to russian ship, it sounds like this, i'll have her with now there's talk of rerouting, oil and gas export to asia and stuff, but i was with he had just renew booth for the eastern part of the northern c. root has never been around a year with food or a she's done it. but of course they're all ah, [000:00:00;00]

a, [000:00:00;00] a a hello and welcome to cross like, we're all things considered. i'm peter lavelle. 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 . so 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 crossed that 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, publish an article about volunteers, not, not a regular army, but all in tears in ukraine's 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 got to wrap this up quickly through negotiations or it's got a start 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 there. war, and it's not going ukraine's way. so obviously for a long time now, for many weeks, ross has been grinding down the ukrainian army and. and then obviously russia has been making a lot of victories. however, in the past 34 weeks now, we see that things became very critical. the last time we spoke and i mentioned that the main key front lines in ukraine has collapsed. and then i was circling this huge pocket thousands of thousands of ukraine and soldiers. so it's hard to

ignore this. you can't release in the story and the more assa victory. so this is why this becoming a lot of pressure now on within the west, on trying to find some kind of an agreement with russia. because it makes the question, what is, what is the objective if we can't make settlement with rushes? because if alternative it's a bad deal today or an even worse deal tomorrow for the west. logic dictates that we would make a deal today and given the washing group doesn't seem interested still have to make a deal in the question. is there an alternative objective in obviously there's been a lot of voices in washington from the administration suggesting that the goal is to break crush back to weaken it. so there's many who is concerned at this mission is to create a new in your crime and tried to weaken the russian for, for, for the long,

long period time. is this indeed a pro ukrainian policy, or was there ukrainian essentially sacrificing the country? that is, so i think that the official audio artificially position of being either pro russian or western of the question, what is the purpose of this now? i think this, this more voices are increasing. and at some point, i guess they will have some influence in washington to come out. so it is, it, is it something is changing, but we're still, i think far away from a change of clothes, emotion. you bring up a good point. now, 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 $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 g, f per se, are 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 the immediate implications of this conflict and confrontation with russia for their all domestic constituencies and globally. and it's getting harder to explain what are the clear objectives, you know,

and you know, this massive price hike and stuff like this isn't really flying well with many constituents in the worst in u. s. in particular. and there isn't some suggestions that emmanuel macro may perhaps be the last of the current western leadership cor, got re elected. others maybe voted out of office quickly, which is to start a difference from president who i should remark to our audience is, in my view, operate more in the paradigm of quote unquote, history or 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 in 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. glenn, 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, of, of europe. um, it is almost seamless for now. and that's why they need a breakthrough to keep that unity together. the longer this goes on even became governments is admitted. there are losses in the east. they won't say specifically, but there are many not going so well here. so i mean, if the, if the purpose was to unify the, the west, in the european sense around behind the u. s. and above and behind the u. k. as leaders of nato, they need, they need a breakthrough one way or another because of baby formula. energy crisis,

migration, i mean, you can, you can keep the fever pitch out for a while emotionally, but now things are beginning to settle down. we're seeing some reports in, in, in germany to tech republic hungry poll and about migration and things like that were in the welcome mat is not so welcoming as time goes on. so that, i mean that they, there's been a kind of a clinical breakthrough, but it isn't sustainable with out a quote unquote, when in ukraine. well, no, i think that was the 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 battle field house. we played out as expected. and they can only cor, against russia as expect. indeed, that there's a huge effect there. were your economy suffering greatly and, you know, this whole story of russia being the gas station masquerading as

a country. this is, i think we, we've received ourselves from the west by my buying. and so i think that that again, that goes on on a mixture. but now that this 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 are affecting us. and also we're paying higher costs and if there's no clear objective behind this. and i mentioned that if the goal of the status and britain is to, well, maybe you know, this last, you know, we've got sacrifice thousands of ukrainian soldiers there. but at least by some time, to train up a new army in west in ukraine and have this wave of the continuous attacks where down the rush over time. that's what extent that this, in the european interest. so i think that we didn't the commitment to this marriage mystery is collapsing again. i don't want to denigrate the ukraine and so just default very well. they've been well trained. alarm everything. however,

this narrative in the beginning was very from reality. if you remember, you had this mattress on the make island until they popped up on the team. you're being alive. you have this ghost of key who shot down 40 russia jet. i mean, it became ridiculous. this was just sold us a fact. now, a few weeks ago now and you know, they became, and the training soldiers, those surrendered and their unconditional surrender going into rushing up to it. and i was just covered in a row to wasn't evacuation. how do evacuated from battlefield into russian prison. 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 nato 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 russians military efforts and ukraine, you know, knowing something about russian military history is just the long grind to victory . ok, it's, it's not claim 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 from some would say gross 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 the throughout is history. russia has barely entered any conflict. well prepare, you know, solace had a big issue in the beginning, even against, you know,

