[000:00:00;00] ah, ah hello and welcome to cross stock were all things are considered. i'm futile. well, for months the u. s. in the u. k. have warned that russia may invade ukraine, and yet there has been no invasion for their part. the russians have made it abundantly clear. europe's current security arrangement is untenable. the anglo saxon powers talk of war. russia talks about security. ah, discuss these issues and more. i'm joined by my guess,

ivan ellen in washington. he's a senior fellow at the independent institute in kingston. we have nichol, i petro, he is a professor of political science at the university of rhode island. and here in moscow, we have maxine scoff. he is director of the center for advanced american studies at moscow state institute of international relations. or a gentleman, cross up rules and the fact that means you can jump anytime you want. and i always appreciated. or i would look like, you know, it's really interesting to me watching this on a month long, imminent invasion, a messaging from the u. k. and the u. s. everybody is talking about a russian invasion of ukraine, except for ukraine and russia are not. i mean, how do you explain that? yeah, clearly a president zelinski and his cabinet are not singing to the same hymn book. and that has been a source,

as we read in the press of frustration in the united states, because the rest of the nato allies are predictably following along like that's about. so, you know, like you say, the bottom line is that there is not going to be an invasion. and that leaves me for me at least the most important question is, what do we do afterwards? what if worse comes to worst and there's no rush an invasion? i'm going to look, i'm going to look for, for american ford, both. i really don't know how we're going to get out of the situation. well, i mean, you know, why is it the u. s. in the u. k. spearheading this here because we've had on 2 occasions that we know of publicly then, you know, zalinski is not on board is the guy just said here, and he's actually pushing back saying it's damaging his economy. and why would you

trust your major patrons if you're evacuating your dependence from the country? i mean, and you're not a member of nato, and they're not going to send you troops. i mean, how do you unravel all of that? go ahead. i'm in. wow. i think the both ukrainian nato people are doing what they see is in their best interest. and of course, and he has to create a public, a sense of calm. where's the nato allies want to deter any possible attack? which i don't, which i don't think is impossible here because we have there's troops there, there's even the logistics, the blood, the, the hospitals, the stuff that you would do if you were actually not just an exercise, but an invasion. so, you know, they're looking at the intelligence nato is looking at the intelligence and saying, well, you know, this is very possible. so, and we want to deter it. so we're going to be, you know,

we're going to be as forceful in our public relations campaign to try to deter this . and of course, so lensky is in the opposite position. he might support that behind the scenes, but he has to publicly say, well i'm, you know, i have to keep the car, keep things calm, the economy going, etc. well, i mean, even if i can stay with you, i mean a part of my question is why is the u. s. u k spearheading this? i mean, everyone else is kind of taking their own playing out their role here. but the, the u. s. new cases, particularly interested even to the point of hoping for some kind of conflict or maybe i'm wrong. go ahead. how do you as to that? well, i don't think they hope hope for conflict. i think they're expecting one and i think they're pushing back on it. and that's, you know, that's leading, i mean, the u. s. is the leader of the alliance and people look to the united states united states even back during the cold war. was more concerned with other areas than the countries involved. and i think, you know, the,

the russian energy and cook is important in the russians. i have 40 percent export 40 percent of the europe gas and 25 percent of the oil. so i think, you know, other countries have more mixed here of these things. britain and us are, of course, geographically more separated from, from europe, and then rather because they wouldn't, they wouldn't suffer any of the consequences. they what they want others to do. ok, that's clear here max. i mean, i guess if nothing happens, then the west one you were, they did turn invasion. i mean they, they played this up because also my cards. everyone. i think this is just been a propaganda effort more than anything else. ok, i mean, sending 3000 troops to poland and, you know, and that's not a major strategic statement considering poland is in nato itself. here. so maxine, i mean, everyone else is playing the role. the russians haven't done anything but the, the, by the administration,

the johnson administration will probably declare victory by the end of the week. what do you say? well, i think a good maryland to declare a is the russians are serious about the security guarantees. and they're not getting a so i don't think this will be all the easily even when i want to buy it. for now, we'll see that in the face of the electric russian region, the united states tremendous har to the a security instability, virtually and still in the no fly. so, only agree now that the insurance companies refuse to give interest or also, you know, the national currency is down. and i think the 2 things that are missing from the

