ah ah ah hello and welcome to cross stock were all things are considered. i'm peter lavelle . nato's appetite for continued expansion piers to have no end. sweden and finland may suit join the military alliance the same alliance the 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 guest, george samuel l. e. in budapest, he's a podcast or at the goggle, which can be found on youtube and locals. and here in moscow we crossed to to meet republic. she's a political analyst editor at interest me, internet media project, or gentleman. crosstalk rules and fact that means you can jump any time you want and i was appreciate ok to start out in budapest, george, you know, over the last few cycles and it's been made apparent 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 article 5 of the nato treaty, what is what it is and what it isn't. 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 if 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. 5 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 russia responds fmla 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 that nato certainly is in defense of 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, 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. and then 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 in the door so many years. new clarity. and basically this is a lot, just the facts, feelings and its new credit gets main. your. you know him,

i feel like you are after the break up all the sudden basically isn't you russian authorities democratically elected president yeltsin. they came to the family. so they said we have, these are be some friendship or making $48.00. you know, they're guaranteed your security and your one year and the been that don't you think that you know, these are to meet when all this thinking so people and since the early nineties have been reached in a way that states that home with us the same story was basically, you know, the law, 8 years after 2014, the we the conductor together with natal. don't, don't so many dangerous seem if you do think even thinking, well that's right, that in dame some people might see some,

you know, some evidence for when it was active or not so much about defending. they were about taking any action. so basically, even freeland, we've been doing need to, which i doubt, you know, the summer, this will not change much. situational. the ground, you know, defect to these countries inside need me, yes. now a 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 thing that you had there gauge, protect them too. so for russia, it's not a big change. oh police. and if some people of you, oh, you know, they're erase was not justified just because in one sweden,

b or no, this is ration was justified because such post on campus s door jamb will go over. the suddenly changed the rhetoric 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. first of finland and sweden. i mean, i'm just, wilford, 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 the 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 that went along with sweden. enjoy a considerable reputation 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, you know, 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 will be in finland, the baltic state, sweden, they, they will, they will be in the right of that will. they will be immediately targeted and you know, when, when you're a war, you have to then, you know, go for your immediate target, cut off and basis of their ports. so that in all of those way. so the status that at least you might have enjoyed being outside of a major even even as the most agenda or any kind of the fact that i want to make. but at least you enjoy your status like that that would of spend you. now, if there's a conflict, you know, that's it, you'll get, you're going to be attacked. and that's 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 um, and on the one hand article 5, at least in theory, accorded you collective security. but the, the, the copy on it is that it should never, ever be tested. ok. and that's the trick. and 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 and european union isn't unified as much as they like to say. 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 anymore. 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, old place. right. and we remember or not they, you know, neither. and again, it's rob. so need on the back or invoking article. and the you are the right the both in the stages. i mean you benefit huge the promise you good. the status during that whole a lot of financial infect you feeling was our saw, your west, you know, when it was last few months we were huge, huge us general, committed a logo, dustin wanted together and know where to reach rocky. just

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 now than they were getting old was because propaganda and i'm sorry. there was no orientation for began that unique yet. and of course you did it just like there was no anti dark. there is some have to, i have to break in here. we have to go to a hard break to hard break. and after that hard break, we'll continue our discussion on some real estate and r t i oh, look forward to talking to you all. that technology should work for people. a robot

must obey the orders given by human beings, except where such order that conflict with the 1st law show your identification. we should be very careful about artificial intelligence. and the point obviously is to create trust rather than fear. i would like to take on various job with artificial intelligence, real somebody with a robot. most protective phone existence with a bill should completely new industry to restore. just look up from literally a muscle around noon. she doesn't being in the green shield on

a nurse to me as possible. mama could go through 6th grade to somebody to look up to his ashley. uh this morning to work with me for one to move 3. if this sort of cool, jason did, did you bring out a chain of crimes in the for furnished or something like that and then we got that was there with them with welcome back. across that were all things are considered. i'm hearing the bell. this is the home addition to remind you were discussing some real news. ah, i got, i can imagine you were making for the 1st part of the program. you got to finish up

there, go ahead. well, just neutrality, you know, utility benefit of sealant economic over years. and now where do reach russians go if they want to have a foreign bank account, if they want to do business, you general where really find the mutual county not to finland? lot to switzer switzerland and the 2nd case they go to the biggest that they go to cover some remarkably, these are the truly neutral countries. now, i mean, a refuse to join the scientists again, fresh marble. so if you do have for the sessions again, it was biggest. i was completing you to wipe. they take marley from west 8, they'd marnie from russia. they in g green us together, you know, so in a secure way, oh sorry, didn't jeans now. i know the truly your tro economically beneficial areas. you know,

the soho democracies have been injure and closer to the whole demo democracy at hopper say thing is a bit complicated. you know, watch me because it doesn't make any sense. but anyway, george, let me go back to you was continue our discussion on article 5 when it's really dig into it. because the reason why 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, you credit, at least claiming that they're going to arm a 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, her example that sending arms isn't that fair game in this conflict? and then would article 5 be invoked. and would other members of nato go along and

say, you know, 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 religions. i mean, they're, they're only talking about delivering arms to grant. we don't know how much is actually getting in out overnight. the was a report of a transport lane hadn't been shut down there on this up. i know that that may be true if true, then you wonder why haven't i been more a transport planes a shot down. but once you article belligerent then i, you know, it's in the old bed, it's all, i don't really see why it would be unacceptable that the russians do think it's unacceptable. why it would be an acceptable to say,

attack military base in poland. that is the, that he's 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? so when i was on the regression figures you, you are a co religion and everything that you do, all the constant propaganda campaign and open sabotage of any piece negotiation suggest that you are a global leader. now, as the media reported that the strike and base in the go, why it goes into effect on russia. now when they don't know why doesn't don't have a mobile and it's got it. so in gauge, you know, there's not actually, it's not a loan actor, it's acting on behalf of nate, who's got clearance from all the data. so nato has got itself involved in a non nature area. it's been violation of article once it's in violation of light.

