ah, ah ah, ah. hello in welcome to cross top, were all things are considered. i, peter lavelle, you came foreign. secretary was truss the same person who actually knows very little about foreign policy and geography is called for a global nato. i suppose we can file that under rules based order. the fact is, the geopolitical order is in collapse the same order the west created. ah,

to discuss these issues and more, i'm joined by my guests glen these and in oslo. he's a professor at the university of south easter norway, as well as author of the new book, russo phobia propaganda in international politics. and we cross to george m u l e. in budapest, he's a pod, castro, the goggle, which can be found on youtube and locals. a gentleman cross stock rolls. in fact, that means you can jump in any time you want, and i always appreciate it. i'm going to start out with glen in our slow i glen. i suppose we shouldn't be surprised that we have the u. k. foreign secretary talking about a global nato. we've talked about it on this program, but you know, this trust is a presentation that we can put it that way. i really was, um, i'm a vision that should terrify all of us because a global nato, as we have said on this program, is essentially short circuiting international law i. e, cementing western had gemini over the global system. most of the world is on board

for that, but i guess nobody told lives, go ahead. i agree, and i think this is a bumbling down on what was done wrong with the cold or because again, when the cold war came to an end. initially, we had agreements about creating this coming year with common security, with russia instead of against russia, with russian weakness. i think we embrace this concept of hedge a monic piece. and this is again, this is built into all of us national security strategy. if it's overwhelmingly dominant, no countries can aspire to challenge it, then this will be the foundation of peace. but obviously this depends on marginalizing rising power, russia, china, iran. so, so this kind of creates professional conflict and now that you have an actual, not the future, most of most other, but the multiple narratives here, you know, you can go to it as it runs to create a new international order based on recognizing this different of power and having security where we minimize the security line, which we have agreements,

how us threaten crush are trying to minimize the threats against us and, but that's not the way we're going to tough as you're suggesting. let's double down the goal in which means let's go global meadows in which envision democracy to some of the world countering authoritarians. but this is largely in my opinion of this stuff because the world is not divided alone. you know, this idea of this new cold war ideology between democracy in frontier and isn't russia, i think for authoritarianism, the world is you know, this isn't the mind of how so indeed you see countries like india, the largest democracy in the world and then are going against russia and also on the other side, you have a lot of authoritarian states linked with the united states. so i think this is global nato as a way on trying to shape and shape the narrative of this being this huge global conflict of good versus evil. 3 versus hearing. so again, did this,

this is what the, how, how major space form their language conflicts. so in the nature of this has this really long habit of being that friendly, smiling smiley face alliance. george george, one of the interesting things from a presentation is that russia is the enemy, china is the enemy. i mean that the mask is off right now. ok. no longer talking about projection of stability and all of this. no, i mean there, there is no such thing as the indivisibility of security and she said it ok, so we know where we stand. go ahead, george. well, definitely we, we know where we stand here are saying is that she title her or the return of geo politics. there was no geo politics and anything that she said, i mean, you're probably supposed to be about the influence of geography on the international relationship. so say there was nothing about geography that there wasn't really even very much about economics. it was a purely

a logical statement of intent. now, not only did you talk about the global nature, she said that the g 7 has to be an economic nature. i'm going to use this body of the g 7, which was supposed to be helping countries out during the sessions and other economic land was not going to use all the to wage a war against russia. and to a lesser extent, china, i mean, she's got some good china, a little bit later on. and she also talked about not giving countries access to the global economy as if somehow the global economy is the private property. all the g 7 hours. it was a declaration of war. i mean, there's no question when she went to what she was stating. there was a declaration of war on the part of the leading western powers and said, you know,

if you don't follow off, we are just going to destroy you. we're going to destroy economically. show you militarily because, you know, i was a military. so it's a vision that can lead to war. i mean, just no way, you know, you can, i mean, she didn't even have the usual proviso that other dignitaries have been told. and i would say, well, we must still maintain the dialogue with russian issues that matter to us. she didn't even say there, she just one doesn't want any dial and it's just all out war. it least, least during the cold war. we, everyone kind of warmed up to the idea of peaceful coexistence. ok? i mean that, that actually, you know, is what got us through the cold war, excepting that you're going to be out there the other side, is there. ok. and we will engage when necessary, though they're still an ideological military. political enemy list doesn't even go that far. what, what i find remarkable in or should unremarkable is it or

a speech. there are references the international law, but only that reinforce western gemini and little u. k is being the arbiter of all things. i mean, you know, that speech started like you could win for like, what? 1872, maybe 1912. but it doesn't fit into 2022, that's my reading. i had one of course, and i think this is why made a very difficult to recruit again, this global campaign, outside of nato. the few countries who are taking active sites and putting sanctions. this is pretty much conflict between 0 and, and russia, and this is again, one of the problems that we had over the past 30 years, given that we've never removed the dividing lines. we're just competing where the new dividing lines on the continent should be. so this is why the rest of the world looking and throwing really, really is written after you, flavio iraq, libya, are they really the champions of international law?