adversaries what appeared to be much weaker. so there is nothing new in terms of how, you know, the sort of obstacles that russia has encountered now, it has changed a lot. i would also focus there to pick up on something that glens mentioned and you know, this constant pursue of, you know, trying to reinvent the live to keep the narrative going. and i think is it kind of the dark reality of the information worker that you can win as many acadia the dark reality of it tomorrow, 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 on some real news, staying with our ah ah,

ah ah oh, when i was showing wrong, i just don't hold any world yet to shape out. disdain becomes the african and engagement equals the trail. when so many find themselves worlds apart, we choose to look for common ground. with. welcome to crossed up, were all things are considered. i'm peter labelle. this is the home edition remind you were discussing some real rules. ah ok,

let's go back to max here in moscow. we're talking about information warfare before we went to our hard break, continue. just 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 would come back to haunt you one day and you will have hard time explaining to your old constituencies about how on earth this 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 for supporting this is the risk of global famine and sort of ation. 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 which is 11.5

percent. whereas that of russia, 16.8 percent. so the town to focus on, you know, russia blocking build this afford being the main reason for potential local famine . you know, without talking about how russians own supply chains with being disrupted, including 2 sections. and that is actually the major driver of what 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, you know, it's interesting gland to say, i've been following this quote unquote of a rush. is 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 mind by the ukranian government. actually on the day of the conflict that started the data of the complex started the name 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 listened 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 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, they, the, the british as a, 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 the future, historians will tell us, i suppose that, you know, one month in the conflict, there was tops 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 when ever since then it's russia's time table and rational. 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, have a different view or what the pro ukrainian policy should be, which is to start making you pay all the costs of this commission and they keep in mind that to go back one step really wanted was unable to stop expanding if we would get some, some concessions on the western side. let's say the listen, the promise no native, especially the suite nor can live. and then we want some confessions in ukraine, then they could get a good deal without the crane this thing and i price in territory. but instead, this escalation alone, keep in mind that for 7 years with the minutes agreements and agreement,

talk maryland to give a hard to me to switch russell's happy with deal with sub for 7 years. russia went to new in momentarily and then said, well, if you know that military numbers will have independence and again, you had, you had the agreement on this diplomacy in east, on the reaching still far away. but there are things are moving towards some kind of an agreement that have some common common agreements. and then we saw that the british in america, so pushing them to step away from and withdraw all the confessions. they have committed themselves to know these points and their work, keep escalating, and now you see russia is also, you know, it's almost the entirety of parts. it's other companies and also much corporation as well so. so the longer we keep this, we're going the longer with the delay and the more territory,

i think the ukraine we're loose and, and this is again if you know about deal today for your credit or worse on tomorrow, but again to talk about today, what is the objective or need to in america's point build in some dollars and grants simply because they're 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 the americans european still have the same objectives and then far from your perspective and 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, because 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, this is a pretty smart guy. i think everyone would read it. well, why should the russians get involved in any negotiation? just because of 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 close. i think when the russians decide what their security requirements are, that's what this all is about. everyone gets 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,

or with this microphone. so in the past of this conflict is in a way, a 3rd major attempt to restructure european security order and 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 water, european security order came after the fall, 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 the 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, 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 y, good on your pm security architecture has been collapsing on us 30 years now. mess 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, what was 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 lines, indivisible, security, you know, one such enough expand to secure that expensive other. however, ones 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 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 dictate new europe. and what was the new year a new year, one 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 and pastors academic still this is going to go really wrong. some point because they don't want to keep expanding to the if russia will have to push back one day and 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 russia the loser of the cold war. it kind of 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, b i n, f, treaty, one. after another eldest treatise collapse, a consequence of nato expanded towards the russian borders. i think if we want to solve this car worn ukraine, i would see it as a symptom or a consequence. i would say the best way to go back to step one, have a look at the insecure architecture. is really what brings europe having every year, having a larger and larger,

gone 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, for neglecting the security discussions we should have had in europe over the last 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 help to eventually, if there is no other option on the table. and i think, as i mentioned before, other more critical peaceful options have sales. 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. yeah, i know you're doing this program ever since those documents one to need to one of the united states. i made the program after program to 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 john,

we have a mass flow in moscow. i want to thank you for watching is here to see you next time. remember ah, in ah yes, but he never came, spoke with with both both the models you need to do. you both got nelson's meals with, with a guy, nobody,

a lot of them, bob, but he won't floyd them boss with all they need that misleading and he's not because normally with a personal number, you know, we're middle doesn't with

ah ah ah, at least 3 people have been killed in the shelling of residential areas, including several schools in the city of don't. yes, that's according to local officials who acute ukrainian military of liberty targeting civilians with weapons supplied by the us. explosion. the less to aid work has injured in the ukrainian fizzy of military, currently on the russian control was an act of terrorism stays the local