ah ah 2 should be rich, but curious pursuer is more. thank you so much for finding the time in your busy schedule to talk to us. but thanks for inviting me. if it's a big game, one must play, grow him or her big game, high stakes. i'm sure that a lot of what's being said in washington is at odds with how you see the situation yet. i think you will probably support one thing that president joe biden sat in that world war 3 is something we must strive to prevent. look, rebels, we need to acknowledge the rescue. a former assistant secretary of defense and harvard university professor graham allison, whom you know, well, has written that to day situation is as explosive as it was during the cuban missile crisis of 1962. it could in fact, be even more dangerous to if there's less clarity about the rules of the game and

even more mutual distrust. so what do you think about the crisis we are all facing? how deep is it? how real is it? what cannibal russia do about it? or susan duluth, russia is already doing a lot for years during donald trump's presidency. we were calling on the u. s. on russia's presidents to reaffirm once again together the joint statements adopted by president gorbachev and reagan, back in 1987, which said quote, a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. we tried really hard to convince president trump's administration that it was crucial for both our nations on the entire world to hear this message from the u. s. president. again, unfortunately, we couldn't convince our american partners that make and such a statement was a necessity. we may quick progress with present biden's administration. however, in june 2021, the president of the united states and russia made this joint statement in geneva, january 2022 saw yet another initiative of ours on this track bring some positive results. prior to the next scheduled review conference of the parties to the treaty

on the non proliferation of nuclear weapons, all 5 permanent member states of the united nations security council adopted a joint statement that said the same. all 5 leaders put their signatures under the statement that says a nuclear war is an acceptable. we are committed to this position and we stick to it as our guiding principle. today, there is a fairly high i would hate for anyone to boards out of proportion artificially. however, there are many you seem to wish to though. the risk, however, is the, it's real, it shouldn't be underestimated during the cuban missile crisis of 1900. 62 there went so many written rules. so to say, the code of conduct was pretty clear. moscow had a clear understanding of washington's moves. washington had a clear understanding of moscow's moves today. there are not so many rules left that the new strategic arms reduction treaty. it was a very positive and wise foreign policy decision made by president biden to support russia's proposal, an agree on a 5 year extension on new starts with no p conditions. president trump administration wasn't willing to do that. the same time,

other tools and mechanisms that allow to control the arms and nonproliferation agreements are in a shambles. we no longer have the anti ballistic missile treaty or the intermediate range nuclear forces. are i n f treaty? the united states keeps rejecting our proposal to enforce a moratorium on the deployment of short intermediate range nuclear missiles. despite the fact that we have agreed on the need to reconcile verification mechanisms. with key objection is that they can't simply trust the cleaning grad, deployed escandone systems comply with the i n f treaty requirements. we propose exchanging delegations, so our american partners could inspect the base and cleaning grad while we would get the chance to visit us space in poland or mania. it's an honest deal, but they still keep saying no. the treaty on open skies is also dead. it no longer exists. the new start treaty is the only remaining tool to control the arms that we have. we initiated the talks with us about what can be done after the 5 year

extension runs its course, which is 4 years from now. since the common understanding is that the u. s. is not planning to extend it any more. we have to fruitful rounds of talks in july and september 2021. when the feedback we collected after that, made it clear that we have some serious disagreements and the both sides understand what they are. we have to work in groups established that were tasked with defining the scope of the agreement and pacific threats to be considered during the talks in the future. the united states refused to maintain all this work because russia was forced to defend the russian population in ukraine. they, yes, those people were bombed by the official regime and no one in the west seem to care . the west only encouraged kids, russell phobic, neo nazi policies. when kids outlaw the use of the russian language in all space, including education, mass, media, and everyday life, and encourage neo nazi ideas and practices. but we were talking about rules, you see the united states and the allies like to refer to the rules when they demand the everyone else quotes behave well. it's when they no longer urge everyone

