again, these are the only arguments to have because the count, if it's only internal reasons for russia to do this, maurice and never reacting to matter. 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. you can 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 was just a legitimate so it, i think it's very important to get that mission. yeah, well, i mean, in georgia, is it, you know, and i to remind our viewers, if this is about protecting ukraine's democracy, then why did the, what, 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 flashing 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, when things back to the moment at which the, the war back was dissolved in the soviet union does all at that moment, you know, russia was acting in extraordinary generosity in just simply giving it all off. i mean, a different leadership brought maybe a more eliciting leadership. even also 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 will do which concern us the government security interest the grow were invaded. no longer a big, terrible invasion. and we demand commitments from our former allies,

that they will not join any hostile military unless they go, this isn't going to be treated like in the clear ukraine, but what it does fear is the ukranian government attacking the don. 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, $5000.00. it's not a serious military alliance. ok. so political, ideological alliance. but there is there when you have that, all the security guarantees you diminish every one security at the same time. go ahead. no, i agree because 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 become a member tomorrow and attacks. don't boss run into names on behalf of them. and

then they will have to go to war, probably very quickly into nuclear war with russia. it's hard to see how it is in the stretch here. when you say nato has to go to work all 30, or i guess they'd be good ukraine, all 31. so that means all 31 countries are a target in a car, in a conflict with russia. correct? yes, and this is of course a madman project, but the reason why there was propose, this is under this idea that if the report of nato then russia would dare to do anything. but this is where the calculation goes wrong, because this is an exit special thread. some point they have to draw a red line which 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 the focus as i mentioned, the rest of us afraid of your current, afraid of the united states 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 it's saying that there to invade the rush other than not to invade your over ukrainians, have confirmed the amount of troops where their positions. all of this indicates that they're not there for animation. they're there to deter ukraine from attacking combust all this meter, of course, in russia, sending blood to the front line and you know, all need their reporting systems fact. and then ukraine is intelligent thanks. no, actually, that hasn't happened because made up taking years. so it's this or this new press conference where they are getting russia prepared. they interest video on it and it's a full size full swag operation. it's just when media ask for evidence is like,

well, we are telling you it's truth. i've been here, we've only touched this, the tip of the iceberg of this entire discussion. i want to thank my get some of the low end in budapest, and i think our viewers for watching a, c, r t c. and expand, remember across ah ah, ah ha, driven by dress shaped bankers are those with theirs.