keys, professor of history and director of the nuclear studies institute at american university as well as co author with oliver stone of the untold history of the united states. and here in moscow we have maxine switched off. he is the director of the center for advanced american studies at moscow state institute of international relations . right. gentlemen, cross talk rules and effect. that means you can jump in anytime you want. and i always appreciated, peter, let me go to you 1st and that says that i'm, i have to watch cable news. i have to read the mainstream media because they have to understand what they're talking about. and i'm know, bandying, you know, hardship pay because it's brutal to consume that information here. i mean, if you watch some of it obviously as well, and the con in the context of the conflict is completely absent, is, is it is something started. it's a little over a month ago, completely out of the blue. and when i, when i bring up topics like the minsk agreements and things like that, most people have don't have a clue what i'm talking about peter, your thoughts you're identifying a serious problem. there is no historical memory on mass media in the united states

and for that reason in and that says of much of the world. so people don't the, can't put this in context of you don't understand context. you can't figure out the solutions and the way out. so it for the 3 months leading up to this war with the troops were on the border, i must have done $75.00 interviews on russian television. and which i kept on urging putin to declare victory the world for the 1st time in decades, was talking about russia's national security concerns and couldn't was in a position to declare victory, remove those troops begin serious negotiation. and he didn't do it. and the, you know, i were talking about the lack of context and media is also lack of historical context and understanding on the part of most were global leaders. and pooty fell into that trap. i was shocked that he did this. i was shocked that he didn't learn

the lessons from the afghan invasion in 1979 from the u. s. invasion of vietnam. the u. s. invasions of afghanistan, iraq, libya. these things don't end up the way these leaders think. when brezhnev went into afghanistan in 1979, he said it was, can be over within a month. who had that same illusion about ukraine. and we've created a global situation now that i think is so much worse for russia than it would have been, had the russian not invaded then. and for the whole global suit for the ball planet . right now we've created our very, very dangerous situation as well as humanitarian catastrophe inside ukraine. so i'm, i'm very disappointed and i'm upset and i'm angry because what putin is done in large part is to legitimize all the militarist or the hawks, or the want. people who want to strains the nato,

all the go when increased military spending around the planet. in the united states, in europe and elsewhere. so i think that we've touched off really a very, very dangerous, dangerous situation. no one is that there's a lot header. there's a lot said there, peter, but i don't think, you know, you need russian potent to legitimize or the neoconservatives and, and all the arms makers. okay. and that's not, it wasn't necessary. it was already in the cards, but i get your point here. daniel, let me go to you because, you know, when we had the white house coming out, saying rushes to separate, assist each a defeat in ukraine. now that in that, and that being be able to say that assumes that you know what the plan was will obviously they didn't. so i don't understand how they can possibly say um that there is a strategic defeat. it sounds great, but it is completely divorced to reality on the ground. daniel, go ahead. well, yeah, i mean the u. s. and in particular, the us democrats have been mounting

a non stop campaign, the demon ization of russia, and potent that's been going full force since 2011. yeah, i mean, i mean, i mean, as far as democrats are concerned, is a elders of zion style, you know, you know, manipulate a world manipulator source of evil source of endless version. he's been demonized. and this is ridiculous, and there's no question that number one that a trap was laid for him by this relentless eastward, pushed by by nato. and there's no question that the u. s. t wanted him to invade, invading with the endless cries that know he was about to send his troops in. he was about to send his troops and look out, look out. i mean, i mean, yes, i agree that that potent did fall into the trap, but that trap was laid by the us over the course of a decade. and so the us really bears the lion's share responsibility for this

entire debacle. and i agree, it's extraordinarily dangerous. i think that world is plunging over a 1914 style cliff. i agree with that and you know, if i go to max here, i think we would, let's settle this guys. it was a trap. everybody agrees with that. ok. but i did the, i thought i'd still think that there were very few options unfortunately because of the nature of that trap. max, go ahead. reaction. we've heard today go ahead. i think in your since the breakup of the soviet union in the end of the cold war, there were 3 major narratives and the russian foreign policy discourse on what the us policy in ukraine, in the, in the east europe is all about one discourse is the so called, you know, the jews strategic kind of a big brzezinski type of narrative that says that, you know, you, the west has to best in ukraine and ultimately make and tie russia out of ukraine to make sure that russia is cut off from europe and ukraine. is

a huge kind of anti rushing buffer, buffer state. that's why you need to invest a lot into their nationalist identity. no, that is the basis for their contemporary state who the 2nd narrative was in a way us acted as a superpower on auto pilot. you know, we didn't really care much for russia's concerns. it just went the way did because it was an ultimate victor in the, in the cold war. and, you know, the policy was pretty much we'll do as, as we're wish. and you will suffer what you must. so russia's concern and we're not taken into account. and the 3rd narrative is really, it's kind of a superpower, that our sources, it's russia policy to the states that have traditional historical grievances with russia, in all the polls, the baltics, and they get to dictate to the rest of the west, of what they're russia, policies should be so basically, i think the russia security guarantees back in december, we're a litmus test for what really was driving us foreign policy in that part of europe