to observe international law, but rather to respect the world order and its rules. there's no definition of what those rules are whatsoever. you said there are not so many rules today for there are no rules, it's all. there is the international law and we respect it as well as the un charter. the key principle here is the sovereign equality of all un member states. the us keeps violating its commitment to the un charter by promoting its own rules and demands that the entire world should follow its lead. no questions asked, as well as the lead of america's true allies, men in europe and a few asian nations us does not on the commitment to respect the sovereign equality of all states in fights. it blatantly violates this equality by trying to make everyone follow the rules it wants imposed, wants us treasury, sex to johnny yellen said one is a perfect definition of what these rules are about. she spoke on a different topic for what she said applies nonetheless. she was talking about the

need to reform the bretton woods institutions, didn't have to choose her words carefully like diplomats do. and she said quite clearly that in no case should the reforms lead to creating a bipolar world. she said that the u. s. had to work closely with china and ensure that beijing understands as much. it was perfectly clear. the u. s. needs a unipolar world the way they already see it, and other reforms have to stay within the unipolar world philosophy. back in the day, the trump administration supported the idea of reforming the w t o. as it became clear with time china was smart enough to out play the u. s. using the u. s. promoter platforms is globalization concepts and all the rules is no wonder that washington ended up blocking the video dispute settlement body that had already received plenty of claims from china, employing procedural loopholes. the u. s. keeps blocking all new hires to the d. s . b. when it has no corum, it cannot function. when it came to the debris, theo platform, washington declared that it had to be carried out by the u. s. in europe, while china should be kept away from it, just stating their plans bluntly,

in such an unprofessional way, has recently become our western partners, m. o. they are completely unscrupulous. they openly state that they intend to lead that nato can do whatever it likes. they can say, nato is a defensive alliance. so there is no need to be afraid of. it's as this organization does not pose a threat to anybody security. and at the same time, nato secretary general, you install, tim burks as that nato is globally responsible for the world security even in the endo pacific region and another fight. after the war. so, patch was dissolved and the soviet union collapsed. nato moved its line of defense since they claim to be a defensive alliance from the berlin wall towards russia's border 5 times than he was not to be afraid and ashore. knows that this was no threat to russia's security . it was rather a blunt and impolite way of telling us that we are not the ones decide what was best for our own security. another plan to move the defense line of their defensive alliance into the south china sea. this is what the orcus and quad security parks

are about. and now they're trying to get japan, south korea, and half the asian members into orchestra. they are trying to dismantle the entire security architecture that has been built over decades and was based on consensus and participation of all major players, including us, russia, india, japan, china, and australia. everything is being be shaped, a common, it's the unit polarity principle, the u. s. is trying to save at all costs for everyone is repeating mantras that world war 3 must be prevented. and it's within this context that we should consider ukrainian president zalinski, and his team's repeated provocations that almost amount to demands that nato troops be deployed in ukraine to defend its government. and everyone keeps saying they will continue providing care with weapons, which also serves to add fuel to the fire. they want to keep the ukrainians fighting against russia. these arms supplies to the last soldier, in order to portray this military conflict for as long as possible in order to make

russia suffer more, that's what they hope to achieve. and while they continue pumping weapons into ukraine and publicizing their efforts on this, tried all western leaders, except for poland, rule out the possibility of sending nato troops to the conflicts college prime minister, mateus moore of etzky, proposed some sort of a peacekeeping operation. ukraine is in that warsaw is interested in sending his troops to ukraine as peacekeepers. you can only imagine what happens next when the polls enter the land that once used to be their own. i weston, ukraine. we can only imagine how their historical nostalgia might go and play out. so what should we do? is it's similar to the cuban missile crisis back then there was a communication channel. both leaders trusted. this isn't the case to day and nobody's trying to establish one. or there were some timid attempts at the early stages, but they weren't successful. we've abandoned all hope of making nato listen to us. nato continued to expand despite their promises not to despise our warnings. they pumped ukraine with weapons and encouraged anti russian policies introduced by

