and now go, no car with don't have any information about our meal turkeys all day. feel pretty so that that will stay industry. there are many thanks for joining us here on our tea international as always, plenty more stories to be found on our website. dot com ah ah, ah

ah ah ah, ah. hello in welcome to cross top, were all things are considered on peter lavelle. you came foreign secretary, liz trust, 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 our slow he is 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 crossed to george m u l e. in budapest, he's a pod, castro, the goggle, which can be found on youtube and locals high gentlemen cross stock girls. 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'm 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. if 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 doubling down on what was under, on the cold war because again, when the cold war came to an end, initially we had agreements about creating this common year with common security with rush instead of against about with rush and weakness. i think we embraced this concept of hedge a monic q piece and this is, again, this is built into all of us national security strategy. and 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 future more most, all about the multiple narratives here. you know, you can go to it as it wants to create a new international order based on recognizing these different polls of power and having security where we minimize the security, the landline, which we have agreements. how us breton ross are trying to minimize the best

against the u. s. and, but that's not the way we're doing tough. she's suggesting, let's double down the goal in which means let's go global nato in which you envision democracy to some of the world countering authoritarians. but this is largely, in my opinion of the stuff, but about the case because the world is not divided along. you know, this idea of this new cold war ideology between democracy, not frontier and isn't i think for a warrant here in the world, this is, you know, this isn't the mind of how so in the 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 arterial states linked with states. so i think this is global nato is a way on trying to shape shape the narrative of this being this huge global conflict of good versus evil, 3 versus authoritarian. so again, did this,

this is what the, how are all major states 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 liz is 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 least we know where we stand. go ahead, george. well, definitely we will know where we stand. the curious thing is that she title her or the return of geo politics. there was no geo politics and anything that she said a supposed to be about the influence of geography on the international relationships of state. there was nothing about geography that there wasn't really even very much about economics. it was a purely a logical statement of intent. not only did she talk about the global

nature, she said that the g 7 has to be an economic natures. i'm going to use this, this body of the g 7, which was supposed to be helping countries out during the recession and other economical angles. now we're going to use this all the 2 of 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 saying that was a declaration of war on the bottom 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. you william militarily because you know, obviously a military, so it's a vision that cannot lead to war. i mean, you know, there's just no way you know, you can, i mean, she didn't even have the usual proviso that other dignitaries have even told him. i would say, well, we must still maintain the dialogue with russian issues that matter to us. he didn't even say there, she just want 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, except that you're going to be out there the other side. is there. ok. and we will engage when necessary. no, there's 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 speech. there are

references the international law, but only that reinforce lester gemini and little u. k is being the arbiter of all things. i mean, you know, that's sounds like you're good for like what? 1872, maybe 1912, but it didn't. 2022. that's my reading. go ahead of course, and i think this is why nato, as found a very difficult to recruits. again, this is a global campaign outside of nato. few countries who are taking active size and putting sanctions, is it pretty much conflict between nato and, and russia? and this is again, one of the problems that we had over the past 30 years. given that we never remove 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 it's written after, you know, you're just 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 they're correct on your 1st is because when 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 island. you know, the actual own lady she was, she was putting on these topics there, but she also recognized that need to actually find some middle ground and accommodate your address. there is some way you refuse. i'll try any compromise or a combination of the opponent. so security interest and then full war and full. the decisive mixture enemy is the only possible outcome. and this is this will be this after. so i think she maybe fell in love with the voucher 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 poles and brakes to find a new role in the world. and without this political role within the year, it's trying to have this military role in their own. and this is the source of influencing your it's leaving from this meeting, the fight against the russian. it's a military campaign. of course, they have real concerns about russia as well. this is also launch extend about finding britain strong. you know, georgia. i mean, obviously he's making a pittsburgh batch or jeez, what's essentially backstabbing morris johnson, which is very popular right now. and in finding a role for the u. k. after after breaks, and this is a perfect way um, coming your way into european institutions, but i would pass it to both of you. the more the neo liberalism fails, the more it becomes rhetorically. 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 in suffering economic consequences of food prices shooting up gas prices shooting up and the government is on a substantial 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, you know, yeah, she's obviously making your political calculation that you know bars. johnson is

for the birds and she will be in. 2 place to pick up the pieces. it seems hard to believe that the britons really want this, you know 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. and we, as the loyal of the united states will get to pull the shot. 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 now we are going to be the leaders of europe. thanks to they do. it can happen. britain just simply doesn't have the economic and military strength to do so, and you haven't really forgotten all of the military fiascos. sheer military incompetence of britain's recent campaigns. i mean,

whether it was in iraq or afghanistan. i mean, so it doesn't have any of the resources for the global roll she and visitors. well, i mean, george, i mean, since we have, we go from winter to winter 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 i wonder, george, you know, people are ideologically motivated, the days go ahead. i think as you talk, we're going to do this for your brain, for your brain and you cranes fight it out. i can't really explain how, how you cranes, by the fight, the brave. i mean, your brains know when they're brittle, 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. ukraine's fight is

our fight that we was poor in definite, the resources to it it's, it's just like, 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 often. i was program i gentlemen, i'm going to jump here. we're going to go to a short break. and after that your break will continue on a schedule and some will say, ah ah ah

ah welcome back to crossed out. were all things are considered. i'm peter labelle. this is the home addition to remind you were discussing some real news. ah or let's go back to glen in oslo. um, you know, talking about the continued nato expansion, which essentially is the origins of the conflict that we see in ukraine right now. we could, 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 is for sure, gentlemen, at least a lot of promises promises of a massive military legal aid to ukraine is in the, in, in the works here. one has to wonder, considering timelines rush is almost out of ammunition though. general milly, that thoroughly modern guy says it could 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 a narrative problem because, well, the way i read that 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 was