so i think in the west, the moral authority, which we often assume that we have when it comes to this, i think you are, i think are correct on what your 1st is. because you know why they recognize the british media now. she's trying to channel through her in their margaret thatcher, if she wants to be, you know, this is, this is how much is going for, you know, the actual own lady she was, she was putting on these topics there, but she also recognized for just that the need to actually find some middle ground and accommodate your others. there is on why you refuse. i'll try any compromise or a combination of the on and so security interest and then full war and full decide the mixture rate enemy is the only possible outcome. and this is, this will be this after, so i think she maybe fell in love with make sure instead of the reality and it's, it's very dangerous i'm, i'm not sure how serious you're taking her because i know that she's making

a bit of a pitch for the domestic audience, they want to that there's a lot of pressure on britain also breaks it to find your new role in the world. and without this political role within the you, it's trying to have this military role that in their own. and this is the source of influencing your, it's leaving the, from this meeting, the fight against russia. it's a military camp. and of course, they have real concerns about russia as well. this is also large, extend about finding britain strong. you know, georgia. i mean, obviously she's making a pissed to her that she's wants is essentially backstabbing morris johnson, which is very popular right now. and in finding a role for the u. k. after after briggs in, this is a perfect way of going your way into european institutions. but i would pass it to both of you. the more the neoliberalism fails, the more it becomes rhetorically. and i,

and that's what i found the speech to be so remarkable, is that it's, it's a, it's, it's reach, it's an intensity. as everything is falling apart around them. ok, i mean the, the sanctions that have been imposed on russia does hurt russia, but the blow back is even worse on europe as we all predicted george. yes, there's a question and written is indeed suffering economic consequences for food prices shooting out gas prices shooting up and the government is on a school and substantially in the polls is likely to so be calamities in the upcoming local elections. so this policy isn't in any way or something of popular uh, within the country. so yeah, yeah, she's obviously making your political calculation that you know bars. johnson is

for the bugs and she will be in place to pick up the pieces. it seems hard to believe that britons really want this what, what she's offering because what she really offering is that, yeah, we're now out of the, you. but we found the mechanism whereby we're actually going to dominate you because you is now going to be a subordinate. so, and we as a loyal kugal of the united states will get to polish. so she was very mocking about the germans. you know, the german fantasies are going to change russia, route trade. that's all out of the window. so she's very much, we are going to be the leaders of europe. thanks to later. it can happen. britain just simply doesn't have economic and military strength to do so. and she's evidently forgotten, all of the military fiascos, just sheer military incompetence of britons, recent campaigns. i mean,

it was in iraq or afghanistan. we so just doesn't have any of the resources for the global roll. she envisages. well, i mean, george, i mean, since we have, we go from winter to went through the upcoming winter in the new k. there are a range of estimates, but quite a few people are fuel insecure. i suppose fighting for democracy in ukraine will make up for the cold when they're sitting in their homes. but don't eat. i wonder, george, you know, people are ideologically motivated, the days go ahead. i think as you talk to you, great, you brain and you cranes fight is all i can really explain how. how are you crazy by the fight, the brave. i mean, your brains know when they were, even though your brain has never been in any way, you kind of a national interest of, you know, military alliance exist with. so she just makes this assertion. oh,

you cranes fight is our fight that we was or in definitely resources do it. it's just battling, i mean like everything else about that speak with. well, it's certainly a wedge to maintain the of the relevance of nato, which we've discussed quite opposite of this program. gentlemen, i'm going to jump here. we're going to go to a short break. and after that your break, we'll continue our discussion on some real me. ah, ah, ah, ah,

ah, mm. and only one main thing is important for naziism, internationally speaking to that is that nations that's allowed to do anything, all the mazda races, and then you have the minor nation. so all the slaves, americans, proc obama and others have had a concept of american exceptionalism. international law exist as long as it serves the american interest. if it doesn't, it doesn't exist by turning those russians into this danger is go, you man, that wants to take over the world. that was

a conscious strategy. so some golf out of it, on your own, i not leashed off tim zip on and tablet loc nato's it. it's ours. we moved east and the reason us, hey jim, it is so dangerous, is it? the law is the sovereignty of all the countries. the exceptionalism that america uses in its international war planning is one of the greatest threats to the populations of different nations. if nature, what is valid shareholders in united states and elsewhere in large obs companies would lose millions and millions or is business and business is good and that is the reality of what we're facing, which is fashion. ah, welcome back to crossed out. were all things are considered? i'm peter labelle. this is the home addition to remind you. we're discussing some