prison par shanker and promoted by prison zalinski. we warned that ukraine joining nato was an acceptable to us as a good will gesture. we made our last attempt and proposed the u. s. and nato. to sign security treaties that would ensure security of all nations in the euro, atlantic region including ukraine. everybody new ukraine was the proverbial apple of discord that tapped into much bigger global problems and triggered the processed . we propose to agree on ensuring security for all nations collectively, without expanding any military and political blocks. the u. s. and nato listened to us politely and then said they won't be able to curb the expansion. it will go against their open door policy. they said, well, we've stood it the north atlantic treaty, article 10 says nothing about open doors is allowed to invite new members upon member states agreement. if they meet the requirements. and more importantly, if new members can strengthen the security of the alliance. no open doors leave invited, montenegro, north, macedonia, and albania. how could lee state strengthen the security of the lions?

if its purpose is defense? the shows that the expansion of nato has nothing to do with its formal goals. they expand their territory under the u. s. leadership to strengthen the u. s. lead unipolar world. we held us russia talks. i had a meeting with antony, blinking our team visited nato to present the draft agreements in the russian nato format. all it showed was that nobody was interested in considering a lawful security interests of. we kept telling them we're friends. this is right on our border on multiple occasions present. brewton said they were at our gates, despite all our appeals declarations and warnings, they just came to our border and said they weren't going to change anything. they said it had nothing to do with russia and that there was no threat to our security for how we supposed to react. now they've started to woo india. they want to drop into their formats. u. k prime minister johnson visited the country and so did the u. s. diplomats 1st deputy secretary of state sherman publicly declared that the u

. s. must have help india understand what it needs for its own security. they do not mince words and speak bluntly, even though india is a great civilization and not some tiny island nation. they're sending messages to china on the same lines, trying to explain what the punishment will be for supporting russia. and yet whenever the u. s. suddenly decides, there are threats to his national interest. many thousands of moments is away. b, it's the former yugoslavia, iraq or any other place in the middle east. they immediately send in their troops and bomb civilian targets without even consulting the international law. all the un charter we saw that in belgrade, blown up bridges, wrecked passenger trains and destroyed t. v. broadcasting center. it wasn't that t v. broadcasting center. it was a tool of aggressive serbian propaganda. tony blair said in the same vein prison micron denies archie and sputnik and accreditation to release a palace, calling them not media but propaganda outlets. these habits and behavior patterns

have deep roots. mosul in a rack and racket in syria were bombed into ruins. dead bodies stayed in the streets for weeks. the u. s. claimed there were threats to its security in those places on the other side of the ocean. the largest military base in the balkans was establishing cost over and it's not going anywhere. the pretext was the instability . this slumbered milosevic allegedly created in the region by allegedly oppress in kosovo, albanians let me emphasize this. once again, they think they can do whatever they wants in the name of their own security. while they deny us the right to secure our own borders and territories where russians have been oppressed for years, bombed humiliated strips of their rights, the language, culture and traditions of the problems are that the u. s. is absolutely sure it is always writes and exceptional democrats and republicans alike use a term exceptional nation. their sense of superiority brings back certain memories, especially today when was a phobia and re racism. i prejudice against everything russian are promoted at the

highest level. canadian prime minister trudeau said recently the vladimir putin and all the supporters must be punished. i think that's all russians will have to pay for what's going on now. and he was caught her. i don't think washington would even deny this. they would worded a little differently. they'd ask you, if you really believed that authoritarian regime should enjoy the same rights as the democratic ones, we were to sort of regrets both i do believe so the what for score we're, we're, and since you do and this is unacceptable to them, this defines the key difference between moscow's and washington's views. they claim nato as a defensive alliance in russia has nothing to fear, but what they mean us and we are not stupid or naive to think otherwise, only as long as you behave. that absolutely sure, yes, if a country is doing something that nato, as a democratic alliance thinks, is wrong, that country might have to face some consequences. i think nato doesn't really hide this. so what should we do about the ukraine crisis?

