report, which is protect a ball, and it's also irreversible. ah, ah. hello and welcome to crossed out. were all things considered on people about wild tensions remain high over ukraine? one thing has abundantly been made clear. russia and nato have fundamentally different ideas about pan european security and neither side appears to be in the mood to compromise. is this why the propaganda war is reaching new heights? ah,

to discuss these issues and more, i'm joined by my guess. all robinson in ottawa, he is professor at the graduate school public international affairs at university of ottawa in pittsburgh. we have dan caballo, he is a professor of international human rights law, an author of the plot to scapegoat russia. and here in moscow we have to meet me, so he is deputy director of the center for comprehensive european and international studies at the higher school of economics. originally cross stock rules and effect, that means you can jump anytime you want. and i always appreciate it again, go to ottawa upon, i'm sure you came across the exchange that ned price had with matt lee of the associated press. and that's why i entered my introduction about heighten propaganda because it was truly an extraordinary media experience where it, 1st of all, you have to believe me, 2nd about you doubt us intelligence and british college. and then you're somehow

a stooge for the kremlin. i mean, is this where we have gotten to because there's, there's no evidence of anything. we're waiting for godot, we're waiting for an eminent invasion. this has been going on since november and all the while we'll talk later in the program, is that the quote unquote unity that nato keeps talking about simply doesn't exist . go ahead, paul. yes, it was, it was a great exchange. of course mattie has done this before, he used to do the same thing to jackie and she was looking at the state department back in 242015 and ran rings around on many occasions, but you're up to right. but the problem with visa intelligence leaks and statement says that there is a lack of supporting evidence and we are being told to take things on trust. and, you know, perhaps in my youth, when i was myself as a member of the intelligence community and you can, i would have done so. but we've seen, unfortunately on altogether too many incidents in which these claims are turned out to be untrue and best to be complete,

young verifiable. and therefore be very foolish of anybody to take them entirely on trust at this point. so annette price says, you know, if you don't believe us, you can take the news from the russians or something, i think not seen a disingenuous. and he must surely understand. but there is a, there is a lack of trust, you know, falling on from a rocky w. and the fact that, you know, russia has been imminently comparing to invade ukraine now for 100 days without doing so. but people are going to be a little skeptical, and i think that's all but over you should, should. i wouldn't say, you know, dismiss everything, but we are state department of u. s. government. somebody was untrue. but nonetheless, if they don't provide supporting evidence, treated like a degree of skepticism. and dmitri, let me go to you. i mean, it rushes, the subject of so much of this commentary. and, and i find it really made. i always look at it as a, an enormous amount of patients here because so many things that are centered,

absolutely absurd, waiting for an invasion that russia has over and over again. that is not in the cards. and what this, this quote unquote imminent invasion is, is a dodge because rush the questions keep saying, correct me if i'm wrong. on december 17th, they sent 2 letters, one to the nato. i went to the united states and the russians did say, do we talk about these 2 letters? it's not talk about, it's not about ukraine. and that is discursive direction. that western media and western governments, and particularly nature want to focus on. it's not about you think it creates a symptom of the problem. and this is the information war that it's very hard to fight because they, if you're interlocutor is not going to react to you. how do you, how do you control the narrative? it's impossible. you're talking at parallels, go ahead metering. well 1st i fully agree with you. i think that the west tries to diverse, the agenda tries to focus on green instead of discussing the fundamental issues. so the rational concerns and all the european security. and this is don

deliberately, a, for all the core issues. the process tries to put on the table, namely nato enlargement. and secondly, it is done in order to delete the minds of the russian demands about the security. get on this because the russian security guarantee is demands based on the premise, the nato in launches to the awesome borders, thus creating threats basque rating challenges for russia. russia wants to build that. so from the russian perspective, nato is expanding. it is revising a distribution list and rational wants to store that expansion. whereas if you present the situation as the minimum russian innovation in the ukraine, then you put everything upside though. from this perspective, russia is the expense of congress which tries to invade ukraine,

which conducts a revisionist for foreign policy. whereas nato is defensive and tries to prevent this russian nation. so it's absolutely everything outside the door, but if it is done so at the delivery of a day, one of the things i find very peculiar, if not very frustrating, is that this is all i'm in the garb of protecting democracy. well, ukraine's democracy is pretty dodgy. at best and again in the western narrative about russian aggression, russian and pending aggression, russian expansion is want to rebuild the soviet union. all this nonsense here. it's never noted in the narrative that in, in february of 2014 the united states. and it's made no allies force me over through the democratically elected government in ukraine that is never mentioned.