. and we now see that people who thought that was kind of a mixture of the 3, but more so the 1st narrative, this kind of geopolitical driving factor and this out sourcing was see the way the poles in the baltics are now in bold. and pretty much, you know, gives policymakers in law school, a sense that you, there is really little. you can agree with the united states as far as european security and your ukraine's future you know, and that's very sad because ultimately i think the, the piece would be sought would have to be sought between moscow in washington. let me go back to peter. i mean, going back to what, what mac said, the 1st narrative right there. well, they've won. russia has been cut off from europe. ok, so the europeans should be happy about that. is that good for europe? because that seals europe's faith as far as i'm concerned. and they are isolated.

go ahead, peter. and i think this situation is good for anybody, peter. i think that everybody's suffering it. well, you know peter, i'm sorry, but do you think victorian newland is suffering? i bet she's drinking champagne. jake sullivan. i'm sure he's happy. i mean, boris johnson seems to be overwhelmingly happy as well. i mean, they're happy about this income outcome. okay. i so i mean, that is because it isn't accidental. it was planned and it's happened. go ahead peter. they're happy in the same says that brzezinski broke opened the champagne in 1979. when he induced the soviet invasion of afghanistan, you know that when public he cried crocodile tears behind the scenes. he was elated . and yet he said, now we've given the soviet union its own vietnam. and then, and the effect that, that had on afghanistan and on the soviet union was devastating their dead trying to do some people to try to do the same thing in this situation. some of that

concern is sincere and that meant as a live. we see the pictures we know what's going on. in many ways, it's a humanitarian catastrophe. what's going on inside of ukraine now? and then there are a lot of other people who want to use this strategically to weaken russia. so this both going on or what, but we need, we need to figure out and the world needs to figure out is how to ended as quickly as possible. what is the basis for a negotiated settlement that allows putin to save some face, get some of what lighter, but, but, but who is talking about ending it? nobody in the west know, policy makers are daniel to please talk about. it is more arms, more arms. that's what they're talking about. no one in the west is talking about peace. go ahead, dana. i totally agree. i mean, i mean brzezinski and his 1997 best seller of the grand chessboard. i talked about using the ukraine as a battering ram with which to effect the breakup of russia into 3

separate parts under us to lodge. and then the u. s. would penetrate deep into central asia to begin attacking china. so what we see here, i mean, assuming bridge and skis, influences is still ongoing and i think it is. i mean, what we see here is truly an existential threat to russia and an attempt to, to, to then, you know, then to penetrate into central asia and attack russia that tack china from the west . from sin gian, which is the most vulnerable a province. i mean, i don't support what potent did, but i certainly understood the, the thinking that led him to do what he did do. and the, and the threatened the u. s. is quite real. it's quite frightening. and there's no indication that the u. s. was at any point prepared to let up and seek any kind of

rational accommodation with the russian federation. it's daniel question on that now, peter, if you're going to ask him a question right after our hard break. so we're going to go to a hard break in right after that hard break. we'll continue our discussion on media coverage. i'm trying to stay with with with

ah, a city live with me. and i just do both, both the models you need to do. both nelson's nukes this year a been up and he says, i'm not going to a home owner's comment, perform a lot of them, bob, but humor on floyd them, boss with all they need that mr. levy and you that the gosh darn years with he's here

with us the 1st of all number here. we're here later with, with a welcome across the top where all things considered. i'm peter beltran, manager, we're discussing media coverage of ukraine. ah. okay peter, at the very last 2nd or the 1st part of the program, you want to ask daniel question, please go right ahead. daniel. in before the invasion,

zalinski was saying that he was willing to accept that ukraine would not join nato and would effectively be neutral. it wasn't ready to go back to minsk too, but he would have given russia it's most important strategic i demand. and though i do not agree that a potent should have accepted that and declared victory, if i could fact check you right there, it's come out in the last 3 new cycles. that big german chancellor spoke to zalinski and actually said, you know, you should declare that you do will not become a member of nato and maybe for a certain time period. so i mean in silence. he said no. okay, and this is one of the great miss steps i've got going into this conflict here. so i just wanted is the i'm is one of the throw that out there that there, there was accommodation. go ahead, but we heard him also repeatedly say that ukraine would not join nato, and it was a nonstarter because everybody knew that ukraine was not joining nato and then nato