considering the risks you've mentioned in obvious clash of approaches to foreign relations and even the definition of the contemporary civilization, which they look at is a peaceful settlement of the ukrainian conflict, even on the table given its large scale and major disagreements and mutual lack of trust. between russia and the u. s. lead nato. willis thought the cook of sil us just like all other countries, the brag about being flawless. democracies have signed and ratified the un charter that operates on the key principle of sovereign equality of states. it doesn't say democracy should enjoy more rights than autocracies dictates ships or monarchies. all member states have equal rights. then there's the security council shore, but his difference, the reason why president roosevelt insisted on establishing security council with 5 permanent seats with vito powers is no secret. he didn't want the un to share the fates of the league of nations. without this mechanism, the un would have probably been long gone to slide the league of nations before it . it doesn't help when great powers can't invoke their privileges and negotiate the

rights of ito, forces them to negotiate for mutually acceptable solutions. at least that's how it was for many years. today, the u. s. and some of the western nations are trying to devalue this, right? they want to transfer the security council's mandate to the general assembly. this would allow them to twist any members, arms, blackmail them, or threaten them by targeting their bank accounts or their children's schools to ensure the majority of votes whenever they need it. this is a dangerous path. it makes the security council and these 5 members with the to rights, the only strong hold of international law. they're trying to replace everything else. prison biden held the 2020 wants to me to democracy for a reason. they're planning to hold another one this year and establish an organization that would, it's an anti un oil replacement. this is nothing new, of course. the west you're primarily and especially friends in germany, has been producing various platforms, calls to action and partnerships to address issues that the old ready on the you ends agenda for a while now. take, for example,

the partnership on the international humanitarian law is membership is by invitation only. when asked why they don't want to deal with the issue the usual way. i. e via the un refugee agency, or the un human rights office. they reply those bodies to on progressive. they say it's because there are some autocracies in the u. n. so members that are not democratic in north while they need to develop really progressive ideas. germany and france have established the alliance of democracies and the alliance of multilateralism. when asked why give up the un and the true multilateral organization, representing all the nations in the world, with an exception for someone recognize ones. they say the same in the u. n. there are those who are against multilateralism by wanting to bring together all the progressive pro multilateral nations, just like the you with it's multilateral partnership policy. so they want to build a block of those who share their views. again, this is all about the sense of superiority, coupled with the unwillingness to discuss important issues on platforms where they

can face the slightest opposition. they simply don't want to, it takes time while they want to implement the neo liberal reforms, a s a p. i also think it's because they feel they can't win history discussion if their opponents get the chance to present their arguments. just look at the invitation list to the summit for democracy. u. s. has never even recognized some of these countries of democracies washing and got a lot of criticism about his notions of democracy that allowed him to invite some countries. it's a clearly not democratic yet their strategic location fits the u. s. agenda. well, what the us wants to do is gather those countries under an umbrella of democracy, flatter them, and then use them to its own advantage. we use labels such as democracy, autocracy, or authoritarian regime. recently, political pundits in the us drop the label democracy when referring to india and begun calling it an electoral autocracy. instead. when i mentioned this to my indian friends, they smiled they know about it. there are many methods to try and put pressure on

the country. and speaking about the talks on ukraine, we know for a fact that both the u. s. and the u. k, that seems to be eager to fill it. solitary post breaks its existence with excessive activity, advised president zalinski to gradually toughen his dance instead of expediting. the talks became clear after the meeting in the stumble, as president putin already mentioned, it was the 1st time ukrainian site ever provided a list of their written proposal, signed by the leaders of the delegation. we are ready to incorporate them into the draft agreement. but there are a lot of areas for improvement to make them acceptable to both sides. but we welcome them. as a positive developments we received in is dumble, were the only written proposals ever provided by ukraine. so we made a draft agreement based on that and returned it to our ukranian colleagues. after that, they returned it with new requirements that were completely different from the est am ball list. this was a giant step back lennon style. maybe even 2 steps back and that was done on the