so it's about democracy then why did western powers overthrow with democracy in ukraine? and by the way, the person that was behind that was victoria new and, and she's back in our, in the mind administration. go ahead. yes. yes. and we know from telephone record a telephone calls that she was quarterbacking to coo and quarterbacking, who was going to take over. it was going to be in the new government who was not going to be. and of course, again, according to her, the cia is spent billions of dollars on a supporting making sure that the people we want power are in power in ukraine. but also if you talk about democracy, we have to talk about the don bass region as well according to the mens agreements which the un security council with the united states approved re those that region has a right to some self autonomy. right,

and an a kia has not honored that part of the agreement. and of course, this bothers russia legitimately. and 1st of all, that's an interest of democracy or c, d, u. s. decides which countries it's going to balkan eyes in which, you know, small parts of countries. it's going to recognize that here, the world said, you know, the net skin in lieu hans has a right to some self autonomy. there should be elections there. ultimately, if they want to have a territorial, a certain amount of, of, of self rule they should have that in the us just ignores that. now, in order this makes it worse, is that because government sign back russians, not of signet or of that agreement, it was a government that said that that they would implement them and they haven't got it . let me go back to ball in ottawa, i think there's

a silver lining to this with these tensions here. paul, is that because if you look at the nato response to the russian letter was boiler plate, it was worthless, it had nothing of value to it, but the american one actually had some trimmings there that you can chew on is that there is essentially a recognition that yes, indeed, russia has security of interest and it has to your political interest as well. i mean, it was a defensive alliance and you're less on speed. ok. but this letter actually was saying, yeah, you kind of got a point though. it doesn't necessarily mean it's going to actually act upon it, but there is a recognition here and i think that's actually a bus for the right hand side. during all the spitters by head might be more of a recognition of bosch and send them within the car later. the problem is that nato has to operate on the grounds of consensus, which essentially means it's going to go down to the lowest common denominator. and

therefore, a lot of the agenda is going to be a german ready by friday. so stay sent back. it takes proteins and so on. they actually end up having quite a strong influence on the overall outcome of out of 10, which comes out later. because that position has to be consolidated with any, any, any documents. whereas on a, russia has clearly decided that it can do much more bind actually with the united states, and it can do operating for nato or european union. so i really, i think, trying to speak tonight has pretty much that and you may be right, that may be a possibility of some small incremental progress through talks of united states. so that's sort of the us having left b i n f treaty is now. so talking about re introducing it. yep. which, which is, which is i plus on the russian point of view. these things don't meet the much larger demands. russian federation was making effect. those demands are unrealistic

. i'm not entirely sure why they, why they were made. because america is never going to agree to them, but the money might be some agreement on small things and i need it by step putting it on the agenda. i think it was a wise thing to do. look into go haitian, you never get everything you want. so i mean, that was a dmitri or you're not in your head there. i mean, i think this is part of the game, but here, i mean, you won't listen to our demand. so we're going to make ours public, we're going to send, we will let the whole world know that this is what our concerns are. i think they have made some progress. that doesn't mean it will succeed. dimitry. well, i think that there was some absolute us demands made there for the sake of negotiations, but i think it's extremely important to make it clear that the prospect considers natal nolan lodgement. and the cancellation of the very prospect will even hypothetical prospect. your grade in georgia, joining nato as

a real law. there's an absolute this on demand for the sake of negotiations. but as a very real and real list, the mom i am from the russian perspective, it is possible, you know, never say never, it is possible for those demands to be addressed. and i will feel by the united states, be course again from the national perspective. the statement which was included into the response documents from the united states and nato, that some principles of made to him. they agreed principles of european security keep it may go wrong. um, stating the closed board policy, that'd be great. and then georgia flow that this is, this is a trick. this is a 3 comply broker. so because there is nothing either in the nato, java,

in the nato 3 or in the parish chapel, new euro, which come pals and obliges nato to include both because that was the joy made them. right. it is awful. they are lions to make decisions. which confident which inspires to joy and they do a joy and is able to joy and which ones and which is which mobile. so, but on the russian perspective, when they do claims that it can not simply can more exclude the prospect of your grade in georgia, joining nato, the future. it means simply that the alliance uses a breaking up a sharp break. well, genuine discussion on some real new se, r o, o, o, so many different certain types such as

a sense rod not quite to make those or we're in a test tube in visceral. uh huh. with an idea of using kind of on friday when about of developing environment as a source file. final reactor the mediterranean is the world's most over fish, c unsustainable exploitation of its fish dogs, which maureen biodiversity under great thread. similar singers, the lesson the getting the quote on us. we sure gustavo says he cut our system. i'm not going to pull the cookie careful with his tech and want to put our lives despite the eas promises to end over fishing by 2020. the situation is changing to slow. well, i'm very disappointed with additions that they've basically not in public interests. they also do know in the midst of interest of the fishes,

