ah, ah ah, [000:00:00;00] ah, hello in welcome to cross top where all things are considered. i and peter labelle, you came foreign secretary list 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'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'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 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 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 the 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. 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. see if you know russia and china iran so, so this kind of creates professional conflict and now that you have an actual future of most all about the multiple art is here. you know, you can go to it as it wants to create a new international order based on recognizing these different polls. a power and having security, where we minimize the security, the landline, which we have agreements. how us threaten brush 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 the authoritarians . but this is largely, in my opinion, at least, but about the titian, because the world is not divided along. you know, this idea of this new cold war ideology between democracy, not frontier and isn't russia. i think for a warrant here in the world, this is, you know, this isn't the mind. oh, 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 i'm trying to shape shape the narrative of this being this huge global conflict of good versus evil, free versus authoritarian. so again, this is, 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's presentation is that russia is the enemy, china is the enemy. i mean that the mask is off right now. ok, no longer time, a 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,

we 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 you talk about the global nature, she said that the g 7 has to be an economic nato's. 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. i'm going to use this body 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 saying that 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 william militarily, because, you know, obviously a military, so it's a vision that can lead to war. i mean, you know, there's just no way 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 good, 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 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 western gemini and little u. k is being the arbiter of all things. i mean, you know, that's kind of like, you're good for like what? 1872, maybe 1912. but it doesn't fit into 2022, that's my reading. go ahead. of course, and i think this is why made a very difficult to recruits again this global campaign outside of nato. this very

few countries who are taking active size and putting sanctions, is it pretty much conflict between 0 and, and russia? and this is again, one of the problems that what we had or in 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 it's going really, really is written out or, you know, your, flavio iraq, libya, are they really the champions of international law? so i think in the middle time, 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, you know why they recognize the british me that 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 that need to actually find some middle ground and accommodate your adversaries on why you refuse. i'll try any compromise or accommodation on and so security,

interest them 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 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 post breaks to find a new role in the world. and without this political role within the you, 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 russia. it's a military camp. and of course, they have real concerns about russia as well. this is also a large extent about finding britain strong. you know, georgia, i mean, obviously she's making a, pittsburgh vatcher. she's what's essentially backstabbing more jobs and which is

very popular right now. and in finding a role for the u. k. after after briggs and this is a perfect way of going 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 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 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 yeah, she's obviously making your political calculation that you know bars. johnson is for the bugs and she will be. 2 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 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 took it go 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. just cheer, military incompetence of britain's recent campaigns. i mean, well, it was in iraq or afghanistan really, so it 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 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 with no heat. 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 is all. i can't 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. in general, and i'm going to jump here, we're going to go to a short break. and after that,

we'll continue order scheduled. ah ah, no young board members, do you need to stay with russia porter stable? you know, unfortunately, if you regard russia as an enemy with then obviously you do your grade but just don't leave and they don't. and that is exactly where they're actually not taking this. and again, if i'm a white light, really did not expect brzezinski to really make this kind of mistake. ah ah

ah ah ah, welcome back to crossed off. 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 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 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 find some agreements on. however, when that didn't come through, it was a good way of tying up a huge amount of forces in their existing position around the capitals. and if allowed for russia to a place, maybe 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 granting troops which have been and more less than built up towards the front line, a bus to work. so i so, so i think when the russians pulled out of it away from the narrative in the west las look, the russians are running, we are winning. and again, we, the nato in the agreements are winning their yes, go ahead. yes,

i read re titling some headlines is putting us last, you know, now, you know, i'm finally this is them the end of the regime and in the rush. you know, i think going 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 lights 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 ukraine in defense, the low and i'm emission 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. and that was something a narrative change because we're seeing out of the, especially britain in the us. some reports coming out that the actually you came from us might be harmless. and if, if this is where most of the troops are, and if this falls, russia, him a tens of thousands or $100000.00 troops, which come just march anyway,

wants to come to this. and 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 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. what 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 military training 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 so this the state of the western media commentary since february, the 24. 0 this fail because students fail to take care of but no plan anywhere to suggest that that was ever the goal of rushes in. 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 for the 20. well, there was about liberating the donna lucca people's republics and

what he calls the militarization and the geisha, 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 it, the militarization will be effective that the russians will eventually destroy the both of the ukrainian army in the east. and i think that will, that, that will be that i think what you will then have accomplished is goals. i mean, i think that they may well go for odessa, but again, that hasn't really been specified that, that, that would be the case. but if you know, i mean the way the russians accompanying and if the west continues to or in this weaponry to ukraine, that i think they will just go further. they'll just simply take a. 2 black, see coastline that way. they'll basically control the seat, sign a say leave the rest of ukraine to later. ok. you want this rump, say they play,

and then that's really what you know. 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 is a partition. a russia has no interest in western new grain whatsoever. by the way to polls, you will see how that plays out. that could be very interesting, but it's got in a run state is in the making is really interesting. after the month of a one month, the conflict zalinski could have settled for what the russians were proposing because he didn't have control over the dom bass. and he didn't have control over premieres, he would have been giving away something. he didn't even control. now that is 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 give controls and that they get smaller with every same day. go ahead one. yeah,

i agree. and that's one of the problems of continuing this where i mean that and because that way i know that the payment forces are, are suffering defeats in ukraine and him signed on bus, older, escalate, tory 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 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 came, did not want to negotiate. and, you know, walked away from the negotiations, a rush, and 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 of them, and then the russians have

a lot more children and they're just pulling them back. so this force are being 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 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 lines creating all next group. so as soldiers which can before the reach the front line. so this somebody, every to help you crane countries being punched more and more into becoming a huge war on. and again, some of this is predictable in the united states and plenty size, diesel creating, making your credit card. 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 that 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 have regime change once a decisive victory over them. so if this is the goal or we help in your trainings or, i mean we, them, are we destroying using them up as a whole year? well, as a, you know, just found 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 west is, i'm actually hoping you remember sacrificing it. you will 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 ukrainian 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 over. ok. is it work? nobody knows, but we sent, you know, i mean like these up one more german tags that don't even work. they have made for a long time. and they're hardly anyone are we getting went around? actually it's a new grain. we training into, to use that. i mean, the cynicism is this, it's, it's going and it, 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 united states. okay. no,

most of the nature of this 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 with this goes on the longer they imagined that this is just going to bleed russia the better this will be all nature and yeah, and so going to get consent 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 the country that you know, within 5 years, very little of this country left

a goal and try it the same time. i'm glad you brought up the girl leadership in ukraine because whenever you have something like this, inevitably, george, that will be the stab in the back. why did we succeed? they tow failed. that's west failed. and then you get into when you and i talked about a very often a 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 a good person. thank you for watching us here. are see you next time. remember with a 1st time in history, any time countries culture has been canceled to the very modern with unsolved culture really desert one,

lucille milan. so when you get just me sitting there with the phrase now particularly refers to counseling russian culture, yet them know what to create a few oral school because it's convenient, my sure, which will be all that is chill out of it. so that all the, most of the separate yolanda eat them. we what rushes created over the past 1500 years. there's no question actually condemned, reviled and rejected. just sort of like a bill of brown. there's a lot closer on a whole bunch. thank you, said a little short list. joining total condemnation, gross daily, and now enclosed da staff skate to cascade shostakovich. i need to you a quick call left, but yes, you lost your signal. what the time will you do? obama lee,

you're not going to do that. a little bit more ah ah, a with