advice of our american and british colleagues, poland and the baltic states might have also played their part in it. just rather go to him till ukraine has toughened its dance and you look up, they've gone back on some requirements. russia was ready to accept and work on with it. we had drafted a document based on their proposals only to hear the ukrainian side come back to us with comments like this is wrong. let's remove this. let's come back to it later. despite, as we continue to talk via video calls and we keep explaining our position a week ago, following yet another online meeting, we submitted an update to draft incorporating all then you requirements. as we always do, we'll be waiting for apply for a week already. when president lensky was asked to comments on our proposals during a news conference, he replied, he never received or saw any. we asked the ukrainian delegation if they had been reporting to the president. they said he schedule is a very busy shows all too well what the present crane really thinks of the talks all the while he declares, if you prefer piece you we talked about one washington one. let's talk now about

what it does. i can't find the right words to describe the scope of american military assistance for zalinski and his government. it's unprecedented and quite unexpected. for me, at least one wish ukraine received $800000000.00 worth of assistance just 2 weeks ago. and then another 800 millions worth a week ago. now that the u. s. state secretary and secretary of defense have visited kiana. they agreed on yet another 700000000. no, yes, i need to go cuz it's not all for ukraine, but also for some of the eastern european states. it gets about half of this money . i don't know what's good for us. fair enough. then there is the question, what will be the consequences shipping the i am particularly interested in rushes, official position on this one. your personal viewpoint is also very important, no doubt. but could you please tell me what russia intends to do about all this? or perhaps moscow believes that all the efforts made by washington are unlikely to

bring about any meaningful changes in the current balance of power will be in your balances. you definitely know, appear to i've read several statements made anonymously by some of the u. s. army officials in regards to what happens to these weapons once they cross the ukrainian border and where they end up. they all said that they didn't have any information where these weapons might go. apart from tanks and armored personnel characters thousands of men pods have been supplied ukraine, which of the weapons used by terrorists. it was for a reason that russia and the u. s. used to have an agreement to keep each of the informed of any man part deliveries abroad. it helps make sure that neither party ever supplied lethal weapons to any one with an evil intent. javelins also man portable missiles, even if they were delivered for tanks, they can also be used by terrorists. where would all these weapons turn up? we're talking about thousands and thousands of weapons. her previous experience shows that these weapons will leave you crane as they would from many of the poly control country, especially one where the neo nazi battalions of an i don all the units do not have

beta supreme commander in chief and are proud of this. and occupy a special autonomous and untouchable place in the armed forces. these weapons will scatter, including back to the countries where they came to ukraine. these countries also groups of people, especially given the waves of migration, who would like to get their hands on such an opportunity. the u. s. military doesn't know where it's all going to end up. maybe they know about some things, but others they don't. what would the russian federation do when the of sold by rocks are drones, ukraine, a long time ago, they were used for many years to conduct reconnaissance in the dumbass to assist in bombing this region with the artillery of the armed forces ukraine. engross, violation of the minced agreements. the agreements were publicly buried by zalinski . he refused to comply with them as well as the decision of the normally summit in paris in december 2019. although there was nothing there about the guns, couldn't yet sk or russia. he had to adopt a law and the special status of don bass. that was all he had to do. he had to do

