rail oh, when so many find themselves worlds apart? we choose to look for common ground. oh, i oh. hello and welcome across like were all things considered? i'm peter little. the west ukraine propaganda machine has begun to crack. the reality on the battlefield is at odds with the tightly guarded messaging bed to western publics. a few courageous voices say the obvious ukraine should negotiate now, while it still has something to negotiate with. ah,

to discuss these issues and more, i'm joined by my guess, glen deason and also is a professor at the university south eastern norway as well as other of the new book usa phobia propaganda in international politics. and here in moscow we have maxine switch off. he is the director of the center, advanced american studies at moscow state institute of international relations, originally across stock rules and the fact that means you can jump anytime you want . and i always appreciate it. we'll start out with our slo glen over the last few new cycles and i'm thinking of the new york times editorial piece that actually question the goals to the biding ministration has in ukraine and, and de facto nato's goals. the washington post a published an article about volunteers, not, not a regular army, but all in tears in ukraine's or military forces that are treated quite badly, ended up leaving the field and being arrested for dis desertion. and then we have

the big name of them all, henry kissinger at the davos setting. and just basically saying, you've been wrap this up quickly through negotiations or it's got a star unraveling for everyone in ball. so my question is to you, is it, is this going to have an impact on policy making or is it just double down triple down. ready well, i think there will be more and more opposition runs the war, and it's not going ukraine's way. so obviously, for a long time, for many weeks, ross has been grinding down the ukrainian army. and then obviously us been making a lot of pictures. however, in the past 34 weeks now, we see that things became very critical. the last time we spoke, i mentioned that the main key front lines in ukraine has collapsed. and now in circling this huge pockets of thousands of thousands of ukraine and soldiers. so

it's hard to ignore this country list in the story in a more victory. so this is why i'm just becoming a lot of pressure now on within the rest on trying to find some kind of a, an agreement with russia. it makes the question, what is, what is the objective if we can't make a settlement with the russians? because if the alternative is a bad deal today or even worse deal tomorrow for the west, a dictate that we will make a deal today. and given that the same interest is still how to make a deal that it banks the question, is there an alternative objective? and obviously there's been a lot of voices in washington from the administration suggesting that the goal is to break cross back to we commit. so this man who is concerned this mission is to create the new york on in your crane and trying to weaken the russian for, for,

for the long, for a long period of time. it is indeed a pro ukrainian policy or with the russian. mr. ukrainian especially sacrificing country that is so i think that the officials i ricardo artificially position as being even pro russian or western of the question. what is the purpose of this now? i think this, this more than this voices are increasing. and at some point, i guess they will have some influence in washington in your account. so it is, it, is it something is changing, but still i think far away from a change of clothes, emotion. you bring up a good point. how is this to the advantage of the trainings will match there? there is one element, one copy of that many in the ukranian political elite i would find is the positive

is all this huge amounts of money being thrown at them from the west. i mean, now if we put all in, it's like $53000000000.00 from the united states, and then we have the european union. i don't know the exact numbers, but i mean they're going through but what $5.00 to $7000000000.00 a month, to pay salaries in the military and all that. i mean, if you're in your zalinski and you're in that circle, and this is in the middle of a conflict where they have foreign leaders waltzing around downtown, here without a care. huh, that's it. that's what i call the grid. why wouldn't ukraine want to keep that griff going as long as it possibly can go ahead? well, i think right now on the west has to deal with 3 challenges kind of lumped together . one is the challenge of dealing with the leadership in kia per say. we're asking for more money and more military hardware and i think there is this understanding

that starting to trickle down among the minds of western lease it's, it's really a black hole that is soaking up resources without clear implications for western public and western security. and for western political objectives. the 2nd one is of course, and how you deal with russia, you know, kind of post conflict. and we've seen this proposal coming from italy and you know, we need to think about european security architecture while i personally think the very proposal is kind of the sheet that has sailed a much worse to where it still is interesting, sighing, very different. what we've seen over the past few weeks on the very thinking patterns amongst south western countries. and finally, you know, the western leadership has to deal with implications of this conflict and confrontation with russia for their own domestic constituencies and globally. and it's getting harder to explain what are the clear objectives, you know,

and you know, this message wouldn't surprise hike and stuff like this isn't really flying well with many constituents in the worst in us in particular. and there is even some suggestions that emanuel mat wrong, may perhaps be the last of the current western leadership go for, got re elected. others maybe your phone to out of office quickly, which is to start a difference from president to who i should remark to our audience is, in my view, operate more in the paradigm of quote, unquote, historically her name, classic western politician. you know, he doesn't really have to care much about re election for doesn't really have to care much about the stuff that worship colleges have to care about. so this in a way empowers him to think that he can and that he has courage and wisdom. i agree with big wally, gotta get it all there. but will he do it and everything we've seen abundance of

