ah ah ah ah ah hello and welcome to cross out. were all things are considered i'm peter lavelle. have you been following the conflict in ukraine online and for media? you have been fed a steady diet of opinions like who are the good guys and who are the bad guys and who is winning or losing context is largely absent and that's on purpose. ah,

cross sucking media coverage of ukraine. i'm joined by my guess. daniel is our new york, he's a journalist and author a 3 books on the u. s. constitution in bethesda. we cause to peter cosmic. he is 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 sutkowski. he is the director of the center for advanced american studies at moscow state institute of international relations. i gentleman cross sock rules and effect. that means you can jump in any time you want. and i always appreciated, peter, let me go to you 1st and bethesda, and i'm, i have to watch cable news. i have to read the mainstream media because i have to understand what they're talking about. and i'm not banding in a hardship pay because it's brutal to consume that information here. i mean, you've watch some of it obviously as well. and the con, the context of the conflict is completely absent. this is, it's is something started this 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, you know, that says of much of the world. so people don't the, can't put this in context of you to 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, we're talking about the lack of context and media is also lack of historical context and understanding on the part of most what global leaders and puny 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, it 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, and for the whole global sit for the ball planet. right now. we've created our very, very dangerous situation as well. as the 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, all the hawks or the what people who want to strengthen nato, all the will 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 on 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 his teaching defeat in ukraine. now that it and 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 subversion. he's been demonized, and this is ridiculous and there's no question that number one that a trap was late for him by the 3 left list eastward pushed by by nato. and there is 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 would would settle this guy's, it was a trap. everybody agrees with that. ok. but the, i thought i'd still think that there were very few options, unfortunately because of the nature of that trap. max, go ahead react to what we've heard today. go ahead. well, 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 jewel 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. and 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 concerns and we're not taken into account. and the 3rd narrative is really, it's kind of a superpower, that out 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 were 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 polls 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. i don't think this situation is good for anybody, peter. i think that everybody's suffering is well, you know peter, i'm sorry, but you do think victorian newman 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, this is because it isn't accidental. it was plant 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

. now he said now we've given the soviet union its own vietnam and then, and that 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 the concern is sincere and it is 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 it is both going on or what, but we need, we need to figure out in the world these 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. no 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 break up of russia into 3 separate parts under us toodle it. and then the us would penetrate deep into central asia to begin attacking china. so what we see here, i mean, assuming brzezinski influences, you know, it's still ongoing and i think it is mean what we see here is truly an existential threat to russia and attempt to, to, to then, you know, then, you know, penetrate into central asia and attack russia, that tech china from the west, from n g on, which is most vulnerable province. you know, i mean, i don't support what i did, but i certainly understood the,

the thinking of lead him to do what he did do. and the, and the threat from the us as 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. if you a question on that, no, no peter, you're going to ask him a question right after our hard break. so we're going to go to a heartbreaking right after that hard break. we'll continue our discussion media. haven't can stay with the ah ah, the

oh, when i went to the wrong one, i just don't hold any world to shave out disdain because the african and engagement equals the trail. when so many find themselves worlds of horn, we choose to look for common ground. i thought it was just all as you read it in. yeah. how many times when i was going with this with you or is with you, i'm with

so we'll hope don't log in with my insurance probably would you cause to pay full of school credit? it's going to be out of wood from beach still easy to the station about in the board with

ah, welcome back to cross stock where all things are considered. i'm peter belgium and you were 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 demand. and though do you not agree that a potent should have accepted that and declared victory m a gun and we have it here

. if i can fact check you right there. it's come out in the last the new cycles said, 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 insolence. 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 just wanted to throw that out there that, that there was a combination of 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 a, he was cooling to the idea that says black, what quote here. and what you ask the question of, daniel, go ahead, daniel. okay, it's, i mean, i mean, i mean, i agree with peter. yes, i mean the, i, 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 for the us. 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, let's go to high,

i want to pro max here. i mean, again, i mean i, 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 are 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 russian 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 for, 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 lead historians in the

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 to 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 echoed 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 ultimately acco and fire back, because the biden's presidency was supposed to be about getting america stronger,

to go to china. and the ultimate picture in all of that seems to be exactly 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 picking 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 were invested more in its policies of di westernization, di americanization di dollarization. and a lot of the policies that the west is now pursuing will also contribute to those exactly trans with the rest of the world in other countries thinking twice before willing to invest in 2 american banks and in system and things like that. yes, i mean that 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 the sanctions all around the world. the lack of the lack of or though it's a food security and things like that all over the world. it's ricocheting all over the place is really difficult to comprehend where all this is going because it's the 1st time a major a 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 account for 38 percent of world weak sales. we're talking russia accounts for 20 percent of world fertilizer sales, russia, ukraine, 30 percent of world grain sales. we've seen the price of energy skyrocketing, we 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 and so was it all worth it from nato to absorb ukraine? is it all? is that worth it now looking back, you know, yeah, i mean from, you know, when people in yemen and ethiopian can use a why 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 it 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. they 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 in over this is some the 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 come out at a 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 i was 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 it would be the better world if everybody everybody, 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 and 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 was, was latter 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. it leads to 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 here at this 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 you could do it with impunity. max. well, i think there is nothing surprising here, and i think that's pretty much been the talking points and in this course 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 losing need in the rest of the world in the middle east, in particular, and india in china. if you look at their domestic discourse, and even though countries are not necessarily, you know, voting for russia of 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 catching in the rest of the world. so i think we're, we're still far from, from things 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 have 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 that they deserved. so another reason why i'm so angry about this. he's in empowered, the 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've settled the di. hi, so i hope i do their side. 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 guests in new york, bethesda, and here in moscow. and thanks to our viewers for watching us here, darcy see you next time? remember crossteck rules? ah,

ah, is your media a reflection of reality? ah, in the world transformed what will make you feel safer? isolation for community. are you going the right way or are you being that some with direct? what is true worth is great. in the world corrupted. you need to descend a join us in the depths all remain in the shallows. ah ah.

ah

with ah.