didn't want you. cray, a setting out is with he was cooling to the idea. that's as glad what quote here and what you ask the question of daniel, go ahead, daniel. okay, so i mean, i mean, i mean i agree with peter. yes, i mean the, i. busy if, if, to the degree that that was on, that was as lensky stance. yeah. a potent should have seized on it and made the most of it run with the balls as far as he could on. but i also agree that there is that there is plenty of reason for the russians to be skeptical, most important of which is that the united states would never have permitted it. the united states is clearly intent on using the ukraine's a battering ram against russia. and you know, and, and, and i'm not just being paranoid because essentially brzezinski laid out the entire scheme 25 years ago. and this, and in great detail. and as far as i can tell was, you know,

his book was highly influential in the u. s. foreign policy establish establishment . it was never repudiated or rejected. so you know, so, so i think his ideas have had a great impact. and i think that the u. s. busy goal involves something along those rabinski in line to, you know, to, to break up russia, penetrate central asia, and then move on to, to china. ok. what's good if you want to pro max here? i mean, again, i mean, i have a very difficult time, you know, even if zalinski said ok, yes, we will put them oratorio on it. maxime, what kind of value do those words have? i mean, ever since the end of the cold or the u. s. is repudiated. countless numbers of agreements. they've walked away. they've never taken russian security interest. seriously. i mean, you know, it's easy to play monday morning quarterback, but i mean, you have a whole lineage of time where agreements are just not taken seriously. and then the

russians send out to ultimatums because that's what they were one to nato, when did the united states, and they were just blown off. i mean, so i'm not sure the value of words here anymore. max, well, you know, i've, as, as, as, as where thinking about this issue today here in moscow. i think most of our thinking is that the, you know, the, the events of the current events will be written and discuss by the historians in a wide happened and should have happened or should have not happened. the rubicon is crossed and we have to come from this view that you know what, what we've done. we can't go back and change it. but what i want to say is that the, what seems to be a short term gain for the west. and i totally cold the sentiment that we don't really see any willingness on part of the united states or the europe eons to help a whole you know, help the negotiation process more arms mean, you know,

your brain gets more strong in resisting and fighting russia. so the war will, you know, rage on for some time and the plan seems to be to get russia stuck and indeed to create another outcome campaign for, for moscow. but i think the policy will also alternately echo and fire back because the biden's presidency was supposed to be about getting america stronger to god or china. and the ultimate picture in all of that seems to be exact with china. and even though the united states believes that russia is now losing the bite and presidency will be accompanied by the crisis with russia, as china will be cherry speaking and getting stronger and getting more challenging for the next us president to deal with. and russia will not go away despite all the attempts to cancel it. and to sanction that, it will not go away from the map. it will continue to be a strategic challenge for the west and for europe at will invest even more in its

policies of di westernization, d, americanization, d dollarization. and a lot of the policies that the west is now pursuing will also to contribute to those exactly trans with the rest of the world and other countries thinking twice before willing to invest into american banks and system and things like that. yes, i mean, i'm glad max brought that up because that's where i wanted to go here. i mean that the ricochet affect your, i mean, i spent a good part of my day looking at the impact of sanctions all around the world. the lack of the lack of food security and things like that all over the world. it's ricocheting all over the place. it's really difficult to comprehend where all this is going because it's the 1st time a major g 20 countries been sanctioned, like this. and no countries ever been in sanction as much as russia right now. and the implications of which are truly hard to comprehend. peter, yes, it was created a very, very dangerous situation globally right now. in russia and ukraine,

accounts with 38 percent of worlds which sells. we're talking russia accounts for 20 percent of worlds, fertilizer sales, russia, ukraine, 30 percent of world grain sales. we've seen the price of energy skyrocketing, we've seen the price of food and commodities going up, and many countries are destabilized by this. and it's only going to get worse, which is again, why this needs to be ended as quickly as possible. because we are in an integrated global economy, but peter, but we, if we stand back in, so was it all worth it from nato to absorb ukraine? is that all? is that worth it? now looking back, you know, i mean for, you know, when people in yemen and ethiopian, can you say, why are we having a food crisis because the americans wanted ukraine and nato? it's preposterous. i mean it's, it's interesting, the way with the world looks at this. i've been doing a lot of shows on indian tv lately. and india is an interesting case because india

