ah, ah ah hello and welcome to cross stock. were all things considered on people about what we're witnessing is nothing less than dangerous war, hysteria. western countries, particularly the u. s. and u. k. make predictions of an alleged russian invasion of ukraine. meanwhile, the security situation within ukraine is deteriorating, will biden, in johnson get their war? ah, to discuss these issues and more, i'm joined by my guess than deep is an in our slow he is

a professor at the university of se or norway as well as the author of the book, great power politics in the 4th industrial revolution. and in budapest we have joints, i mean, well, he is a podcast for it. the gaggle which can be bought on youtube and locals are generally crossed up rules. and the fact that means you can jump in anytime you want, and i would appreciate it. okay, let's start out with glen glen. let's get the lay of the land. we've been talking about this now for months on end, on this program, and we're very privileged to have un george talk about it so many times. so the way i look at the lay of the land is that we, it's basically 2 prongs. right now we have a rush is issues with security. it is address the u. s. and nato. it's basically gotten that a non answer from nature was actually very belligerent reaction to security guarantees. and we have this endless talking. ok, meeting after meeting after meeting after meeting. i mean it's, i can't believe these people have the stamina to talk this much without getting any kind of results. maybe that's the intention. the 2nd prong is what's going on with

in ukraine itself. now the, the, the low intensity war that ukraine has had against the don bass has been with us for, for 8 years. ok, but it is flaring up right now. so, and then of course, all these predictions are made. it looks like there are probably cation, a number of provocations been made. it looks like from my point of view, trying to bait the russians and in some kind of military action, which of course, will be defined as aggression against the graeme. and i got the lay of the land, right? yes, i think you have. well, the main, the main thing to understand is that the conflict in ukraine is larger symptom of regional problem, which is the absence of european security architecture after the cold war. and this is why this negotiations are taking place at 2 levels of the domestic ukraine and also that the regional at the european. so at the regional level,

the russians are trying to speak with various western partners. and depending on where to get to reasonable answers or you know about the but, but they're, the main objective is demanding that to west the upstarts, divide by the commitments made in all this pan european security agreements in 1990 . so principally, the main concept is invisible security, so one side should not expand its security at the expense of the other. and of course, also the basic, the basic principle, one of the principles of the nato, russia funding act of $97.00, which makes it clear that nato should not position its troops in eastern, you're currently in europe in the new member states. so since those days, nato, a more does commitments. so what russia now demands are specific security guarantees that these, that these commitments will be upheld. but then of course, without the european security architecture, you may have made the expanding to the east. and the problem then is old is very

divided countries between the 2 and russia, their, their societies who are older divide. it now has to choose between, between east and west. these are essentially torn apart. you have then the internal civil war, but they also become proxy wars between the east and west. now the problem in ukraine, of course, you know how this fighting now between the credit, new crane and government, and on bus and, and the, and on the agreement was finally reached in february of 2015, which is the midst of course misc agreements. and the peace agreement stipulates that key should talk to the bus and give the region some autonomy that never happened because they refuse to do so that they're open to say no intention. and also the way they don't want to pressure you to do so. because if they give you a buzz them a told me they might be able to prevent ukraine from drifting into the orbit. and this is something they want to avoid. so they spent the last 7 years, the native powers that is undermining them in sc agreements. and now after 7 years

undermining the means agreement and effort of re negotiating it, you know, how an escalation of violence. so how does the media respond? well, that's always, it's all russia's fault. russia wants to conquer new lamps, russia, to restore the soviet union. so again, shift their eyes away from what we've done the last 7 years. and this is the main narrative which to me, this pumping out so very, very enthusiastically, you know, george, the russians on december 17th of last year. so then to separate a treaty to nato and to the united states. and since then, they prefer to talk, but they don't want to commit to anything. the russians are asking for commitments . nato in the u. s. won't commit to anything. and given the war hysteria that i mentioned in my intro is that they're looking for again a i, it reminds me of, of so many other foreign policy adventures. iraq, afghanistan, syria, where it's kind of list roulette wheel. they keep throwing the wheel down the ball

