[000:00:00;00] ah hello and welcome to cross stock were all things are considered. i'm funeral about naples appetite for continued expansion piers to have no end. sweden and finland may suit join the military alliance, the same alliance that deems russia as an enemy. still, nato calls itself a defense of alliance. is it only a matter of time before article 5 is invoked? ah, discuss these issues and more, i'm joined by my guess, george samuel lee in budapest. he's a podcast or at the goggle, which can be found on youtube and locals. and here in moscow we cross due to me

poverty's a political analyst and editor in us, me internet media project, or gentleman cross talk roles. in fact, that means you can jump any time you want, and i always appreciate. ok, star out in budapest, george, you know, over the last few cycles and it's been a major, a parent the finland. and sweden may want to join nato of all times. but we can talk about that, but one of the things that you have to think about when you, when you're adding new members to this type of alliance, is what they call article 5 of mutual defense. and that's bandied around a lot. i don't think everyone really understand what, what it actually mean. so tell our viewers here. what is the article 5 of the nato treaty? what is what it is and what it isn't to go ahead. yes. well, i 5 ok. states that an attack on one member is to be treated as an attack on all. so as the media presents it, that's it. you know,

the moment any nato member state comes under attack from any non native member say that, oh, for 30 native member states are now war against that attacker. but of course, that isn't quite true because in the 1st place, all that article 5 says that it was one they didn't, and the state is under attack. then all the major member states can then decide what it is that they want to do in order to help out that attack made a mistake. but even more important, there is article one, article, one of the north atlantic treaty states that nato will not resolve any conflicts at all with anybody. but other than by peaceful means. in other words, it's simply not, you know,

jaws using force against any other state. so when we think about what nato has been doing in ukraine for a long time, that cannot be described as trying to resolve problems by peaceful means. nato has been very actively involved in ukraine using force arms against russia. ok, so this isn't in a country that is not a member of nato against another country. that is not a member of the state of nature. so once you violated article one, you can't then turn around and start invoking article 5. so, you know, if for finland, let's say what to become a member of nato and would say, you know, we got to want to some of that territory back like to really, you know, we'd like it back, you know, styling to get away from us. and we'd like it back and then start making trouble. busy and then if rush response and similar things, we're going to go by, i mean, you have to come in on our side,

know you're going to happen. and if you try to do anything at all, and that is by using force or anything, then article 5 that does not come into operation because you violated article one. well, it isn't the 1st time i think the serbs would say the nato certainly is a defensive alliance. then george is an expert on the break of the legal break up of the former yugoslavia. you know, demon going back to the vinland in sweden. i mean, the timing could not be more peculiar because nato does deem russia as a hostile state to its alliance. so if you have 2 new applicants joining the alliance, they are doing that full with full knowledge. that the, the, the country that they're, they want defense, they want to be part of the organization. they want to be part of will defend them from russia. so by definition, if we just take what george said about article one, they're in violation of article one because it could very likely turn into

a hostile conflict with these 2 new to new members. i mean, the logic of nato is so peculiar because it's supposed to be about projecting a piece and stability. it's doing just the opposite. go ahead. oh, i agree with you, or we can even mention now what will be given to these events in the media. they will say, oh would you want to sleep or you want to sleep, watch them. whoa, are here are mean together. and here with sweden and finland, going to need to so many years. new clarity. and basically this is a lot, just the facts, feelings and its new credit the main year. you know him, i feel like you are after the breakup of the soviet union, basically isn't you? russian authorities democratically elected president yeltsin. they came to the

theme, so they said we have these be some friendship or making 48, you know, they're guaranteed your security and your one year and the been that don't you think that you know, these are all good. so people and since the early nineties have been reached in a way that states that home with us, the same story with sweden basically, you know, the law, 8 years after about 14, the we the conductor together, who needs to go this route, dolan so many dangerous seem to think even thinking, well that's right there in dame, russia, some people might see some, you know, some evidence for when he's active or not so much about defending. they