has refused to condemn russia. in fact, india's strength is ties with russia, lab, or i was just there after you went to beijing. and so, but the, the effect mean a lot of countries see the broader context may see nato expansion. they see the role that ukraine has played in terms of russia's foreign policy concerns, you know, and they view it differently than the americans and some of the europeans do. you know, this is something and narratives we've been debating for a long time. but we see the immediate impact, and we have hardly talked about the humanitarian catastrophe this going on inside of ukraine, which is also very, very troubling. also what's happening with the russian military men is a lot of reassessing that's going to go on in the aftermath of this as we try to figure it out. if the world can move forward from this, maybe we can get off of fossil fuels a little bit more,

more dependence on renewables. that would be a good thing for commander heater. you know, and, and another good thing would be if i go to daniel, is that, you know, let's go back to square one. every countries have the right to have its own security. i mean, that's the argument we've making on this program for months. okay. let russia have security as well. no. and you crank and have it. everyone else can have it except for the russians. that's how we got here, daniel. yeah, yeah, i mean with it or there'd be a, the, a better world of everybody and everybody of, you know. busy made allowances for every country security concerns, but the u. s. does not do that. the u. s. has targeted russia, the democrats of particular have been on a decade long campaign of demon ization painting russia as the source of all evil in the world. i mean, a sparrow doesn't fall anywhere on earth with was latin,

her potent somehow, you know, not causing it. it's a completely outrageous. and this kind of mindset is not one that leads to any kind of mutual accommodation. at least the opposite leads to confrontation and insane pointless warfare. but that's where we are now in. and clearly, clearly the us has led nato up to the doorstep. and, you know, and it's only a matter of time before france and germany begin questioning. you know, how the hell they arrive on the point we get exactly. i was rapidly running out of time max here, the russian on the program here and looking at the displays of anti lucifer, big trends all through the west. in my mind, the western liberalism actually shows its true face. doesn't it? ok, it's very bigoted. it's racist. and a, and you could do it with impunity. max,

well, i think there is nothing surprising here. and i think that's pretty much been the, the, the, the talking points and then the scores coming from the russian side for, for, for next. what i want to say is that the rest of the world, and i think that are mentioned that does not necessarily buy the things that the western information and western policymakers are saying. so indeed, russia may be losing the information of war in the west or the western target audience. but it's not necessarily lose a need in the rest of the world in the middle east, in particular, in india, in china. you can look at their domestic discourse and even though countries are not necessarily, you know, voting for russia, the un general assembly and seek to, you know, hatch their own risks with sanctions. politically, moscow was not getting that kind of pressure. the west thinks russia is getting in, in the rest of the world. so i think we're, we're still far from,

from things to be gemini or peter. i'm going to give you the last 30 seconds. go ahead. i agree with max about that. back to daniel's voice, we've all been challenging. this payment is ation of potent rhetoric for years. but now unfortunately putting has lived down to those people who are been demonizing him. i think what i've seen it with the people i've been debating with is they feel vindicated. they've been saying that was a thug and a tyrant and a dictator. and now he's given them more credibility than they ever had before or then they deserved. so another reason why i'm so angry about this. he's in empowered that militarist, empowered, the russia haters, russia, peter b r. u. glad that the, the ethnic cleansing of the don bass has come to an end. i hope that they settle

the di. hi, so i hope i do there. so we started out of the program with context and there was a predicate, then let's not forget that context and predicate as all the time we have about to thank my guest in new york, bethesda, and here in moscow. and thanks to our viewers for watching us here at r t c you next time. remember, cross talk roles. i look forward to talking to you all that technology should work for people. a robot must obey the orders given it by human beings, except where such orders at conflict with the 1st law show your identification. we should be very careful about artificial intelligence. at that point obviously is too great trust, rather than fear. a very job with artificial intelligence,

real summoning with a robot must protect its own existence with oh, when i went to the wrong one, i just don't know. i mean, you have to shape out the same because the african and engagement equals the trail. when so many find themselves worlds apart, we choose to look so common ground. i thought i was just a guy, but i wanted to with this with you,

i guess with you i'm with ford credit. it's going to be out of wood from beach, but still he's a patient,

but in the board with ah, ah ah ah ah a ah

ah rushes foreign minister dismisses the killings in the ukrainian city of butcher as a provocation aimed at derailing moscow's peace talks with care what is the reason for this outrage provocations. we tend to think that the reason lies in the desire to find an excuse to disrupt the ongoing negotiations. it emerges a far right nationalist battalion was among the forces who entered butcher right after the russian withdrawal. we take a closer look at the units leader and as the us cause for justice and a trial for alleged russian war crimes were examined why the us itself has historically not.