conversational rationalization is a one time little interest with the russians. want to pursue through the invasion. that is not clear and most important to the perhaps what i think is missing in the western. worse is what kind of military maneuvers ukrainian forces do as of yesterday or the printing military. read it with $300.00 for the region. closer to dawn back a might be some potential and of course it still. it also shows some kind of preparation for some time with the construction. or that there might be a major rush to respond and really late in that case. and that's

a very clear, quote, unquote conveyed an a part of ukraine camp has no control over over the since 2015 nichol. i, you hear this phrase a europe, whole and free. but ever since the end of the cold war that has been pursued. now, not including russia, actually excluding russia intentionally. how can you have a europe that's free and whole impression is excluded? you can't, and that is the point made by russian foreign ministry and coach. and it is also rhetorically been accepted by a number of western leaders, but they haven't been able to get around. well, i think is the major objection. i remember, lord is may's famous quote, that nato was created,

the keeper and the americans in the germans down and the russians out. and that really, unfortunately, hasn't changed since the end of the cold war. if russia were ever to become a part of nato, or to have any serious voice in nato, it would mean a degradation of american power and influence in the region. and i think that's what ultimately, the bigger picture is all about. i don't think america really gives a hoot about what is happening. what could happen in ukraine, as long as it maintains it's not always distance, but a certain hostility toward russia. everything will be fine. they're generally don't care about the human rights situation there, which is gone reserved for with the closing of 6 major television channels, opposition powers and charles and not mums. the word here in the west about that, i think the bigger picture from the united states is exactly a maintaining the status quo,

and nato not engaging with russia on the issue of broader european security. and the entire education around ukraine helps to make the case for the united states as united states, as a vital leader ever. anyone is that sustainable? i mean, you know, you can talk about intimate invasion, but just for so long. i know you can't, you know, until the next election, but a whole week here and that's one. that's one conclusion. i mean, even what your thoughts on well, i think got my, my own views always been that nato expansion was a mistake. and that russia should have been brought into the post war post cold war and european structure as did in the congress of vienna, rather than after world war one, where they closed out germany. and we had a big problem and were war 2. but we should have filed the congress of vienna and

1815, where napoleonic france was brought back into the european structure. and i thought that should have happened and after the cold war. but i'm not sure, i hope there's not going to be an invasion because i think it's a bad move for, for russia to do that. now, simply because i think you're going to get pushback, guerrilla warfare, if they do a full invasion, and you're also going to get, you know, lots of sanctions. and those sanctions will eventually do you know, lesson as, as russia copes with them. but still it's going to be economic pain there for a long time. and i think there are, you know, the whole thing goes down the tubes. it's true, i think rush as legitimate security concerns. and i don't think they have been listened to, but i'm not sure that this is a good approach that that brush is now taking. okay, i'm on that same i. i don't see that rush has had

a whole lot of choice. so over the last few months we've had war, hysteria hyperbole, you know, they see an, an rolls out all the graphics and all that. it's a big show and all that. but for it was far as russian is concerned. nothing has changed because the west isn't a reply in constructively, to insecurity demand. 2 letters that were sent out on december 17th, one to the european, one to nathan, one to the united states. nothing's been done on that and that realm. go ahead. no, i think my colleague grow here with congress and they were one for the think is that both cases are not internally clickable and russia due to the situation because both france and germany were defeated and it was, you know, they were pretty much in the stage of the winners, and it was a matter of how will handle that. did you get the rushing in late nineties, in

a still now that the cold war ended in kind of mutual consent agreed to democratize into the stuff. so russia was not supposed to be a power loss, even though obviously the western mindset was the core, but the expectations were different. so now is the time is kind of the 3rd time since the end of the cold war to review this security border in europe. that was settled on terms i'm favorable to rush and because nobody really cares a certain point. and that's why we've gotten to this point here. i mean, it's unsustainable. as i said in my introduction, gentlemen, i'm going to jump in here. we're going to go to a short break and we'll continue our discussion on some really stay with our oh

ah, the democratic republic of congo is among the richest countries in the world and natural resources. but he can normally it's still one of the poorest cobalt is an essential material in manufacturing batteries by modern devices like electric cars, mobile phones and computers. 60 percent of the world's cobalt reserves are in congo . and 20 percent of it comes from small scale mines. units that figures confirm that in 2017 golden 40 and children works in cobalt mining in the republic to enter living and paying for schooling. next time you use a fancy gadget like a smartphone camera or laptop, and just remember that there's a chance it works. thanks to what child, how'd labor children like john michelle henry at all countless others like them