when to see they get the right number and then they charge in, i mean, i think it's simplicity, but i think it kind of works because how can, how else can you explain this invasion is on the 16th? no, the 18th, at 3 o'clock in the morning, 6 o'clock in the house. can you explain it then there's kind of bizarre rule that foreign policy. george? yes, i think that's right. i mean, what the western powers are doing, and which means, chiefly the united states in the united kingdom is to present to the well, the idea that they are willing to sit down, negotiate. they are engaging in diplomacy. and that it is russia that is refusing to talk to russia that doesn't want any diplomacy. whereas in fact, it is the exact opposite. it is the nature that have violated every agreement imaginable during the past 30 years. so if we just go back to the us withdrawal from the abm treaty,

we talk about the u. s. draw from the eye. and after we talk about, you know, what happened to the conventional forces in europe that also went to the ban. so that's just that, you know, that's on top of all of the commitments that were made to go buy cho at the time of the dissolution of the soviet union. so what we now have is west aflac, we refusing to negotiate on what the russians are before the russians with those 2 documents. they say you have to comply with all of our requests, but that this should be the framework for going forward and how, what is going to be this is and talk about a security structure. russia is not the amount that anybody has to withdraw from nature, but then they may vary it. we don't want nature infrastructure on our borders, and we don't accept the, you know, what do you list this massive expansion nato into eastern europe that is taking

place. and what western response, they're accelerated then military deployments in eastern europe. and they have accelerated the dumping of military hardware into ukraine. i while refusing to negotiate any of the issues that will not any of these are the most important issues that the russians have before. so that one, this only reinforces rushes idea that nato is going to continue to expand, that the goal is to essentially install russia with a literal of the nature stage. and so russia is willing to negotiate, but it does look like the west is willing to negotiate endless telephone conversation and list visits to moscow wearing for. that's not a, let's just simply posture it yes. and then, you know, it's not a good one more layer to what you said, and they make the u. s. and they make no commitment to the ukraine's depends on top

of it. that's, it gets more paradoxical. every layer that you go. i mean, this is really been irrespective of what nato says and what salt and burn says this . there's been a 30 year gambit to push russia out of europe permanently. yes or no, of course. and this is, so what's annoyed russia so much and people often the criticize rush for, you know, why do they have a 100000 troops on the borders? but they already made it clear they went to the turkey from attacking the most of the one of the turn, the west from further expanding to the east. and yes, i refer to this is the course of diplomacy. i want to see for 30 years, the west ignored all the commitments made to rush in terms of having to pin security and the percent of this idea that the largest country in europe having the basic you know, the same security as the rest that this is unacceptable, this is an essential in the coachman revision this the effort to change the

european security architecture. so i so i, so i think that this is very much a rooted back into this 30 year expansion of the west. so this is to large extent, a lot of the criticism towards rochester trying to revise the post cold war security architecture in europe. and i say yes, that's exactly what they're trying to do because the, because the problem is up until 989, you had 2 equals, they were negotiating an end to the cold war. and that end came in 1009. but when the soviet union collapsed in 1991, it was a week, there was no longer any need to take russia into account. and this is why we effectively began to create the europe without russia. and as we discussed, that when you try to create the year without russia became, becomes a europe against russia. because all the neighboring countries then were very much divide that have to be converted into a front line against russia. and then you have the native military infrastructure pushing towards russia and what, what's kind of sad in, in this nato countries,

no style. they all just really consume the whole narrative because everything was saying, i was like, what is, how can russia be afraid of nato? it is irrational, i mean, this is the largest military lines in the world established against russia large, they're still dependent. the common denominator being, you know, having this, a common voice against the russians and moving, and i also left the defensive alliance. and more this ended in 1089 when they attacked the serbs. so this, so, so, so this idea who can't even argue that if a threat against russia is very much absurd. so what russian, i was to go back to the 90 saying this when you made mistakes, let's fix it. and while the americans and british especially, will not have any of it's george, i find it really remarkable in many ways, is that, you know, it's just the echo what glen just said here, you know, what, why should anyone be afraid of nato? why should russia be afraid to me, if you look, look at secretaries, they blank and speech of the united nations security council?