were about taking any action. so basically, even we've been doing nato, which i doubt you know, the summer this will not change much. situational. the ground, you know, defect to these countries inside need for many years. now nature will take up the formula to, to defend them. but again, they are both members of the union. so if you look at the needle side you, which is basically the same that you had them, negation, protect them too. so for russia, it's not to be change or get released. and if some people of you, oh, you know that erase crane was not justified just because in one sweden b or no. this abrasion was justified because such was found fish. as george,

jim will go over the southern be changed the river because they saw that russia was a, you know, and was determined to defend itself. if the, you know, if things develop a say you say nothing really than significantly geopolitical changes. but george, i think on the other hand that the finland and sweden are signaling that they deem russia is a military threat. and, and they have actually put a target on themselves. i mean, it's one over one and one from all, isn't it? ok, i mean, i don't see any upside here. i mean, neutrality is worked very, very well. even at the very depths of the cold war neutrality worked very, very well for finland and sweden. i mean, i, i'm just willard why they want to change their status. now, because now they may, they could possibly become a belligerent and in a conflict were another country, and nato start something. i mean, i don't see the upside. maybe i'm missing something, go ahead. there isn't any upside because as you say, during the cold war,

for feminine sweden really had a very good on. after all, you know, dirty, would finland eyes ation actually described. a very nice state of affairs. the soviet union didn't interfere in finland's domestic affairs. all that he wanted from finland is that it wouldn't take sides in the cold war between east and west and finland and went along with sweden. enjoy a considerable reputation. you know, when he likes we'd not unless we had a major reputation during the call will because it maintain that neutral status. once you are member stage of nature. so that means you are a co belligerent and as we see now in your brain, i think a conflict between russia and nato. it's quite likely, i mean, whether it happens now, whether it happens in 2 years time or whatever. i mean it's,

it's not something that's very much on the cost that happens then the countries that are in the front line, and that would be in finland, bolding, state, sweden, they, they would, they would be in the right of that will. they will be immediately targeted and you know, when you're at war, you have to, you know, go for your immediate target, cut off that basis of their ports. so that in all of those ways. so the status that at least you might have enjoyed being outside of the major even even as the most the already kind of the fact that i want to make the least you enjoy your status like that that would of spend you. now, if there's a conflict, you know that if you're going to be attacked and this just, you know, there's no way you're going to get around the demon the, you know, if you look at the entire history of the north atlantic treaty organization, you know, article 5 is area to front and center because on the one hand, article 5,

at least in theory, accorded you collective security. but the, the copy on is that it should never ever be tested. ok. and that's the trick. and is george already hinted to that? that might be tested and i think that that is nato's greatest nightmare. because then, you know, natal isn't, you know, unified european union isn't unified as much as they like to say it. and so it's a game of chicken right now with the highest, you know, possible outcomes and consequences. i mean, i think that this is something that the, the, the theorists, if there is such a thing for nato really haven't thought out, go ahead humor. well indeed, you know, i think there were only monkey history when article 5 was used and it was used by the state when they responded to the 911 by

their again. all right. and we remember watch or not they, you know, neither. and again, it's rob, so need on the back or invoking article and you are the right to both in the stages. i mean, you benefit you from when you go to the states during that whole a lot of financial, in fact, you feelings was our saw, your west, you know, when was the last few months, these were huge, huge general, committed to get a lot of dr. together and know where to reach real quickly wing with bins and russian soviet citizens. was there a high level of antipathy or was there a mutual respect or no relations were very audio. they're much worse than they were

getting old war because of propaganda. and i'm sorry, there was no orient expedius propaganda rather unique yet. and of course you did it just like there was no anti there is some have i have to break in here. we have to go to a hard break too hard break and after that hard break, we'll continue our discussion. and so we'll need to stay with our tea. ah,

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

ah, welcome back to cross stop where all things are considered. i'm peter labelle. this is the home edition to remind you were discussing some real news. ah, let's go back to the beginning. we're making a point in the 1st part of the program. if you want to finish up there, go ahead. well, just do trinity, you know, benefit as you can all the whole year. and now where do reach rations go if they want to have a foreign bank account, if they want to do the abroad, where do they find the neutral guntee? not a lot. so we're going to say they go to the biggest thing, go to cover. remarkably, these are the new countries now,

i mean progress refused to join the sanctions against branch. but also if you do have the biggest that is completely away, they take money from the morning rush, they bring us together. you know, so security away hope now i know the read your true you can make it has been official area. you know, the social democracy is a belinda and the whole democracy. congress. the thing is a bit complicated. you know why? because it doesn't make any sense. but anyway, george, let me go back to you was continuing discussion on article 5. let's really dig into it because the reason i'm talking about it, because there's a lot of weird interpretations of how it could be in vogue. i mean, we have a western countries army credit, at least claiming that they're going to arm the ukraine. all these huge,