with ah, welcome at to cross up. were all things considered on people? well, this is the home addition to remind you. we're discussing some real issues. ah,

okay, let's go back to mic. like, i mean, it's obvious that the, the post war post cold war order is unsustainable for russia. so if it's unsustainable for russia, why, why is it that it is a, a magical and beyond the bounds for them to stand up and say, look, you know that this is not working here? major expansion is creating more tensions, more instability. and we need to reassess it. why serve the stubbornness in the west, particularly in the us? maybe you've already answered. i mean they, they want to maintain, had gemini and it works for us. so why should we change anything? i mean, is that the mindset you alluded earlier to the washington echo chamber, people outside of washington, of beltway, really don't understand how deafening the echo chambers. you really cannot appreciate the interest of other nations in the same way that you listen to the

competing interests within essentially the military industrial complex. russia strategy is an interesting one. and it's a traditional one for powers that want to draw attention to their grievances. it's brinkman ship, they push to the edge believing that they have control over the situation and no, exactly how far they can go. the problem with brinkman ship, as we know historically, is that we don't, although the actors in charge are not really in charge of everything. and then they get scared of the consequences of their own action and eventually backed out. in the mean time, sometimes they've learned something from this crisis and re address it as in the case of the cuban missile crisis. and sometimes they go blindly about their businesses. you haven't, even, i mean,

i view is the historical example of the cuban missile crisis. but when, and in this case we, it can be applied in reverse. i mean, you know, we, we had kennedy telling khrushchev, you know, if you don't take those missiles out, we will increase as well. cuba is a sovereign country, has right to have its own friends and alliances and all that. and then kennedy replied, if you don't take those missiles out, we will. is it an appropriate analogy? go ahead. i but how, but, but a, go ahead. let's remember how that very quickly, how that crisis actually got resolved each side. got what it really was. it eventually administration, one, the public relations war within the united states and the who show of god exactly what the soviet union wanted. the withdrawal of those missiles and establishment of an effective parity and recognition the authority between the united states and the

so you know that it was the cuban missile crisis that created the soviet union as a superpower in america's mind. and after that, her things found out ok, i've been healing. it's a cuban missile crisis in reverse apps in this, in the situation. well i think that, you know, there are 2 very different, different crises, but i, it is a question whether that, whether people learn from these types of things. and i don't think brings midship ever gets anything because it's dangerous. i mean, maybe all come out. but as we, as everybody did in the cuban missile crisis, you know, and we didn't celebrate the world, but yeah, you know, it was sure scary. and i'm not sure if that's the way to go. right. and i think it's true, russia snap and listen to here, but i just don't think, you know, beating up on a smaller country or threatening

a smaller country if you will. is really the problem problem is nato. and i think it really should, it, would they really need to negotiate this? and maybe this will be a heads up to nato that, well, maybe we should put ukraine in there. and that might be a good outcome. but getting there through this through these means is not, is not the correct way to do it. ok, but, but maximize well, how other, how other way do you do it? i mean, russia has been wanting east word expansion of nato since the end of the cold war. and they've damira you every single time saying, you know, this is not, this is not our interest. you're moving your alliance military lines to our borders . and of course was ignored, left right and center, and now we're at the rubicon and you can ignore it. now you're there. ok. i mean i don't see what other, what other ways i mean write a letter to stilton berg and say, please don't expand anymore. those days are long in the past if they were ever effective at all. go ahead. maxine, well, i think it was

a 20 plus years presidency to try to find out why it's hard before 911 a you know, well later a fact that he was talking about 2 and 210 slash isis coalition for russia went to syria. every single attempt to find common ground, and i think this is a last attempt to try to find some common ground to secure russian perimeter through the walls. you know, we're talking russia do something with me. there are no means, but the policy at this point, everything else is the mind games. and the information worker was pretty much

a any just yes, except who troops around and people are thinking some kind of scenarios and freaking out. and it's, it's similar, you know, like last year, one year for a 100 or guys and then as well, and people with capture or so this might happen. so i think there's a lot of history and a lot of you know, so i didn't even know what to call it. a response to the person who promised is a serious thing. but it all is considered as a last resort. if you know the west is not compelled to talk so to me, russian true lenders are a to compel the west to talk,