a good way of tying up a huge amount of courses in their position around the capitals. and if allowed for russia to a place like it's true or shaped up, 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 i so, so i think when the russians pull out of it away from keep the narrative in the west las look, the russians are running, we are winning. and again, we, the nato in the agreements are winning there. yeah. every title is from the headlines is pushing us last, you know, you know, finally this is them, the end of the regime and the rush. you know, i think went to the head of iran. and now now we kind of waking up to the reality that actually on the past 2 months,

rush has been coming 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 to really weekend ukrainian defense law and i munition low fuel and poor supply and and over the past 2 weeks with us begin to punch through a lot of this front lines. and that was something the narrative us change because we're seeing out of the, especially britain in the us. some reports coming out that the actually you're printing from us might be harmless. and if this is where most of the credit you're sorry, and if this falls, you know, russia, him a series of tens of thousands or 100000 troops, which can just march, anyone wants to do this on. this is creating some pattern, but it's also creating some need to change to russia. losing on the other hand, is full panic. also, now we have to send in amounts of weapons to turn to tide. so the narrative is very

confusing, especially 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 i can, 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. no, that's exactly right. and that's with the state of the western media commentary since february, the 24 oh $9.00 is failed because who can us 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 these big cities where tanks can't really maneuver very well. and you know, 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 ok. now i'm thinking they did it on february. that's what it was about liberating the don't go down the people's republic and what he called a decent demilitarization and the knowledge and that i think is going ahead. i mean, obviously they the destruction of the other courses in the mario that's been done. and i think even the military vision will be affected. i think the russians will

eventually destroy the both of the ukrainian army in the east. and i think that will be lab, i think what will then have accomplished it 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 the west continues or in this weapon rate to ukraine, then i think that will just go farther. they'll just simply say, you know, the ukraine black peak coastline that way, the basic to control the other line of the black, pico sign, and then that's it because they leave the rest of the ukraine to nato. ok. you want this rump state? they said, that's really what i'd 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. oh,

by the way to polls, you will see how that plays out. that could be very interesting, but it's good in a run state isn't making is 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 bass. 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 controls and that it gets smaller with every asking day go ahead one. yeah, i agree, and that's one of the problems of, of continuing this or, i mean it's and because we're know that the painting 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, are, 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 came 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, i'm just have more artillery. they are fighting well, but again, it's all of them. and then the russians have a lot more children and they're just pulling them back. so this for them being either destroyed or captured now. so there's a lot of destruction, and now this pumping in this building and building some dollars of new weapons. well, i would rush responded, well,

we already see them and they want to prevent it from entering the front lines. 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 lines and 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 punch more and more into becoming huge worse on. and again, some of this is predictable in the united states. and if i did a creating, making ukrainian to craig, my engine, you have gone down to drain rushing sources. we'll have to be honest, what that means. it means making ukrainian 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, but the whole point is to what extent is escalation and interest of ukraine? that's what's interest or is it only for, for the next phase,

which is now sitting very openly, our goal is to believe that the rational drive we want to have regime change was a decisive victory over them. so if this is the goal, are we helping your cravings? i mean, we the natal or destroying using them as what's a good hold you well, as of the russians, but then, you know, sacrificing the ukrainians 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, you know, the west is not actually helping you know, about sacrificing if you would be labeled propaganda of the kremlin and you would be count georgia, that the cynicism is, is so galling. it's hard to comprehend. i mean, 1st of all, the complete one sidedness of the coverage of the complex only using ukrainian sources, believing the ukrainian government. but then need to look at that all the sums of

money and weapons. when you get into the minutia, george, it's basically a lot of junk. ok, let's give me like 30 years old. over ok. isn't work. nobody knows, but we sent, you know, i mean like these, what about german tanks, the don't even work they have made for a long time. and they're hardly anyone are we getting went around actually to train ukraine, recreating to use that mean the cynicism is going and like i said, it's very difficult to comprehend because it is the west is fighting the propaganda war. it's not really anything to help you. great in north carol, i had a policy on either the united states. okay. i know most of them are about ukraine, but then, are 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 with this goes on the longer the imagine that this is just going to bleed russia the better they assume that this will be for nature. and yeah, and so we're going to get the ball comes in and they don't get georgia where everybody into and they don't. but one thing they 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 they'll 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 us. and then you get into what you and i talked

about of our broadcast, very often growing civil war. so even when we have hostilities, when a civil war will continue, gentlemen, that's all the time we have one thing i guess. and also when it go to pass and thank you for watching us here, are see you next time. remember with i never spoken. he's got adina. who is this boy, what kind of board got missed a deal with the way. would it be a good a good huge. would you want to have

a bus to load the day of school a pro that then you shouldn't have been really? well, yes, you said all of us i was just leaving us. but if you're what potential pushes mean push yeah, can't push a boy. somebody see way lead with

ah, ukrainian nationalists have broken the si, fi and the besieged as of south factory, according to don. yet for public officials, after more than a 100 civilians were transported to safety by the russian military and some of the evacuated state, ukrainian radicals refused to let them leap. buddhist oliver prescribed us. it was our idea to hid in the bunker and when we realize the front line is coming, we were all terrified. we tried to leave them, but they just didn't let us out. one time, they wanted us to dig trenches. the men said that they would not go out to do this because it was dangerous. the palms here offer beverly the engine is mercedes from germany and over.