the only interest of the fisheries on the face showed the only ones in danger. the fishermen also at risk of losing all the plugin, my thought upset them before they get to them about that. i'm going to level more thought, i guess it might be real. she's been with liberty viewership block on the screen with welcome back. across stock were all things are considered. i'm peter labelle. this is the home addition to remind you. we're discussing some rumors. ah, story gentlemen. i want to read a quote from a politician of the last few days. the quote is the geopolitical objective of

russia today is clearly not ukraine, but to clarify the rules of cohabitation with nato in the e. u. we don't have any buzzers, genuine, but it's jeremy chancellor. no, not nadia. demetrius never kissinger la chrome in many? well, ma chrome, i was thinking, wow gentlemen, isn't it interesting? it sounds like he's speaking, cram one, talking points here to meet her. you're laughing. why? well, i think the right of the said, yeah, i can do that and i'm using it as multiple. if you grade, this is the fundamental issues of principles of rules or european security. ok? but you know, it's important to understand the macro now wants to make something your wants to deliver something because course your faces elections 1st and 2nd live before you

positions itself. as the political leader of the statement also reflects the traditional desire or wrong which started which emerged long before they got an escalation about some new initiative, new outreach with, with russia, which you can do that. the goal of the tradition of the go, according to which europe cannot be secure against russia, that some sort of arrangement with russia has to be made for europe, whole free of the piece. okay, well it then, i mean that's, that's the whole point here because we talk about your, the mother of all sanctions and the pain will be overwhelming. but i mean, if there is a, a strong sanctioned regime against pressure or something that hasn't even done that, they claim that it will do, which again, kind of puts your mind into a bed. so it's the europeans that pay the cost and,

and people like my crown and chancellor show to beginning to realize that is that they're the net losers at all. the u. s. what last, is it a bit sprayed with russia? it's almost, it's minuscule. european union is very, very different. so that's like the americans want the crating, the by the russians to the last ukrainian and everybody else picks up the bill. that's what it sounds like to be. well, it's absolutely true. and if you say europe waking up to this, germany is not on board with this back there preventing that, they're not giving over flights for armed ship into ukraine. as you mentioned, france is not on board. of course, these are 2 of the most significant countries in europe and, you know, we have to remember. and again, as an american, i have to remind other americans, you know, these are countries that had 2 world wars, you know, where their countries were devastated and russia as well, of course, and other soviet states. and the u. s. has never had such

a war. the wars we fight a wars of choice and we don't know what it feels like to be occupied or to have our cities destroyed europeans do. and they don't want this again. they don't want lord war 3 that they have no interest in that. and as you say, they don't want to sanctions regime that's going to hurt them. that's going to cut them off from natural gas supplies from russia that are just right. they're very close to upside of all this to me is this could destroy nature. this may be the thing to end nato, which is an antiquated alliance. after 1991, it had no purpose and it has no purpose now. and this may be the thing to destroy it, and i welcome me it. i agree with you in principle, but let me, let me go to paul. i mean, this was, this is a way to maintain american hegemony in europe. and it seems to me,

and i'm agreeing with dave here. i think this is a of the end game for nato because it, it, with the indivisibility of, of security. i mean it's, it's a trying in the helsinki final act, it has been over and over again and trying and then when push comes to shove, no, we're not going to apply here. but you said something earlier, paul, but i think is really important. nato expansion is actually work against its unity because of youth pointed out the baltic. republics, you know, poland, it's turning into a wag. the dale wag the dog situation where they're taking maximal as positions and the french, you know, in the, in the crow out the hungarians, you know, that, you know, we don't really want to go that far. is this really and turning and making the alliance more and more brittle, and maybe that is, explains the for roaches. a heightened propaganda that is coming out of the u. s. in the u. k. i don't, i don't know his own nato. i'm going away any time soon beat the institutional

interests involved. so unless that's on the survey, no way that's, that's gonna happen just this is too many a institution, but if it doesn't expand, then you know what's it's ambition? well, i mean it, some it, at the moment it's found it's, it's found, it's found itself a role which is defending europe against russia. that will keep it busy. now keep it busy for a few years. and because, you know, i mean, i sort of come and go so you know, we had rogue states fragile states ethnic cleansing terrorism, you know, one after the other. and as, as, as each, each last one doesn't quite come up to scratch, you find you on. but this russian, mom is in the center of a better because you've got terrorism, you company justify massive armies or where as of the russian frances is quite