to take or serious to finally and be to deter ukrainian military from possibly a to a well. and we have to point out to the government, acted on bass before and up to $14000.00 casualties. so it's not unprecedented. and it's very, you know, they always talk about russia moving its own troops inside of its own country. but they never talk about ukraine moving its troops into, within its own country to the point of contact. but again, i don't live in the bubble nichol. i mean, it was made it very clear. it's like a fight for ukraine. so why wouldn't want ukraine as a member for it's not willing to fight for it? go ahead. oh, at present. no one is actually saying they watch ukraine as a member. it's more in the negative. if they insist, then maybe we should consider. and,

but i do agree that the agreement is likely on the fact that ne, that ukraine membership, great membership in nato is not in the cards for roughly 20 years. and by that time we'll have a lot of things will have changed. i do want to remind everyone in this context because we say we, we talk about war and diplomacy too much as if they were opposite poles. and they're not, they're really on a continuum. and plows of this reminds us of this with this famous phrase, the war is a and extension or a continuation of diplomacy. all the more. so the threat of war. and that i think is what is what we're seeing, that the perception of the threat is much greater in the west and the panicky response in the worse. and i do have to. ready simply professionally judge it as a panicky response. um,

really plays into rushes hands because they're the ones who will come out of this one way or another, appearing as are the more the com or the more seasoned. and the ones who really have a better grasp. one with the real situation is ivan ivan, even misprint, with reply to that because you know, the, the, one of the problems with what i call a propaganda campaign is that you can't keep this fever pitch are going on indefinitely here. ok, there has to be some kind of resolution and, and the frustration that i see on this site is that there is still not been a really meaningful, concrete reaction to the security of drafts that they've been russia. and i've read them very reasonable things. are i mean, they're debatable but why it's off the table. you cannot consider these things because it's appeasement. and it's been a can, it's, you know, how do we get around that? because this is hysteria is getting in, in the way of reason. go ahead. i. well,

i think the west says, well, we know we might negotiate, boat can't do with a gun to our head that's, that's the feeling here. and i, i share some about that because i think the russia, if they deescalate it. 3 you know, put and can say, well, the out the situation here, but i want, you know, it, we better have meaningful discussions. and if, if that doesn't work, then i guess, you know, all bets are off but, but, you know, it's, there's no acute crisis here. this is been just come out of nowhere really. i mean, of course, that hasn't come out of nowhere because it has been a decade of nato. go going eastward, which is the route. i agree, it's rid of the problem. but i don't, what i don't agree with is that the way that this is being handle on, on the russian side, i don't think this is, there could have been many different ways of a back channel saying, you know,

couldn't, could have said listen, you got to do something and he said that you, nick, he said that in munich in 2007, it's a pretty amazing speech. he said it already. he said it over and over and over again. you know, maxine are rapidly running out of time. the so security is indivisible, that only applies to nato countries, doesn't it? it doesn't apply to russia. that's the implication that comes out of brussels every day. go ahead max. well, the, the think is a me to, in the united states. they're actually willing to discuss the russians with those because there have declined to us for years. this has to do with types of things. so these are actually the things are willing to discuss. but this is important, but to the secondary is a and

major is what is important to you in this congress dot com. the concept of security is key to further discussions. if a gentleman, we've had a wonderful discussion, always to little time, want to thank my guess, washington things and, and in moscow, and i want to thank you for watching us here. next time. remember? oh, ah, join me every thursday on the alex simon. sure. and i'll be speaking to guess in the world politics sport. business. i'm sure business. i'll see you then in

a josh, this is my son. his see must a, whom am i it's about doing a wall with a it was over to one of the lady my calendar. i'm all chill now. articles.

oh. 1 you're a ah, the war that never was the western media is left with egg on its face after a flurry of predictions that there would be an invasion of ukraine today and fed russian troops on returning to bass after wrapping up drills at the board. but i can't seem to stop banging the drums of war, the u. s. president for one who is insisting that the threat of an attack remains very real. the prime minister is in denial and is ignoring the science. he might as well be back cottage because he's doing non productive or constructive to help this situation. and the canadian prime minister faces mounting pressure from n p. the over his decision to trigger emergency powers meant for times of national