ah, ah ah ah hello and welcome to cross topler. all things are considered. i'm peter lavelle. the west liberal world order is collapsed in the hedge of money it sought to maintain and expand. the conflict in ukraine is a proxy war. the real target is russia and indirectly china, the law of unintended consequences is in play. in the end, it will be europe that pays the highest price. ah cross sucking the liberal order. i'm joined by my guess, patrick lawrence in norfolk, he is a foreign affairs commentator who's column superior in consortium news and other

publications in washington. we have the boy mileage. he is a blogger, and columnist, and in paris we cross a john laughlin. he is a university lecture in history and political philosophy are a gentleman, cross top rules and the fact that means you can jump in any time you want. and i always appreciate john, let me go to you 1st in paris. i'm titling this program liberal order collapse, or liberal order hits a brick wall. it's that we're in a situation right now, due to the machinations and intentional policy decisions made primarily in london in washington. they've hit a brick wall and they're public. so going to pay a very high price for, it's what it, it's a we don't get usually used foreign policy decisions. they happen somewhere far away. and the implications are only for the people that are on the, on the losing end of it. now we have energy prices, migration, other issues, security related are all piling up on top of each other and it's a public's in the west or get a feel it immediately go ahead john. i think that's right. i notice that on

the 8th of march, shortly before we recorded this program, the chinese foreign minister said that the friendship between russia and china was as solid as a rock. and that's definitely a sign that the main strategic goal of this operation and everything else that goes with it has been achieved. that strategic goal was indeed to put an end to the unipolar world order. the famous program laid out by latimer putin in munich in 2007. however, i and, and yes, i agree with the other part of your question about the extreme dangers which europe faces and the well generally to a lesser extent, america, in terms of, as you say, higher energy prices. but not just that there is a whole range of financial and economic exposure of it. absolutely terrifying magnitude including the exposure of european banks to all kinds of futures

contracts, for instance, for gas perpetual for wheat. for we know you name it, all those this massive exposure on that. there is of course, the exposure on energy. there are various other things like aircraft and aircraft pieces. so there is immense danger. yes, to the european economy. and i definitely don't think that europeans are ready for this. you said in your introduction to russians, a fatalistic europeans, definitely not. but on the other hand, i would guard against any, you know, it's not over yet. well, you say the liberal world order is, is finished. we are in the battle right now. we are in a war and economic war being waged by the west against russia. and the military war being waged in ukraine by russia. and that's a very on symmetrical, a symmetrical conflict. it is possible that the west will not come out on top, but i don't, i think it's much too early to say we are a long way from the end of this yet. so i,

i would not agree that the liberal world older has come to an end yet. give me a voice, me go to you in washington. one of the things i find very disturbing is that all i hear from the west is escalation, escalating the conflict in ukraine, and then knowing it in the west to talking about a peace settlement, how to end hostilities there they want to continue. ukraine is already a failed state. what else are they going to do to it? i said, for years, you know, when it came to afghanistan, iraq, you know, now it's ukraine. haven't they had enough of western help? go ahead and washington. well, that's the thing. they don't really, for all of the western politicians talking about helping ukrainian they don't really care what happens to the ukrainians their, their openly discussing using ukraine is another dreaming of making you create another. i've got to stand for russia, which would be absolute disaster for people actually living there. so for all of their, all sensible proclamations of wanting well to,

to the people of ukraine and wanting to save their lives and so forth. everything they're doing is actually helping those lives and very quickly or in great pain. i mean, if there was any interest in wanting peace and prosperity in ukraine, they would have backed some sort of settlement with russia years ago. and what they would have given those security guarantees that was asked for, but no, the plan was always use ukraine as a weapon. that's it. and that's why right? and that's why i agree agreeing with you. i mean there was men squat and 2, but nobody and i, i really fault the europeans a lot for that. i felt mc crone. i would, i would the person i called sergeant schultz in germany. i fault them for not standing up for europe or? yeah, i said it sergeant schultz. ok patrick. good. good. good. i'm eager to patrick for to get everybody in here. a patrick. i mean you're in the u. s. i mean, i all, i watch cable news, all i get is emotion. i get no rational reasoning. it's really emotionally. it's,

it's hysterical. you can't make policy decisions based on hysteria. patrick, it's, it's becoming intolerable law as, as, as any one among your viewers who doesn't live here needs to know. i want to edit you a little bit. peter, we're not talking about or a liberal. we're not talking about a liberal world order. we're talking about an ill liberal warm order. okay. good. and that has been a that has been behind the veil in my view all along. it seems to me that my larger point here is that this is a moment of historical magnitude that we all need to understand as such, not to diminish the importance of the ukraine crisis. and the russian decision to intervene, which i, which i think is regrettable but necessary. those are my terms for it. or that