$800000000.00 more and all this, you know, it is, the numbers are hard to, to grapple with. but you know, how do you get it into a country? and if you're sending arms to ukraine than that, doesn't that make you a co belligerent? and if you're a co belligerent then they're fair game out of self defense. i mean, it starts getting a little complicated here. so if there's a base in finland. so for example, that sending arms isn't that fair game in this conflict? and then would article 5 be invoked and with other members of nato go along and say, yeah, but you were sending arms. i mean, why should we broaden the conflict article by? it's really a nice bumper sticker until you tried to press on it, george. yes, i, you know you raise an excellent question because it's now clear that the nato powers are co belligerence. i mean, they're, they're openly talking about delivering arms to ukraine. we don't know how much is actually getting in out overnight the was a record of

a transport plane hadn't been shut down there on this. so i know that that may be true if true and you wonder why haven't i been more a shot down. but once you article belligerent then i, you know, it is all bets are off. i don't really see why it would be unacceptable. the russians do think it's unacceptable. why it would be an acceptable, the same attack of the military base in poland. that is the that is engaged in packing dispatching, arms to ukraine, that will be used to kill russians and say, well, yeah, do you see an active direction again, still not active aggress figures. you, you are a co religion and everything that you do, all of the constant propaganda campaign and the open sabotage of any piece negotiation suggest that you are a go bulletin. now, as the media reported that a strike and base in

a rush is now with no, no, i don't have a mobile and it's got it. so in gauge, you know, go to this and of acting is not alone actor. it's acting on behalf of nate, who's got clearance from all the major power. so nato has got itself involved in the non nature area is the violation of all to go once in violation of light. it can then go back to that same tree which is violating and saw talking about why one would hope that countries such as hunger, even the victim of i'm as a know and vocal fund. and one of those, you know, maybe it will be a new leadership in france. i mean, emerging off the electric rules as they know you can't invoke article 5. when you violate article one, he can so deem it good to continue this analogy here. this is the,

the worst nightmare that nato couldn't imagine, because a specific member country of the line when, for example, is decides to get into the, for a in ukraine. that, that does not necessarily mean it's a ppo policy that they haven't actually set up a policy. so you would have poland acting as a pre actor outside of the alliance. but even this is the worst nightmare that somebody, an analyst of that is that it will take one country to pull everybody else. it is george was saying right here. and so what would be all one for all one, all for $1.00 and $1.00 for all can turn into a, a situation where an article by just completely falls apart. it's like sand in your hands because you're not going to get all 30 members of the alliance that go along with it. and this is a situation that brussels is probably very worried about are absolutely right. and when nato was expand,

you 19 mile. all russia want russell wasn't that you are taking caucus with their huge all police, but then we were pulling them was already already to move groups. so there is some order. there were all kinds of statements made, you know, whether they're still gone, for most of the day to lead the spectrum of things over the last 10 years that you know the work. i've been a huge and rational sending volunteers and bullet was suggesting that if you do the thing, you know, and it was, there were some, or if volunteers as you, even though it's a very dangerous game with all the nato countries in law, not have a deeper don't you think that the post leadership been lead believes that they can

actually force the alliance to follow it's lee, which i think is a mistake. i think that that's something that is a miscalculation george. you want to take that because it seems to me that the assumption is that we can do whatever we want because the lines will have ball because of article by but i don't think that's necessarily true. george. no, i don't think so. but bottom isn't acting alone. i mean, we know that the united states is using it sacralize intelligence to provide elegance to ukraine about russian forces and ukraine is able to target russian forces and therefore kill russians. thanks to us intelligence now that in any the nation, a very active collaboration. so the united states is very much involved in this fight, and the united states is actually, you know, pretty much directing everything that the ukraine is doing. the fact zalinski now is not,