it can then go back to that same tree which is violating. and so one would hope that countries such as hungary, victim of i'm as a know out of the car in vocal fund. and we hope others, you know, maybe it will be a new leadership in france. i mean, emerging after the election, also say no, you can't invoke article 5. you violated article one. he can so deem it good to continue this analogy here. this is the, the worst nightmare that not nato can imagine, because a specific member countries, the line when, for example, is decides to get into the, for a, in ukraine, in that, that does not necessarily mean and it's nato policy that they haven't actually set a policy so it would have more acting as a pre actor outside of the alliance. but even this is the worst nightmare that

somebody, an analyst of that is, it will take one country to pull everybody else. it is, george was saying right here. and so what would be, you know, all one for all one, all for one and one for all can turn into a situation where an article by just completely falls apart. it's like saying 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 in 1999, all russia want ruffles. what that you are thinking caucus with their huge all police, but then we will pull in them was already already to move groups. so there is some order. there were all kinds of statements made, you know, when they're still it is gone for most of the day to lead the spectrum of things

over the last 10 years that you know, the west have been a huge, rational sending. bowen, jeers and poland was suggesting that if you do the thing, you know, and it was there were some or dish volunteers. su, though indeed, it's a very dangerous game with all get all the nato countries in rule not have a deeper don't you think that the post leadership been lead believes that they can actually force the alliance to follow its way, which i think is a mistake. i think that that's something that is a miscalculation george. you want to think 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 the owners of acting alone, i mean, we know that the united states is using its satellite intelligence to provide its

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 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 that zalinski now is not, it doesn't feel like negotiating at all about anything with the russians with where he was. maybe up to 3 weeks ago is a result of the united states encouragement and the united states, telling 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 miss the united states is a villager now was russia contact the united states, but i think russia can attract poland, and i think russia can then say, you know,

maybe it may be more specific. maybe this will be the pedantic, but maybe you said a top poem that i would be more for dancing as a a tack of bass in guy. i agree, but i just don't know exactly not want to think like a military base and saying the same with rocky. i think, you know, with russia being a good, very good position to attack some small in nature files that have got themselves in the market or 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 going to see and see how others respond to. i'm sure there's a reason why the war bounce, that nobody is sending anything via hunger. it because or mine is realizing you send it to 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 sent the weapons in your fight. don't drag us into your fight. a demon on the same token here, going back to england and sweden, there mowing,

joining the north atlantic treaty organization. but it may be a undefined name, co conspirator, po, belligerent and a finish is taken out because it's, it's, it's been found 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 care of it. will they be obligated to help finland, for example. i mean, again, the name, it's all in the minutia here. it's very, very unclear. will nato go to war over finland when it's not a member state just like ukraine. go ahead. well, i'm coming back to what you just said. you know, i will, boyish down and act unpredictably. well, i mean, read the western press about the forty's government from the last 4 years. the western breast officials in brussels has been seen that she is mad,

that he is dictatorial, that he's unpredictable, that he's dangerous. and now when russia is using the same adjectives of opportunity suddenly with you, oh no, no, no, no, no, no, no. what is government is different. it's stable. it's not going for you. you know, it's no friends with her from natal, did you grade was no rush right now was it's not true and the west coast to develop some kind of logic here because right now they just come to direct again with the, with us, with the still very rude in russia and nationally because of all these years. but if you listen to some of the wires, if we her, the swedish, but it just all the friends, it's really dangerous. i mean, the whole madness of our russian san luis. yes. there was one that actually,

you know, with the heat, shallow water. and since last, i mean in the last, oh, i see 6 years. every year they said russian summaries with sweden is now a weaponized dolphins or something like that in writing george, you know, i think when we look back in history here, when, if sweden were to join nato, i think they'll be 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, and what if sweet enough and what to join us, nate roches, borders direct borders with nato will double that cannot 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 defense because this is of the right time to be joining a turning. it's a turning article, buying into some kind of stupid drinking game in 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 in r t c and see you next, i'm remember ah, ah, ah

ah ah, ah, ah, nice benefit of these are not girls, martin and. busy i think they were getting as made their mistake all things that always bullied, there'll be no, there'll be. and despite those that help away space providing or grain, but no single american georgia clusters so grand with

move ukraine a big and rich country that's always been hand in hand with russia until recently. 2014, a qu divides ukraine and leads to fratricidal war. and on bus. a war that continues to this on the edge of a large field near low ganske, the mass grave. local say that the people buried here are mostly civilians who are allegedly killed by ukrainian paramilitary groups in the summer of 2014. this was with a mr. alcorda but.