suitable for that point. you don't want to sound too conspiratorial, but i'm, you know, it is, it is very suitable. and in that regard, i'm also, you know, i don't, i don't see quite the divisions. i think the rest of the day, for instance, are germany. germany seems to not know what the hell is going to them. i went on the new government. the foreign minister made a statement, say all yesterday saying that germany would back ukraine, whatever. pretty much a basic cop blash which is. so we're not going to actually do anything for you if you home it, but you, whatever you do, you can do it will support, which is the cost of a worst sort of thing. because if, if i walk between russian, you claim what happens the most likely scenario would be because of some effort by ukraine, for instance, try and we'll try dumbass militarily. so, so adding the trainings on by saying we've got your back regardless, it's very irresponsible. so i think is there a problem about policy? and the moment is that when we, you know, we,

we don't actually support ukraine all the way. right. and we don't send the weapons and, and we won't give them a membership of nato. but same time we sort of like them all right now. 4 which i'm say we've got your back regardless of what you do, the sample gives them no incentive to, to, to carry out the conditions of the uminski agreement, baffle keeps this whole thing rolling on and keeps, it keeps the aggravation going. so it's very responsible policy, but it's an irresponsible policy we can follow precisely because it doesn't really matter very much to us. and that was a lot of brownie points you can get as a politician for clustering without really having to pay any price for it. but that, that, that means you're not dealing with serious people. dmitri, this, these are not serious people. i mean, then what is russia supposed to do? i mean, how is it supposed to react to all these different voices? it's no wonder that they, the russians withdrew from the joint commission. they have the council,

they had because it was useless as a waste of time, the letter that of the russian center and the reply was boiler plate. as i said, it was that they could have written it before they even read the letter. it was so boiler plate. ok. so i mean from the russian side, how are they supposed to treat these people? i mean, who do you listen to that? the why? the letter was sent to the us because they're not dealing with the european union because who you talk to go ahead to major. well 1st, let me agree with bull, completely of that nature is not going to go away the future. of course, nato is the institutionalization of america to germany and europe. as long as you can most become as subject an agent for itself in the car security, real need to will survive, right? when you leave the agency or your role in order to lo, nathan will disappear. we just don't see the agency in the future. you west european themselves, unfortunately, do not know how to survive from the world that we're facing without america,

including france. so this is why ok, and they will continue to support with whom russia will continue to go. i with the united states, 1st and foremost, i am confident like bronson germany. right. i mean, i strongly doubt that russia will talk with the central and eastern european conference with nato as an a lot as an alliance. but it doesn't lead to write a big course. again, all the decisions are made by the united states. your west european conference can play a role that the role hypothetical in a mainly in terms of ukraine implementing needs. good us, i'm, yes, i fully agree also with all that's statements like we will support your brain under any conditions, but extremely comparable. by the way your brain is obliged to implement the means

to agreements because of the international law. because as dan right said, they were in trying to go to the call. so now your brain explicitly fails to implement the means agreement. so bronson, germany basically co authors of the means agreements and part of the normal the form are to exert pressure on the grid when it comes to the overall negotiations about europe institute of the system. well, we do have a jump, a counterpart, and this is the united states. well, today the us is the main security player in europe within, within nato. and i think raso will combine diplomatic negotiations with the united states also with france and germany. perhaps i am continuation will be of the miller refreshing because military pressure is the only way unfortunate lead

to, to make process or, you know, to make rational concerns. they consider that by the way, i do not agree fully. such a response would have been read them even without reading the prosecutor to them. um, i think that the so on secondary issues, but over the now the united states are willing to talk about issues with russia with which they kept not being willing in the american response the day real quick . what other tricks can we expect 25 seconds because it seems like there's no box is empty because net price is a show with such a dreadful failure. i just saw some news stories from yesterday saying that there are, you know, us mercenaries in the dom bass region. you baby, stirring up trouble. so who knows what the game is here?

there are, there are members of the u. s. ruling class, who i think do want some sort of confrontation and i'm worried that they will do something to promote what. ok, jem, on that. that will probably give us cause to convene again. that's all the time we have. want to thank my guest, pittsburgh, and here in moscow, i think our viewers are watching us here to see an ex member. ah, ah, ah .

with a directly we sell advertise as a 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 references. actually this is untrue. they are shaping preference. if tomorrow person finds a fake point where the video was 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. a

ah oh you do it. what do you do like a canadian police? go in heavy to answer you boxing. in monday, protests in also prime minister through jo tries to be little of movement. a few people shouting and waving. swastikas does not define who canadian there were thousands of people coming down here, showing support. there was why, you know, there was music. we report from the canadian capital where despite the government pushed back, the protest are passing off the story. and also ahead on the program.