is a subset of a much, much larger question. a president putin and president, she made this very clear on february 4th. this is a moment when a new world order or a tired old phrase, but it's going to have meaning this time is beginning to come in to being i agree with our a colleague in paris. it's not over but, but it's been, it's, i think we were looking at the beginning of the end up and these sort of movements in history. and they can come with imagination and creativity. or they can come violently. a, typically, it's the latter. when an empire is defending itself and that's what we're getting

here, i think i'm. and i think we just all need to accept that. if we're going to get through this and find our way to a stable or in more peaceful world, the americans are not going to let it happen. oh, well, well, i mean i did it, john a, it seems to me, i mean, watching this, the quote unquote intensive negotiations and diplomacy and all this. i was exasperated for months because i, it was all fake. i mean, you know, go to the kremlin, talk to this person. i and you know, they always went empty handed and i have a feeling they wanted something like this to happen. okay. it justified all of their fever, dream, hatred. okay. and editor it, it freighter via go ahead. patrick jumping real quick. the, the other morning i read the pentagon has not been in touch with anyone in the russian defense establishment since the russian intervention began. the,

the biden administration has no plans for diplomatic compact. with that, with the russian federation or anybody else. i mean, patrick, they did send kamala harris, i'm not really sure what to take away from that. okay. are you trying to depress me? i would not have it. we can't get any more depressed than we ards. edelman here, got you got most of my question there. go ahead and jump in. yeah, i, i think it's true. i what patrick says, which, oh sorry, what the voice says, which is that of course the americans are dreaming of another afghanistan. as we know general's role is fighting the house wall, but i'm not sure that i agree that there was a deliberate desire to have a war now on the part of the west. on the contrary, i think at my view is that russia had taken the decision. i obviously don't know exactly when, but we were bombarded, as you know, with leaks saying that russia was about to invade and it was denied, of course, on the russian side. and then it happened,

and i actually think that those leaks for once were right. i didn't believe them and i got it wrong. i called it wrong, wrongly i didn't expect that to be an invasion, but i think that they were right. and i think one of the proofs of that is the date, but because the beginning of the military operation was day for day as i'm sure you know, peter, the anniversary of the my dad. exactly. exactly. and yeah, i think that's an invasion and operation of this kind is decided at the last minute, not even in the last month. i think on the contrary, it was a long time in the planning. and i think therefore, i, you know, to say that the west wanted it know, that would imply that putin walked into a trap. i think instead of the immediate calls a part of course from the my down and so on. is the are the defense agreements, the strategic agreement signed between ukraine and written on the one hand and united states on the other in july and august 2021 agreement strategic military

agreements which provided for a huge amounts, hundreds of millions of dollars of aid to the ukranian navy in particular, but the armed forces in general, and of course military exercises and so on. in other words, throughout the summer of 2021, nato, ukraine was in the process as it were, of joining nato through the back door. not running later. course, but establishing military and strategic partnerships with britain and america. and i think at that point, russia probably decided that it was game over, and it was indeed, shortly after then in november, if i remember correctly, that russia decided to break off diplomatic relations with nature. and i think that was probably the point at which the invasion was decided. yeah, but john, i mean, we, we saw indications, you know, russia said, you know, the way they would respond with our military technical beans. okay. i mean, they said that openly publicly. so i mean, is this, was this a game of chicken? okay, because as i'm always reminded, living in this country, russians don't bluff, they act. now i agree, but i that's what i think, i think the deb conditions,

the level of the conditions is so high was so high and is still so high that the russians were completely prepared to invade and say they were not laughing. they were not taken seriously, but that doesn't mean that the west was trying to trap them. okay, all right, hang on john. here i. we have to go to a hard break. and after that hard break, gentlemen will continue our discussion on the liberal order stay with our team. ah ah long i seemed wrong when i just don't hold any world yet to see out the scene. because the african and engagement equals the trail. when so many find themselves worlds

apart, we choose to look for common ground. i look forward to talking to you all. that technology should work for people. a robot must obey the orders given by human beings, except where such order is that conflict with the 1st law show your identification . we should be very careful about artificial intelligence. at the point obviously is too great trust, rather than fear i would like to take on various job with artificial intelligence, real summoning with a robot must protect its own existence with

oh, is your media reflection of reality? in the world transformed what will make you feel safer? isolation, whole community. are you going the right way? where are you being led somewhere? direct. what is true? what is great? in a world corrupted, you need to descend a join us in the depths or remain in the shallows. a