bar tells us he won't. ok, but i agree with it. glen, let me go back to you in a, in a sense, this whole ukrainian gambit for, for the us in the u. k. because they seem to be an axis here driving this, both, both countries that are not in the european union interest singly enough and their unity of the europe is almost seamless for now. and that's why they need a breakthrough to keep that unit need together. the longer this goes on even be can government admitted their losses in the east? they won't say specifically, there are many going so well here. so i mean if the, if the purpose was to unify the west in the european sense around behind the u. s. and about behind the u. k. as leaders of nato, they need,

they need a breakthrough one way or another because baby formula, energy prices, migration. i mean, you can, you can keep the fever pitch up for a while emotionally. but now things are beginning to settle down. we're seeing, you know, reports in, in, in germany to check republic hungry po and about my grades and things like that were in the welcome mat is not so welcoming as time goes on. so that, i mean that there's been a kind of critical breakthrough, but it, is it sustainable with out a quote about when ukraine? well, no, i think that was a problem. i think this, the unity of nato, which we heard so much about the premise on, on the victory over russia was seeing the battlefield has played out. and they can only core against the russia as expect. indeed that there's a huge effect. there were your p. m economy suffering greatly and, you know, this whole story of russia being the gas station masquerading as

a country to just this is, i think we've, we've seen ourselves from the west by my buying incidents so, so i think that the, again, that goes on on, on victory, but now that it doesn't seem to be the case anymore, i think you will see a fragment more because now we're looking at how the costs us and also we're paying higher costs. and if there's no clear objective behind this. and i mentioned that it's not a statist redness to, well, maybe you know, this last, you know, we've got sacrificed thousands of ukrainian soldiers there. but at least by some time to train up a new army in west and ukraine. them have this waves of a continuous attacks to wear down the rush over time. it's what expensive this in the european interest. so i think that we see then the commitment to this narrative of mystery is collapsing. i don't want to denigrate the ukraine soldiers very well

in well trained alarm everything. however, this marriage in the beginning was very from reality. if you remember, you had this mattress on the make island until they popped up on russian team. you being alive, you had this goes to key who shot down? 40 russian jets. i mean, it became ridiculous. just sold us a fact them out a few weeks ago now that falls out and you know they, they came out training soldiers, those surrendered and their unconditional surrender going into russian activity. and i was just covered in with an evacuation. how do evacuated from battlefield into russian prism? it doesn't make any sense of we reinventing the language to keep an eye to ramos. i think now now that the movers are coming in and some are having 2nd

thoughts, i see that the commitments to the narrative is cracking. and with that, i expect that the solidarity within their to will begin to wither away as well. you know, max, one of the biggest problems with the western mindset and looking at what's going on the conflict in ukraine. is it the expect it to be done like in an american way or a nato way? and if you look at the russian military efforts and ukraine, you know, and knowing something about russian military history is just the long grind to victory. ok, it's, it's not playing buoyant, it's, you know, they're not looking for headlines. they're just methodically doing what they always do. from the red army taking berlin, some would say grows me. what we saw with the conflict and south is that it's remarkably similar, but it's not american or navy or western in, in performance. go ahead. i would also to that throughout as history russia has barely entered any conflict will prepare, you know, it's always had

a big issue in the beginning or even against, you know, adversaries, what appear to be much weaker. so there is nothing new in terms of how to time the sort of obstacles that russia has encountered. now it has changed a lot. i would also focus on some pick up on something that glens mentioned. and you know, this constant pursue, just, you know, trying to reinvent the life to keep the narrative going. and then i think is it kind of the dark reality of the information worker that you can win as many the dark reality of what we're going to stop on that point here. we're going to go to a quick break. and after that quick break, we'll continue our discussion and some real new stain with our tea. ah, ah

ah, ah ah ah ah ah, welcome to crossed out. we're all things are considered. i'm peter labelle. this is the home edition. remind you were discussing some real news. ah

ok, let's go back to max here in moscow. you're talking about information warfare before you went to our hard break continue. just going to say that, you know, you, you may win as many info battles if you know, as you wish, you know, create as many sections you want to talk about the dominance information warfare. but the reality check of the battle field would come back to haunt you one day and you will have hard time explaining to your old constituents is about how on earth these turned out the way it turned out where you told them it would have been a different also would say that, you know, one of the major things that is now of course evolving this is the risk of global feminine strong nation. and the did the narrative that is now being shaped up is, i can see is to shift the blame for this to russia. and i think it's important to