real news. ah or let's go back to glen in oslo. you know, talking about the continued nato expansion, which essentially is the origins of the conflict that we see in ukraine. right now . we can, i can get away from the mean who's winning and who's losing. because depending on your media, you know menu, what you're consuming, you're going to get radically different opinions on who's winning and who's losing and ukraine. and one thing that's for sure, gentlemen, at least a lot of promises promises of a massive military legal aid to ukraine is in the, in the works here. one has to wonder, considering timelines rushes almost out of ammunition though general milling that thoroughly modern guy says a can go on for years. i mean,

even within their own discourse, i have no idea what they're talking about. glenwell go to you 1st. there was definitely a narrative problem because, well, the way i read the conflict so far has been, well initially russia was talking to and towards the capital. and this was trying to get a quick, quick victory. and, and also convincing landscape to, you know, find some agreements on however, when that didn't come through, it's a good way of tying up a huge amount of courses in their position around the capitals and if allowed for us to place, maybe it's true or shape them i don't know, so put their logistics in place by connecting us with crimea, and it will effectively encircling much on the bulk of the training troops which have been and more less than built up towards the front line, a bus prior to the war. so, so,

so i think when the russians pull out of it away from the narrative in the west of us, look, the russians are running, we're winning. and again, we, the nato in the agreements are winning their yes, go ahead. yes, every title is on the headlines there's, you know, putting us last, you know, and then finally this is them, the end of the regime and the rush. you know, i think going to the, had some runs. and now now we kind of waking up to the reality that actually on the past 2 months, rush has been fumbling away at the front lines of some bus weakening their front. they've been cutting off a lot of supply chain supply routes. so now you have severely weakened ukrainian defense law and i munition low fuel and poor supply and, and over the past 2 weeks with the russian began to punch through a lot of this front lines in the southern america of us change because we're seeing out of the, especially britain in the us, some reports coming out that the actually you came from might be homeless. and if,

if this is where most of the groups are, and if this falls, you know, russia, him a tens of thousands or 100000 troops which can just marsh in response to this i'm, this is creating some pattern, but it's also creating some need to change market, russia losing, on the other hand, is full panic. also, now we have to send in an ungodly amounts of weapons to turn to tide. so it's the narrative. it's very confusing, especially open in the british or german newspaper who had jumping on that george because you know, you, you get the feeling because russia, the russians didn't take you, didn't take care of. was that part of the battle plan? does anyone in the west know what the plan was? they all assume they do, but you know, that's why i've always found it. funneling, is it? well, maybe that was just a blocking effort to do what they wanted to do in the east. and now what's being,

we see the crumbling of the mill and the military, ukrainian military in the east and camp has no strategic value whatsoever. because because it's not part of the plan to control all of ukraine. if it is, it hasn't been revealed. go ahead. oh, that's exactly right, and that's with the state of the western media commentary since february, the 24 o 2 tennis fail because students fail to take care of but no plan anywhere to suggest that that was ever the goal of russia saying, well, i don't think it ever was because it doesn't make a lot of sense to go into the big cities where tanks can't really maneuver very well. and your victim of snipers. i mean, they're essentially just, you know, meet grinders. i mean, this is where a military just get destroyed,

trying to take it is. i mean, it was always about a particularly did it on february the 20. well, there was about liberating the don't go down the people's republic and what he called a decent demilitarization and the navigation. and that i think is going ahead. i mean, obviously they the destruction of the also forces in mario. i mean that that's been done. and i think either the military they should, will be effective as the late russians will eventually destroy the both of the ukraine in army in the east. and i think that with that will be that i think what will then have accomplish goals. i mean, i think that they may well go for decimal, but again, i haven't really been specified that, that that will be the case. but if you're on the way the russians are calculating and if lou wes continuous or in this weapon rate to ukraine,

then i think that will just go farther. they will just simply take the grains black, the coastline that way, the basic to control the other line of the black, pico line, and then that's it. like i said, leave the rest of ukraine to nato. ok. you want this rump state? they said, that's really what i surmise from the very beginning. no one wants to say it publicly a little bit on the branches, but essentially we're, we're going to have a partition. russia has no interest in western new grade whatsoever. by the way to polls do, we'll see how that plays out. that could be very interesting, but it's good in a run state isn't making it's really interesting. after the month of one month, the conflict couldn't settle for what the russians were proposing because he didn't have control over the dog bats. and he didn't have control over creamy, as he would've been giving away something. he didn't even control. now that his change, that is a major shift in this because at the end of the day,