welcome back to cross stock were all things are considered. i'm peter lavelle to remind you we're discussing, discussing the liberal order. ah okay, let's go back to patrick. patrick, it's not said it straightforwardly. but there is a essentially a state of war here do do, do, does the american public actually understand what that means? patrick? no, i don't. i don't think so. there, there is a kind of a, there is a sort of cinematic quality about the way this is being, are presented to americans or you go to a concern of mine or not to diminish the plight of ukrainians who are being driven from their homes. and so forth, but i, i've been extremely concerned at the extent at the power and, and

a prevalence of we've got a propaganda operation here that i, and numerous others of my age if i may say, sink, is unprecedented. now this is really quite shocking. and the other side of that moon is a, it is grotesquely successful of the extent to which people are rolling over and accepting this. so these perverse accounts of, of what's going on is, is, so this cannot be good for america to be this blind. i have 4 words that i think people need to think about. history chronology, context, causality. i'm sorry, 5 and responsibility. yeah. but i say none of the i see none of those words in the

and the coverage of this conflict at all. not one. ok. no, no, and what, what we're getting over here peter, or perhaps they're getting the shaman in french to an extent is the context is some kind of awful russian idea. right. you know, you know, close ality. we don't want to talk about causality. i think this goes back to 2001, and george w's people saying we don't negotiate with our adversaries. i think it was in 2001 that in, in the consciousness americans stopped wanting to hear the perspectives of other people. we, we, we turned in words and against all at once. and in this is the consequence of that. you know, we want, we have no interest in knowing how this may look from

a russian perspective or even a european perspective. at this point, peter, in the voice, you know, i think i can book and american foreign policy on the one hand, you know, that was a long time ago, coo and things like that and something must be done. that's how you book and american foreign policy, and then you put a whole lot of emotion in between. ok, because i saw an interview with petro shank of the former president on fox news. the presenter didn't push back on one thing. he said everything he said was not true, it was simply verifiably on true, no pushback whatsoever. that tells me that the american public is going to be led down the path again. and i don't trust the people in power come. ela harris says, go hating now in europe. ok, and you know, and i don't want to talk about joe,

you know, in his issues and all that, but they were not dealing with the a team here. we're dealing with a lot of low octane thinkers. go ahead and d c. well, the worst part is that they're, they're almost like n p. c's running a 2030 year old script because i've compared to situation repeatedly to the u. s. policy in the balkans in the ninety's. yep. they think they're dealing with another boss, me and yep. and so landscape. literally doing the is a big of a big euro. please help me a military intervention or an aide. my country's being invaded. i'm done here where he is actually executing the instructions from washington and would predictable results. but the problem is obviously they are either don't understand that they're not dealing with serbia here, but with russia, which is vastly orders of magnitude differ. and also that they're trying to do the same thing they, they did back in the 90s to the europeans. they're trying to basically quashed any attempt by europeans of any sort of independence, economic political anything and put them back 100 the american boot heels. which

again, i'm not really surprised because the people running the foreign policy here, the institutional blob, it shall not be challenged in washington, are basically acolytes of people who ran to the store back in the 90. that's right . don't have any version, right? or if they just have the old script, you know, to am. but john, i mean it, but i agree with the boy. absolutely. and it is very reminiscent here. but there's a lot of material interests at stake here in the, in the balkan wars, the legal wars in the balkans in the 1990s. it is a different magnitude because energy prices, my mass migration, all kinds of things that are, go, are going to hit europeans immediately. you could, you could keep in the case of the 1990s, it a, the, the impact wasn't so great. this is something of a different magnitude. and again, i want to start, am i disappoint one with the leadership coming out of germany and france. go ahead, john. well, i completely agree a suddenly, with what sir natasha has just said. the europeans have shot themselves,

not just in the foot, but in the head on the all, yeah, the united states. and they have done it not only at great imminent and long term economic cost of because as i mentioned in my 1st answer, that europe is very exposed and not just in energy supplies, but in all kinds of ways, including in its financial markets. john, they will, i wanna at john, let me enter, enter. interject your macro absolutely astonishes me. how do you account for? here's a man who argued for european inter dependence and a recognition of russia's role in europe and so on and so forth. it a real goal astray. how do you account for his behavior? i don't know why they definitely a want to be gall was still gave because it, we don't see the policy or john, that's a great quarter nor battery. go ahead. no, he's not a go list. his his position on any subject depends on what day of the week it is on