know that ukraine prince share in the global production of weak is 11.5 percent. whereas that of russia, 16.8 percent. so the, the town to focus on, you know, russia block in the support being the main reason for potential local famine. you know, without talking about how russia's own supply chains with being disrupted, including 2 sections. and that is actually the major driver of the problem in the, in the market is also another thing that will come back to haunt those who propel this narrative. i think sometime in the fall, oh, it's interesting gland to say, i've been following this quote in quota mom, a russia's war on food supply here, which is absolutely absurd. i mean, if we look at the exit points in the black sea, these are all been mined by the ukranian government. actually on the day of the conflict and started the data of the conflict, started then the mind,

these are these parts here and there is also talk, i guess is the next um, threat, you know, a possible military or non military solution of escorts and things like that when i listen to the british government list a trust, i mean she, she does, it keeps you entertained every step of the way here. i mean, she's her, she's so divorced from reality. um, it makes her potentially very dangerous here. but there's always looking for a wedge, a wedge that doesn't in, at the same time it, it's just part of the information more is just a shame when you know this, you know, when the british is saying, well, we won't get involved in it, but other people should do it, i mean, again, you know, i think the biggest question for me in this program here is that how are they going to accept defeat land? how do they come come to terms with that? because the way i look at it is that possibly in future, historians will tell us, i suppose that, you know, one month in the conflict, there was talks in a sample and it looked like possible movement. and then that suddenly dash suddenly,

okay, within the hour people say it was boris johnson, there were other people that were influencing zalinski. but ever since then, it's russia's time table in russia will say, when it's over, i mean, because if you don't have an interlocutor, then you have no other choice but to make your own unilateral facts on the ground decisions go ahead one. and again, a different view of the pro ukrainian policy should be, which is not making you pay on the cost of this escalation. i keep in mind if you go back one step, what you really wanted was unable to stop expanding. if we get some, some concessions on the western side. let's say the west that they listen. we promise no need, especially with the sweet morphine loop. and then we want some concessions in ukraine, then they could get a good deal without the cranes thing as high price in territory. but instead we've seen this escalation all along. keep in mind for 7 years with agreement and

agreement, was maryland to give a hold of me to wish ross was happy with sabotaged for 7 years restaurant in militarily and then said, well, a militarily, don't boss will have independence. and again, you have that. you have peace agreements, all this diplomacy in this home that we're reaching are still far away. but there are, these are moving towards some kind of a, an agreement to have some common agreements. and then we saw that the british and americans are pushing them to step away from and withdraw all the concessions they have committed themselves. now at least point and their work is escalating and now you see russia is also, you know, the entirety of it. so you are to some sort of issue and also a region as well. so. so the longer the united states and britain want to keep this, we're going the longer with the more territory,

i think ukraine loose and, and this is again the know here in a bad deal today for school tomorrow. but again, we will start to the objective our need to in the americans pouring millions of dollars into grants, simply because they're, you know, good guys and want to help them out or objective such. i think i'm going back to this now that this other objectives are becoming more august. i don't think necessarily that americans european still have the same objectives. and therefore, from your perspective, i'm going to stop here on the continent is not necessarily in that's a favorable idea. i don't know if you can bandied about on cable tv, but the reality of it is if you really want something like that on your borders in europe, i mean, europeans and americans, you know, they tolerated that in afghanistan. iraq, as it was just so far away,

and the refugees went to europe. they didn't go to the united states. but matt, so want to pick up on something. the glen was saying, you know, henry kissinger, adolfo said, you know, a negotiation should begin soon. ok. that i give credit to his geopolitical genius . ok. not his policies that when he was in power, but i mean, he's us, it's a pretty smart guy. i think everyone would read it. well, why should the russians get involved in any negotiation? just because what glen just said, i mean 78 years with the dumbass line deception all of this. and that now you really want to talk in good faith. for me, that's really hard. ok, and, and plus russia is made a commitment here. it cannot lose, it cannot lose this. it's going to take whatever it wants and, and the room for negotiation, i think is closed. i think when the russians decide what their security requirements are, that's what this all is about. everyone forgets, and when they decide that well then, you know, the other side is going to have to eat humble pie because that's the way it is. i think we'll discuss including over this microphone. so in the past of this conflict

is in a way, a 3rd major attempt to restructure european security order and world order in general, since the end of world war 2, you know, during the all to conference, she'll be a union to go with us and you can go, she did the new terms for the world order as a winner. the 2nd attempt to structure world war, european security order came after the berlin wall and the glass of the soviet union, which their soviet union and earlier russia negotiated as a martial loser. now there is an, if you will, to renegotiate those terms, and i'm pretty sure rational stop until it negotiates the new terms for its own political participation through creating more favorable security outcomes as a winner. oh, that, that's a brilliant way of looking. i can reflect upon that here because of a max,