it. it didn't depend on anyone else. there. he signed up for it. then for 3 years, he lamented that russia was not fulfilling the men's agreements. this was a comedy, an imitation of negotiations on the implementation of agreed measures. now it's an imitation of negotiations on concluding agreements with the russian federation. sir is the imitation of democracy. the cancellation of democracy, culture, and the dictatorship of radicals. these weapons will be a legitimate targets for the russian armed forces operating within the framework of the special operation warehouses, including those in the west of ukraine have been designated as such, targets, more than once. what else do you expect? nato is essentially entering a war with russia by proxy and arming this proxy. there's a war on us for the weapons deliveries. this is another example of the americans been disrespectful towards international law and trying to introduce rules of their own, guided by the have your own way principal, the u. s. used to have around to doesn't. so we designed

a my 17 helicopters. there was a time when russia and the u. s. had a comprehensive joint projects involving cooperation on the afghan settlement, one of the nato, russia council initiatives. it was called the helicopter package for afghanistan. we supplied helicopters and the americans paid for them. we provided maintenance for the helicopters and they were passed to the afghan national security forces. now, washington publicly announces it is sending these helicopters to mister zalinski. we drew their attention to the fight that the vehicles were purchased and a military contract with russia's rosabelle on exports. this contract says that the helicopters in question can only be used for the needs of the afghan security forces and can be passed on to a 3rd party without russia's consent. the commitment not to pass the vehicles on to a 3rd party were stipulated in the end user certificates they were signed before. 2013. when the helicopter package was been implemented, hillary clinton was the u. s. secretary of state at the time. and then john kerry took the position, therefore, sending these helicopters to ukraine now would be

a direct violation of commitments in a critically important area of international relations. everything depends on the people who are controlling ukraine, managing the zalinski administration from a board. not as i mentioned, is stumble. it was at that meeting that the russian side receive ukrainian proposals on paper for the 1st time. we were prepared to take them as a basis and propose slight improvements of the wording. but we agreed with the contents of these proposals, in essence, the neutral status security guarantees the extent and procedure for granting the guarantees to give you a rough idea where they lay to departed from this concept. i don't want to give away any big secrets, but here's an example. the stumble document stipulated that there would be no foreign military bases in ukraine and no military jill's involving foreign troops would be conducted on his territory without the consent of all guarantee countries of this agreement, which includes russia. it was written in black and white. the final version we received falling our positive reaction to their initial proposals, when like this,

no military drills without the consent of the majority of the guarantee countries. can you see the difference? it's obvious. they did the same with a number of other proposals to there were 1st voiced in istanbul. i'd like to stress once again that's our general reaction to these proposals was positive. ah with restore you to look up for not only a muscle on noon, she doesn't being in the green shield on a nurse to me as possible. mamma could go through 6th grade to somebody to look up to his ashley. uh this morning with one to move for you. but of course jason did. did you bring out map of the genome?

i'm in middle orange or something like that and then we got that boy there, there was a valuable residential grain mika had them. oh when i was showing wrong, when i just don't move to safe out this day becomes the advocate and engagement. it was the trail. when so many find themselves worlds apart, we choose to look so common ground. ah ah

ah ah hello and welcome to cross top where all things are considered. i'm peter lavelle. there are 2 kinds of conflicts being fought in ukraine, a western design in controlled propaganda war targeting russia and a russian military campaign that is changing the security dynamics of the european continent. and western propaganda is hell bent on escalation. i

crossed sucking propaganda. i am joined by my guest carlin nixon in washington. he's a political animals and providence. we have vladimir goldstein. he is the chair of the department of slavic studies at brown university and. and also we have bjorn, nice that he is an author and head of kaleidoscope russian information center. our children cross stock rules and the fact that means you can jump in any time you want. and i always appreciate a vladimir, let me go to you 1st here. american officials really reveal themselves when they're asked about the conflict in ukraine. i in one a good example as they say, secretary defense, lloyd austin, in care of. he was asked about america's aims and all of this. and he said, the u. s. hopes, russia will be, quote, unquote, weakened by the war. but what does that have to do with ukraine? per say. other than, you know, it is a proxy go head vladimir inadvertently, you know, your asper barbara, or brandon ada propaganda. it meets that it goes it, their purpose is not so much.