it doesn't feel like negotiating at all about anything the russians went with it, where he was maybe up to 3 weeks ago is a result of the united states encouragement and the united states sending him a. we're going to be giving you more and more of this intelligence, more and more of the equipment. well, you know that the united states is a belligerent now, was russia come to attack the united states? but i think russia can attack poland, and i think russia can then say, you know, or maybe it may be more specific. maybe this will be a pedantic, but maybe you said a top poem that i would be more pedantic is a a tack of bass in guy. i agree, but i just don't know exactly what it was. a military base and same, same with rocky. i think, you know, within russia could be in a good, very good position to attack some small in nature files that have got themselves in a flock are sending in the es 300 into you. right. ok, well you know, we can, we can start getting bases and, you know,

trying to invoke article 5 and i to say and see how others respond to. i'm sure there's a reason why they are said nobody is sending anything via hunger. it because or mine is realizing you send it why hungry i'm hungry now becomes a belligerent. so if you've made that point and you say, hey, that's up to you, you know, you set the weapons in your fight, don't drag us into a. busy fight a demon on the same token here. going back to england and sweden, it there mulling joining the north atlantic treaty organization. but it may be a undefined, on name, co conspirator, code belligerent and a finish is taken out because it's, it's been bound to view the sending weapons, the ukraine, and it's not a member. here we have the same situation here is that, you know, nato can't do anything about it, even though they're helping will they be obligated to help finland, for example. i mean, again, but it's all in the minutia here. it's very,

very unclear. will nato go to war over when, when it's not a member state just like ukraine. go ahead. well, coming back to what you just, you know, we all down on predictably, well, i mean, read what was the rest of all 40 government from the last 4 years. the western red rock thing there is man that he is 60 polio. they see that he's dangerous and now when russia is usually the same as it gives about 15. 0 no, no, no, no, no, no, no. what is it stable tech? you know, it's no breath to her from natal. did you really was no. right. it's not true. and the west testing develops. i'm kind of log in because right now they just moved

there. again, it would be like we the, i mean the we don't feel very good in the nation because of all these years. but if you release the wild her from the swedish, from the friends, it's really dangerous. i mean, these whole madness about rush and suddenly yes, there was one that actually, you know, landed there where in 1981. and then the last 6 years, every year they said sweden is now almost all. so if at the end of the weapon, nice thing, dolphins or something like that. do you agree? yes. all righty. george george, you know, i, i think when we look back in history here, when, if sweden were to join nato,

i think they'll be in a future store and say, alba and neutrality we had a good deal. ok, i mean, what happened here? last 20 seconds. go to you, george. yes, no question. what name sweden defendant went to join us, nate roches, borders direct borders with nato. well, double that cannot but induce great deal of anxiety in russia, particularly in the context of everything that's been going on. the western propaganda and everything that makes life very, very dangerous for the fence because this isn't the right time to be joining a turning. it's a turning article by into it's some kind of stupid drinking game in on a college campus. ok, that's my opinion here. as all the time we have want to think, my guess in budapest and here in moscow when i think our viewers from watching us here darky, see and see you next. i'm remember ah,

ah, a to see how it comes to an engagement equals the trail. when so many find themselves will to part, we choose to look for common ground. ah, i spoke earlier, but so for what are your thousands of people still live in small towns and villages that have become the new front line? sure. is that what they call this area? the greys

a really early from there of course. pretty me what that was only about a used vehicle with a dog so it won't go away with us. similarly with some demos with she'll berella a lennox on roku lou. she'll let tell us that she made us feel a leslie was just before he boy prove here scott, your party grow your favorite them with didn't the global white

a gym and like other than you should be had with all the show room with i think when it says the camp dr. expensive ukrainian weapons and find the dumbass city of mario pole. as russian ledford continued their advance that from all the fight to save proteus holes are still using civilians as human shields. one of the blue there have been many civilians in the city. the nationalists have been using as human shields. that's why we couldn't. but once they retreated to the factory, we easily took it under control. and italian journalist cole's ukraine's president and obstacle towards peace accusing bland lensky of neglecting civilian casualties