essentially a more eloquently, just a answered my question in your answer was better than my question. so when, i mean is this, are we seeing as a result here because people are so honed in the, at the, in the micro part of it here. but the max is just right. this is actually creating a new pan european security order. that's what russia asked before this happened, and now we're just going to make it happen, glen, go ahead. i think it's important for why i found your pm security architecture has been collapsing us 30 years max up. so the berlin wall and the close of the soviet union in the same sense. but one have to remember there's 2 years in between. so it was in 1099 with the cold war was declared over and exactly 2 years later the soviet union collapsed. now, why was this interesting? because when the cold war was declared over in 1989, it was seen as being a compromise at both sides coming to table with diplomacy there,

resolving this differences. and thereafter, you had all these agreements like the charter, paris for a new europe in which they said that new york should have no defining mind me, indivisible, security, you know, one such enough expand to secure that expense of other however, once and the soviet union collapsed in 1009 to one, then you have the u. s. and buster, the last use investor to the soviet union. i'm arguing, as well as soon as the soviet union come up, you have this creation in the united states that the cold war i've been one and they should dictates the new europe. and what was the new year a new year run, which would be organized around united states. one dimensional include all of the continent except the largest country, russia and you know us many leading americans, politicians, pastors, academic, still this is going to go really wrong. some point because they don't want to get expanded to the russia. we'll have to push back one that the time has come and

now we're having a devastating war in europe. so this is, a lot of this goes back to this failure to establish our cold war post cold war security architecture for europe. and, but i agree with max, i think it did that we viewed the rush of the loser of the cold war. it kind of put a victor estates in place in the us will dictate all the terms which meant recreating european architecture, which russia can liquids one where the m beatrice abandoned. i n f treaty one after another. and all this treaties collapse. a consequence of nato expanded towards the rush. so i think if we want to solve this car worn ukraine, i would see it as a symptom, or a consequence of this. i would say the best way to go back to step one, have a look at the security architecture. is really what brings europe having every year,

having a larger, larger gun, closer to the head of russia. it doesn't seem like a recipe for stability. and i think you are paying a heavy price for from the collecting the security discussions we should have, hadn't in europe over the past 30 years, which we never did. and maximum, especially close it out here. last 45 seconds. can europe live with an outcome where it rush, it dictates its own security needs? can europe live with it? i don't think it can, but it will helps move actually, if there is no other option on the table. and i think, as i mentioned before, other more peaceful options have sailed. when the, the west declined to talk about russia security proposals in early december. and that's very unfortunate. but i guess that's the reality of today. yes, i know you're doing this program ever since those documents one to nature, one of the united states. i made a program after program after program warning. this is going to happen and you know

what gentlemen? it happened. maybe they should have listened to me. ok for once. i talk with dad, we have a mouse in moscow. i want to thank everyone for watching us here in our next time. remember, ah, ah, the sanctions doc, each russian flags vessels from entering you pools. belgium get ready, sweeney. a romanian with 2 russian ships for with this talk of we rooting oil and gas exports to asia as myself, but i with

the additional new booster. the eastern part of the northern route has never been a deal with food or she's done yet. but of course, that ah, so called enhanced interrogation techniques used by the u. s. officials were basically designed as techniques to break down the human mind. if you force a human being to stay in a certain position, will take very long to the pain involved to become absolutely excruciating, but nobody's lane finger on you. you are doing it to yourself. we started adopting

those techniques when i was station and mosul among them were stress, position, sleep deprivation. and usually i prefer me up. there is already beginning to be evidence that these old techniques are now being used on immigrants and children, whatever you do or more comes home. nobody has been held accountable for the torture that happened in the past. the moral authority, the made america awarded sacrifice. but the shimmer of effective interrogation long, long no one else seemed wrong when all 3, just a few feet out. disdain becomes the advocate and engagement equals the trail. went so many find themselves worlds apart.

we choose to look for common ground. ah, the 1st time in history, an entire country's culture has been canceled to the very modern weapon cancel, culture. daily desperate, wonderful language cecile malice will do it one way of prod yet just referring the with the phrase now particularly refers to counseling russian culture. and yet doesn't know what secret of she was, the zip code when you're miles for cure. what you've over your there is a chill, i there. so out that all of them, most of the temperature random eat them, we what rushes created over the past 1500 years is now questions. partially condemned, reviled and rejected.