i mean, that was just, you know, full throttle, you know, aggressive language, accusation after your accusation. and you're still saying that you're a peaceful defense defensive alliance. i mean, it's really kind of interesting that there's no, they have no self reflection, do they? i mean, if you're on the russian side, you're listening that kind of rhetoric. yeah, i think you would have a troops on your borders when you and that rhetoric from lincoln, you know, this is now a staple of nato propaganda. because this is not again, this is the wave of the wave off to wave russian sanctions. russian demonize ation, whether it's not on the, whether it's the screen or whether was george in 2008. whether it was the, the sanctions over the, the lawyer, the, the russian lawyer who died in prison. this is constant demonize ation.

and when russia meddling in elections over again, the meddling and alex is exactly when the russian ring up and say, you said that your defensive, what was defensive about bombing, you saw the 99, then they to, you know, in the, in this case of the gates all our shows but also show them what, oh, that was a good we were trying to prevent genocide. so they come along with the stupid arguments. just like when the russian said, well, you made pledges to was that you wouldn't expect why it wasn't in writing. i mean, we were talking about, and i hope that we're going to go to what you're breaking up dr. short break. we'll continue our discussion on some real new stay with me. ah ah ah

ah mm. oh, more than 20 years have passed since one of the world's deadliest terrorist attacks that took thousands of lives. people started to scream, there was a wave that came up for us. that was like opening up an oven, but not all wounds of heal the survivors. and responders have increased rates of cancer and other health issues due to the dust and chemicals they inhaled. coming

in to get my blood cleaned out by the levels of obtaining a lot of blood in my blood. in terms of 1st responder was well over a 100001st responders and there were some estimates that tend to 20 percent still have to yes. so yeah, but the chief with my wife cherishes the minute i had with the only friends i thought i was humble before this really humbled you depreciate life. welcome back to cross duck. were all things considered on people? well, this is the home addition to remind you, we're discussing some real issues. oh, i games go back to glasgow. glenn,

let's look at timing right now. in many ways in from the russian side. this expansion for 30 years, i think was there spiegel, but just in the last few cycles released on documents that there was these promises, they always say no promises or may not even verbal. and i mean, there's multiple sources right now and the, in the nato countries and their leadership are continue to be in denial. but i mean, if you're only on the receiving end of nato's defensiveness, you have to draw a line in the sand. i mean, a 5 years from now, 10 years from now, russia security situation will discontinue to deteriorate and, and we shouldn't be surprised to say, well, you know, if we have more options now, then we will in 5 years or 10 years. i mean, that's why the kind of the immediacy reasoning for the, the, to draft treaties that were sent on december 17th. there is a certain timing in the mindset of the kremlin, agree or disagree. i very much agree because so they,

they come to for, for the 1st point, this is considered to be an issue on linux, essential threats and also, so they have to spend now the way they see it before, you know this, this company continues to go and they will only eliminate the population more in ukraine. it will cement america's hold of the region. but also it's, it's the ability to wait necessarily because at the moment russia, it has the military capabilities. hm. and the economic and integrity because it has so then cooperation with china, it has the effect of limited economy sanctions prove. so this is really the time to hold it. it's the red lines. so i think that the russians really want to need to sell this. now, but the other side of the border that the situation you cream is not the durable either. the claimant's, the troops on the front line for a very long time in there,

an emission to renegotiate the means to agreement to we'll set new terms, which is what the americans have been pushing so, so, so, so that's why this is a real time to pull back up at the moment. so i think, you know, at the moment this is really when they have to renegotiate, that they still send the message said very clearly if they can't be sold with diplomacy. and this is considered a threat to russia. they, they will have to make some response unilateral responses to resolve their security . now, is this an invasion? no, and tar ukraine incorporating into russia. of course not. this is a ridiculous proposition. this will be in russia's interest. the 1st of all would be very costly, even if it could be done. you wouldn't want this. why would you want all this? millions of people are hostile to you, of course not. so what they might do now in the next step is if they're, if they with continues to undermine the means agreement and say effective,