it's not what moscow is going to control. it's going to be what you have controlled and that it gets smaller with every same day. go ahead one. yeah, i agree, and that's one of the problems of continuing this or i mean that and that. and then because that way, i know that the training forces are, are suffering defeats in ukraine and him signed on bus, older escalate, tori and by the west in terms of helping ukraine is making things worse. now obviously i can see the closing argument that you know, supplying weapons, helping them to defend themselves. and you know that this is, you know, a moral and right thing to do. however, one has to be honest, one is actually happening because when russia 1st went in and they were very open, they didn't want to even strike you too many ukrainian troops in their parents didn't want to go out for the electricity. they don't take the water, no civilian infrastructure, but now, but once, once it keep did not want to negotiate and you know,

walked away from the negotiations a russian. now the massage is just, they have to defeat is troops and they won't be pulled out them. and that's why, you know, the russians have just have more artillery. they are fighting well, but again, it's all up. and then the russians have a lot more children and they're just pulling them back. so this force, they're being either destroyed or captured now. so there's a lot of destruction and now that the west is pumping in this building and building some dollars of new weapons. well, i would rush responded, well, we'll really see them and they want to prevent it from entering the front line. so now there's a lot of attacks on the railway networks, energy station bridges, a lot of this infrastructure which is also needed for an economy. but it is to prevent these troops from reaching the front line, creating all next group. so as soldiers which can hit before they reach the front line. so this somebody, every to help you crane countries being punched more and more into becoming huge

wars on. and again, some of this is predictable in the united states. kind of nancy said dsl creating, making you credit cards. my written, you have to understand to drain russian sources will have to be honest. what that means. it means making your credit trust, honest on that means it will be devastated. and, you know, it doesn't mean or, you know, of course you can blame can be put all around. but the whole point is to what extent is this escalation and interest of ukraine and to watch interest, or is it only for, for, for united states which is about finger openly. our goal is to believe that the russians drive, we want to a regime change once a decisive victory over them. so if this is the goal or we help in your cravings, i mean, we, then, are we destroying, you know, using them up as a whole year? well, as a found the russians, but then, you know, sacrificing the training on the way. i think this is

a necessary discussion to have, but we don't have it in the west because if we suggest that the west is, i'm actually hoping for sacrificing if you would be labeled propaganda of the kremlin. and you will be counseling, georgia, that the cynicism is so calling it's, it's hard to comprehend. i mean, 1st of all, on the complete one sidedness of coverage of the conflict, only using ukrainian sources, leaving the ukranian government. but then need to look at that all the sums of money and weapons. well, if you get into the minutia, george, it's basically a lot of junk, a less. i mean it's like 30 years old. it over. ok, is it work? nobody knows, but we sent, you know, i mean like these are what german tags that don't even work. they have made for a long time and they're hardly any. what are we getting went around? actually, it's a new grain. we training into, to use that. i mean, the cynicism is it's, it's going and it, like i said,

it's very difficult to comprehend because it is the west is fighting a propaganda war. it's not really anything to help you. great in north carol, i had a policy 9 united states. okay. i know most of the later about ukraine, but then you know, you, great is a mechanism for mobilizing nato, mobilizing the way to wage this geo political struggle. that list trust is talking about. so yeah, along this goes on the longer the imagine that this is just going to bleed russia the better this will be a good get georgia where everybody into and they don't. but one thing i don't care about is the life of you gradients . and then you have to then wonder about what kind of

a leadership ukraine has that they don't see where this is going, that this is actually destroying. they come to the, you know, within 5 years, the be very little of this country left a go and try it the same time. i'm glad you brought up the current leadership in ukraine because whenever you have something like this, inevitably, george, that will be the stab in the back. why did we succeed? nato failed. that's west failed. and then you get into what you and i talked about a very often a growing civil war. so even when we have hostilities come to when a civil war will continue, gentlemen, that's all the time we have one thing i guess. and also when a good person with watching us here, are you next time? remember a

tonight is for your rebuttal proposal. see whether not black ah still open yet still green scott autumn. yeah. who disposed of what kind of port got missed this deal with the way? would it be all that good news for you to pick up? would you would show them what difficulties was to like to set up on a bus to reload the day of school or throw that then you soon? it has been really well. yes, you said all of us know who i talk to later this, but if you're with you move in pushy, i get some pushy. you get a book or 2. so a boy,

somebody see wayne lee could i do them by say ah ah, north atlantic alliance recognizance at grafton warships cruising close to russia's borders, have become commonplace along with military hardware redeployment and large scale exercises. nato has also developed its offensive capability near the russian borders every year.