monday it'll go white and you say it will be black and on wednesday it will be grey . so yes, there is an opportunist. he does it well it's, it's worth of that actually. i think he believes that he can somehow, in his own person, incorporates all kinds of contradictions. but am i, what i, what i'm preoccupied about is not only as i say, the economic exposure, we'll see, who, which, which, whether the russians will europeans or which of the, to a more capable of withstanding b, the, the fallout. but also, i'm deeply concerned. you've mentioned, of course, the propaganda, but i'm concerned by the descent into illegality because of a way in which our tea and sputnik were banned is totally illegal with firstly, we're not at war with russia. and secondly, the mechanism by which they were banned is illegal. but it's the, it doesn't stop, there are all over the place from london to monte carlo. they've been seizing property or, and in italy to belonging to so called oligarch. so people close to the russian

regime. but these kinds of expectations. are you asking about the liberal holder, peter? yeah, the base of the liberal to for a 101st centuries has been property. right. property rights break in thank me. if they can be brushed aside, you know, by the say, so of an elected official in brussels, or by some other official international government. then there is no liberal order anymore because if they can get people like robin abramivitch who has billions, then they can also get people like you and me. and that is what is so frightening about this thing. this whole thing, they have, they have already got the tires in canada. i mean they, they're definitely trying to get this power for themselves. and i'm, i'm sorely tempted to believe that this is all in the service of the great reset. and, and that the, you know, the power leads in the west don't really care if this crushes their economies at home, because of they've already factored it into their plant. great. you know, well, no, i hear your on your, on this in the voice it, it's bread and circuses. okay. because the neo liberal order is collapsing,

left and right and center for the average person in the western world. it's not working for them. but now we have a circus to watch on cable tv, which of course, they explain all the things that are happening, ukraine, but they don't really show any thing. that's what i find to starting as well. we have televisions about telling stories with pictures. all we get is editorials and the boys should go ahead and washington. well that's, that's because there are no pictures. pictures. the reality of the ground shows a completely different story than the one that being told in the living rooms. but again, the editor realized the bring in these neo cons that have never bought a war in their life. they bring in people who have lost wars and don't know how to fight them. and the handful of people that have actually thought wars and know what they're about, they come on and they get shouted down because they don't tell the politically correct story. i again, this is, it's, i maintained for months that this was a wag the dog operation because it was all so big on the western end. and, well,

i wonder we moved in, i wonder whether the french public, the european public is subjected to this kind of wave of, of perception management. and whether they are as swooning downward as the american public has been maybe joe and john, you want to address that? go ahead. john. well, it varies from country to country in britain, the hysteria is probably worse, i think, than even in the united states in france. pretty high, but much less high in germany, it's very high and so on. so it varies from country to country. and so there's no doubt that the overwhelming balance is with of course, supporting the ukrainian side. and i'd just like to say that i don't, in a way, of course, i agree with the criticisms that have been made about the american and european

political establishment. i particularly think that they have behaved ideologically . they seem blinded by ideology. why, why, why shouldn't ukraine be neutral? what, why is that ideologically so important? seems like quite a good solution. and they are blinded by that ideology. but this conflict will not be resolved by seeing the other guy's point of view or understanding the russian position. patrick, i'm responding to your earlier remark. yeah, he won't be ready. by seeing the other guy's point of view, it will be resolved, like all great conflicts by force. that's how it will be resolved. that's how the world works and that what we're seeing now is quite simply, false economic and military force being used to try to change a situation, which is why john john in the last 30 seconds. are there any winners in this? no, there are no winners. and the, the, the only thing i would at which hasn't been mentioned is that zalinski has said now on several occasions, including on the 8th of march that he has been completely abandoned by nature. so

we'll have to see how long that position can hold from my point of view is if i want to interject chair, i think there that we will all be winners. if we understand this properly, we haven't, we have an end aggressive empire that needs to be stopped. if it is stopped, we all win. well, that is a very, very tall order. we'll see how it plays out. that's all the time we have gentlemen . i want to thank my guest, no for washington and in paris, and thanks to our viewers for watching us here at r t c. you next time. remember, cross our goals. ah, is your media a reflection of reality?

in the world transformed? what will make you feel safer? isolation or community? ah, you going the right way? where are you being led somewhere? direct. what is true? what is faith? in the world corrupted, you need to descend. ah, so join us in the depths all remained in the shallows. ah oh and i was with

there's things we dare to ask in ah ah, with

in the headlines this our on our g international russia claims it has taken full control over europe largest nuclear power plant in southern ukraine. archie gets an exclusive glimpse of the massive arsenal stored at the plant after the ukrainian army laid down its arms have crates and crate stack with assault rifles, collage, tickled broadfoot, as well as grenade launchers, ammunition up all sorts and types. also massive destruction and ukraine's 2nd largest city hot with residential building left only partially standing after intense shelling with .