the saying it's a future do it. well, that was the one thing we agreed on that peaceful solution. so then at that point in time, i would expect must go to either per, provide mo or over military support for don bus, or even all the way of recognizing its independence and writing certain security guarantees. so this is kind of the main point if, if there is, there are no pan european security deals anymore. if there is no security, well then russia will have to take security interest on hand. and that's what chrome correctly points out the roster, comp time in the security. it will lock in the way which insurance that europe does have security there. so yes, so this is a really, is i think it's now or ever like we have to either find some proper diplomacy or this is going to go wrong. i think, you know, just a lot of weasel words being thrown around, including from the ukraine. the finding of ukraine's entrance

into a german chancellor said, well, no one's talking about timeline or like that. and, you know, and even the president united states, you know, it's currently not on the agenda. we keep hearing these things there as western powers, blood, ukraine, with weaponry. so eventually it has really nothing to do about official recognition or visual invitation. it's about creating what they call fact military facts on the ground. again, i want to go back to the timing of it. that's why it's becoming more and more pressing. because we've used this, i love this term and european. so what does that mean? and means everything european, the point that you're russians in europe, if you and that's, you know, to what degree or another to be debated, but you can have pan european security of russia. isn't it? go ahead. yes. so that's right, and i think the timing is very important because i think within the past year

also so intensive has been the deployment of western military hardware in ukraine. not combined with the aggressiveness and whole still of the, of the key of government. not to mention the native governments that explicitly stand behind it, that this is indeed a serious security threat to russia. so therefore, russian. now, it will feel that if these, if there's no negotiations on this proposal, then i think it will have to do a, some kind of a preemptive military action. but you know, there's a precedent for that. i mean, the united states deemed it perfectly appropriate to take preemptive action against iraq, a pre emptive action against a, a certain military installations. and i think the russians will say,

we have to show that we will not go with this nature military infrastructure on our borders. and we will take a preemptive action to destroy it. and then, and, you know, you say you want nato membership here. this is the rubble that you got, you know, to, to native membership. you try to rebuild this and we're going to destroy it again, i'm going to keep doing this again. it's a little like israel. israel is on the same kind of thing. and, you know, the united states always just says, well, that's why, you know, they, they have a right to their security. they can do what they like really, why not rushing. so you're making reference to lowering the ground. or, you know, at least they with george. i think, you know, again cutting through all of the propaganda, if we look would happen. well, the hostile is that the and the dumbasses on the receiving end of the government after the legal. so, but take over and over, throw,

but democratically elected government in 2014, i mean the ukraine, a military was decimated, and that was not what russian troops on ukrainian soil. ok was all tillery, and it was a long range. so this kind of echo what you're saying, that's what we would say, basically a repeat b, because when the, when the media presented, it's always, you know, tanks and you know, soldiers and all that. essentially, li, ukrainian army was decimated, artillery and other. what does that mean? technical military means. so i think, you know, just, i agree with you. i mean, you want to build that infrastructure. well, it's a good buy because we told you we're not going to tolerate it this way. with that, yes, i do. i do think that and you know, we've been got used to russian in the past 30 years, essentially. always accommodate whatever, leave the with the appropriate however,

you know, in detrimental, it was to his interest, but remember, in the soviet here, so, so this did, you know, they took out things that they had to read to them and, you know, they didn't worry too much about how the u. s. live, they shut down the, you do spike lane, you know, the humiliation of the united states. you know, they shut down a civilian airline that when they go to civilian, i was engaged in a buying mission. so because the situation is now become so serious for russia, then i think they will say, you know, we will take unilateral military action and then let's see what a response later you know, big blocks. the restatement of the fact is that all the nato has already said, hey, we are going to get involved militarily in ukraine. but at the same time in the ukraine is going to be a member of nato. a does not itself into this into this mess. are

