ah, i'm with with that you didn't yet you're part of the wall oxygen. this is

a with hello and welcome to cross ok. we're all things 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. daniela's are in new york, he's a journalist, an author of 3 books on the us constitution in bethesda,

we cause to peter because they 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 . gentlemen, cross talk rules and effect. that means he can jump at anytime you want. and i always appreciate it, peter, let me go to you 1st and that says the 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 no banding, you know, hardship pay because it's brutal to consume that information here. i mean, you've watched it obviously as well. and the con in the context of the conflict is completely absent. this 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, you know, 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 or on the border. i must have done 75 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. it 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, he said it was, can be over within a month. poor 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 suit 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 put in is done in large part is to legitimize all the militarist or the hawks,

or the want 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. it's always, you know, it, what if 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, 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, manipulate a world manipulator source of evil source of endless inversion he's been demonized . and this is ridiculous, and there's no question that number one that a trap was late 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 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 the 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 agreed 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 re actual 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 of these courses the so called, you know, the geostrategic 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 concern 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 a bit is when you know peter, i'm sorry, but you do you think victoria new one 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, it does it 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 open the champagne in 1979. when he induced the soviet invasion of afghanistan, you know that it been 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. if they've trained

to do some people to try to do the same thing in this situation. some of that concern is sincere and it is a life we see the pictures we know what's going on. in many ways, it's a humanitarian catastrophe. let's go on inside of ukraine now. and then there are a lot of other people that want to use this strategically to weaken russia. so it is both going on, or what would 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 believe, 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, 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 us would penetrate deep into central asia to begin attacking china. so what we see here, i mean, assuming brzezinski is 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 dingy on, 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. this daniel question on that. know now peter, and you're going to ask him a question right after our hard break. so we're going to go to a hard break and right after that hard break, we'll continue our discussion and media coverage of trying to stay with our team. ah, look forward to talking to you all. that technology should work for people. a robot must obey the orders given by human beings, except we're such orders that conflict with the 1st law show your identification. we should be very careful about artificial intelligence. and the point obviously is to place trust rather than fear with

area and with artificial intelligence. real, somebody with, ah, a robot must protect its own existence with ah, united states, a news and tax on other countries. economic sanctions are, are often just the beginning. another thing you like to do is place some military pressure on the countries that you're talking about here. and there has to be an effort to demonize that country and the leader of that country. so we have

a responsibility for the whole world and we need to make rules for the rest. because without us there will be k i d o. welcome back to cross talk. we're 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 i demand. and though do you not agree that a potent should have accepted that and declared victory m a gun and leave it here? 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 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 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 ave, setting out a, he was cooling to the idea, that's as black. what quote here, and what you asked the question of daniel, go ahead, daniel. okay, so i mean, i mean, i mean i agree with peter. yes,

i mean the. busy i, if, if, to the degree that that was on, that was us lensky stance. yeah. a potent should have seized on it and made the most of it and run with the balls as far as he could. 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 was good. hi, 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 oratory him 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 a agreements are just not taken seriously. and then the russian send out to ultimatums because that's what they were one to nature 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 says we're 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 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 call 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 the end 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 autumn 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 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 at will invest even 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 trance with the rest of the world in other countries thinking twice before willing to invest into american banks and 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 their lack of or though 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 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, accounts with 38 percent of world weak sales. we're talking russia accounts for 20 percent of world fertilizer sales, russian 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. it, peter, but we, if we stand back in, 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 kanyes a, why are we having a food prices 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 a interesting case because india has refused to condemn russia. in fact, in the as strength as 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 something 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 came 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 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 at the, a better world of everybody and everybody a, you know, made allowances for every country security concerns. but the u. s. does not do that . the u. s. has targeted russia, the democrats, in 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 lad and her potent somehow, you know, not crossing 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 u. s. 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, western liberalism, it 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 sports coming from the russian side for, for, for lake is what i want to say east that the rest of the world. and i think that

are mentioned that does not necessarily buy the things that the western a information and western policymakers are saying. so indeed, russia may be losing the information war in the west or the western target audience . but it's not necessarily losing it in the rest of the world in the middle east, in particular, in india, in china. if you look at their domestic discourse, and even though countries are not necessarily, you know, voting for russia un general assembly and seek to know, hatch their own risks with sanctions. politically masika was not getting that kind of pressure. the west, the thinks russia is getting in the rest of the world. so i think we're, we're still far from, from things been already germany or peter. i'm going to give you the last 30 seconds. go ahead. i agree with max about that. but back to daniel's point grab it, we've all been challenging this demon ization of potent rhetoric for years.

but now unfortunately, putin has lived down to those people who have been demonizing him. i think what i've seen it with people i've been debating with is they feel vindicated. they've been saying that putin was a thug and a tyrant and a dictator. and now he's given them more credibility than they ever had before or than they deserve. so another reason why i'm so angry with boot and about this. he's in empowered that mila tourists empowered the russia haters, russia, peter b r. u. glad that the the, the ethnic cleansing of the don bass is come to an end. i hope that they settle the di hi, so i hope they do their site. we started out the program with context and there was a predicate. and let's not forget that context and predicate as all the time we have about to thank my guests in new york, but that, and here in moscow. and thanks to our viewers for watching us here. darcy see you

next time? remember crossteck rules. ah ah. oh is your media a reflection of reality in the world transformed what will make you feel safe, isolation or community? are you going the right way or are you being led to somewhere? direct? what is true war his way? in a world corrupted, you need to descend

a join us in the depths or remain in the shallows. holden is the aggressor today. i'm authorizing additional strong sanctions. today russia is the country with the most sanctions imposed against it. a number that's constantly growing up in your speech of liberalism was of course renewed as you speak on the bill in your senior, mostly mine, or wish you were banding all in ports of russian oil and gas, new g i g a for the letter, you know we're pretty good regarding joe, by imposing these sanctions on russia has destroyed the american economy. so there's your boomerang

ah ah, behind my back. ah, attach watching multiple, well it would still be. i have just 5 bar corresponded rod got d, a report, somebody you pull as the battle for the city and visit final phase. a meeting of the un security council is convened by russia to discuss us funding, bio labs operating ukraine. the u. s. denies any wrong doing ukrainian president compared to russian troops, islamic state terrorists last, despite reports revealing ukraine itself is used isis, competent in complex.