pushing forward with its expansion while at the same time saying when i'm actually going to restore life for it. so i think that they are quite vulnerable now to a russian counter. glen, where is this going? because when i look at, i thought force johnson speech at the meaning security conference was nothing less than an embarrassment for a leader of coming from a country like the u. k. and then you look at by a bit foggy all the time. repeat the same thing, but then you have these blank guns and you have the elements. i mean they, they seem that they want a compensation, they want russia to be get involved in the compensation. again, ukraine as the way they would frame it. and then point the finger and say, see there's the aggression, that's what they want. and it's actually very low cost for the u. k. and but the u . s. they're not thinking about, in my opinion, they're not thinking about their out. go ahead. well, i think the, that the propaganda has many functions that the 1st of all this narrative

controlled. because keep in mind how this conflict began, which was back in 2014, when nato countries back to coo in ukraine to install 1st on anti russian government. then they launched an anti terrorist operation against eastern ukrainians, will post the legitimacy of the coo and then when the regime like the proper military capabilities and then experience the high desertion. at this point in the us, begin supporting, not the militia, such as also petroleum. they recognize it's a nazi group, but there's a protocol the less and, but again, the point to propaganda often is if you just repeat the russian aggression, russia, nation meeting today, much like the 20 years ago with the terrorist threat up to red down to green, red yellow green, if you do this enough, all attention is only on this. so look at the media today. all are talking about this. when is put in going to invade, what is putting, trying to gain? no one's actually talking about how this culture began, so that on its own is

a huge achievement because by, by percent thing, the simplest russian, again, aggression against ukraine. we're not talking about nato anymore. we're not talking about the standard craniums. so this is simply the story about this 2 tiered division in europe. simpler becomes a story about the imperialist by land. i mean, you're absolutely right. so this is all and we're told this is part of the propaganda, is that we're, we're there to protect ukraine's democracy, but they never point out that the nato's nature country supported the overthrow of the democratically elected government and ukraine in february of 2014 that's a convenient thing that they leave out all the time with owners. and i give a credit thing to happen in ukraine since its independence. you know the stuff that the locker see out and what, what's also the issue, excuse this? well, the coach have lost its legitimacy, but even the bbc us recognize that the service at the time realize even the, my don uprising did not have a democratic majority support and even less who have supported the overthrow of the

government. so. so this idea that they restored democracy, it simply is propaganda. you have power politics and you're selling it democracy against authoritarianism. but they gentlemen, we have run out of time and yes and also, and in budapest, when i think our viewers are watching us here, the next time to remember, ah, ah, it's been 30 years since the soviet union collapsed in miss couple other little chill. the one to what the talk so shown where you also trust them with all of them . ukraine was one of the independent states that emerge from the ruins of a super bow. i'm doing awesome. good. would you also get on google greens? come a little more surely. she was a finish

out the ship, a watch at the past 3 decades. been like for ukraine, eye witnesses were cool events. this will be more or less of judiciary with our new admit order. i'm not sure, but it be about 4 months with no idea what else and what other forces were at play producer whom you show c engine mushy. in you put in the kid. what did you request when it shows up in the most versions or at least take a look at ukraine, 30 years out, the gaining independence, organizing your phone with us. unless you mean, yeah, i get it live, but a will. it lets you could a a,

everything in the distance is now controlled by the ukranian military and self proclaimed republics. rebels. now fear that any day now, i defensive could come from there, yelling, intensifies and needs to be ukraine is o. s. c, e monitors confirm. heavy artillery is being used in violation of sci fi commitments and resulting in casualties. tens of thousands of fled the bottoms in recent days by crossing the border into neighboring russia. the mass evacuation well under white, we hear from dumbass residence. you've taken refuge to russian shelter. we set off and ran from the war that's been there for 8 years. there's no trans, there's last anymore change year. stop it.