[000:00:00;00] ah ah ah hello and welcome to cross lock, were all things considered? i'm peter lavelle, the west ukraine prop again, machine has begun to crack the reality on the battlefield is at odds with a tightly guarded messaging bed to western publix. 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 he's a professor at the university south eastern norway as well as author of the new book usa phobia propaganda in international politics. and here in moscow we have maxine, so he is the director of the center, advanced american studies at moscow state institute of international relations, originally across stock rules. and in 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 biting 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 volunteers in ukraine or military forces that are treated quite badly. ended up leaving the field and being arrested for 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 going to start unraveling for everyone involved. 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 around 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, and it obviously has been making a lot of pictures. however, in the past 34 weeks now, we see that things became very critical. and the last time we spoke,

i mentioned that the main key front lines in ukraine has collapsed. and now encircling this huge pockets on thousands of thousands of ukrainian soldiers. so it's hard to ignore, accomplish in the story and a more s a 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 settlements with rushes? because if alternative it's a bad deal today or even worse deal tomorrow for the, with the logical dictate that we will make a deal today. and given the same interest is still not 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 rush back to weaken it. so that's many who is concerned that this mission

is to create the new york in ukraine and try to weaken the russian for the long, long period time. is this indeed a pro ukrainian policy or the ukrainian essentially sacrificing the country? now that is so i think that the officials are artificially position of being either pro ration or pro western up the question. what is the purpose of this now? and i think this is more, this voices are increasing. and at some point, i guess they will have some influence in washington. so it is, it is something it's changing. we're still, i think far away from a changing call is emotion. you bring up a good point, how. how is this to the advantage of the training? well, max, there is one element,

one copy of that many in the ukranian political lead would buy this a 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 a 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 grip. 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 lump together. one is the challenge of dealing with the leadership in g f per say. we're asking

for more money and more military hardware. and i think there is this understanding that have started to trickle down among the minds of western beliefs that 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 that the very proposal is kind of the sheet that has sailed a much worse to where it still is interesting sign. very different when we're seeing over the past few weeks on the very thinking patterns among 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 own domestic constituencies and globally. and it's getting harder to explain what are the clear objectives, you know, and in all this message it wouldn't surprise hike and stuff like this. that isn't true. flying well with many constituents in the worst in u. s. in particular. and there, there is, have been some suggestions for emanuel micron may perhaps be the last of the current western leadership cor, got re elected. others maybe get voted out of office quickly, which is the story difference from president to who i should remark to our audience . this, in my view, operate more in the paradigm of, quote unquote, history liter. okay. 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 was your apologies, have to care about. so this in a way empowers him to think,

i think that he has courage and wisdom. i agree with the completely, i gotta get it all there. but will he do it and everything we've seen about him? so bar tells us he won't. ok, but i agree with it, glen, let me go back to you. i'm in a sense this whole ukrainian gambit for, for the us in the u. k. because they seem to be an x is here driving this, both, both countries that are not in the european union, interestingly enough, and their unity of the, of europe. 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 give government submitted their losses in the east, they won't say specifically, but there are many about going so well here. so i mean if the, if the purpose was to unify for the west in the european sense

around behind the u. s, and i'm behind the u. k. as leaders of nato. they need, they need this are breakthrough one way or another because of 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 and 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 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 has played out as expected. and they can only core against russia as expect. indeed, that there's

a huge effect there were your economy and suffering greatly, and, you know, this whole story of russia being the gas station, the masquerading as a country. this is, this is, i think we, we've received ourselves from the west by buying into this. so i think that the, again, that is sold, 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 again, i mentioned that if the goal of status and britain is to, well, maybe 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 waves the continuous attacks the weird on the rush over time. that's what extent that is 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 ukranian soldiers very well. they've been well trained. well armed everything. however, this narrative in the beginning was very from reality. if you remember, you had this mattress on the make island until they continued being alive. you had this ghost of cable shut down. 40 russian jets. i mean, it became ridiculous. still still, this was just sold us a fact them out a few weeks ago. now that money and you know, they became, and the trailing soldiers surrendered and their unconditional surrender going into rushing up to it. and i was just covered in the western road. there was an evacuation. how do evacuated from battlefield into a russian prison. it doesn't make any sense,

so we reinventing the language to keep an eye to ramos. i think now, now the smallest 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 will be made to will begin to wither away as well. you know, max, one of the biggest problems at the western mindset and looking at what's going on the conflict in ukraine. is it expected to be done like an american way or a nato way? and if you look at the russian military efforts and ukraine, you know, in knowing something about russian military history is just the long grind to victory. ok, it's, 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 from some would say gross me. what we saw with the conflict and south is that here it's remarkably similar, but it's not american or navy or western in, in performance. go ahead. i would also add to the throughout his history,

russia has barely entered any conflict, will prepare, you know, solace had it big issues at the beginning or 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 on. so pick up on something the glens mentioned. and you know, this constant pursue, just, you know, trying to reinvent the life to keep the narrative going. and i think is it kind of the dark reality of the information warfare that you can when it has many of the dark reality of it. what are we going to stop on that point here? we're going to do a quick break. and after that will break, we'll continue our discussion and some real news, staying with our tea. ah, as a matter of fact, those in the south, they don't bright,

strictly geopolitical narrative. they're more you do, let's say, making sure the surprise they're pragmatically and in this i think clearly to keep it interesting enough irrespective of being more to the right or more to let the are not totally clear about that you politic with the sanctions package, bonds, russian flags vessels from entering you pools. belgium, gary sweeney. romania in turn out to russian ships a half hour. ah, now there's talk of we routing oil and gas exports to asia. and i thought i,

with the additional boost on the eastern part of the northern sea root has never been around a sure there with what is a good i see stand, you might have quoted that ah, well, the nice across all things considered, i did well, this is the home edition remind you we're discussing some real news. ah ok,

let's go back to max here in moscow. you're talking about information warfare before we went to our hard break continue. just going to say that, you know, you, you may win as many of info battles if you wish, you know, create as many sections you want to talk about dominance information warfare. but the reality check of the battle will come back to haunt you one day and you will have hard time explaining to your old constituents is 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 shipped 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 week is 11.5

percent. whereas that of russia, 16.8 percent. so the, the town to focus on, you know, russia blocking the support being the main reason for potential local famine, you know, without talking about how russia's own supply chains 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, 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 day of the conflict, started then the mind, these are these parts here. and there is also talk, i guess,

is the next are 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 is always looking for a wedge, a wedge that doesn't in, at the same time it, it just didn't. but 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 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 stop making. you pay all the cost of this escalation and they keep in mind that you go back one step in the wanted was unable to stop expanding if we would get some, some concessions on the western side. let's say the what the problem is no need to expand it this way, more can loop. and then we want some confessions in ukraine. then they could get a good deal without the ukraine, this thing as high price in territory. but instead we've seen this escalation alone, keep in mind that's per 7 years with the mens agreements and agreement, talk maryland to give a hard to me to switch ross was happy with. but after that deal with something for

7 years, russia went to new military and then said, well, if a military bus will have independence and again, you had, you have a piece of diplomacy in the, on the reaching still far away. but there are, these are moving towards some kind of an agreement that have some common 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. and these points and they're working escalating. and now you see russia is also, you know, it's almost the entirety of parts of southern and also much corporation as well. so. so the longer we keep it, we're going, the longer we delay it, 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 or tomorrow, but again, the stuff that i didn't want to objective or need to in america supporting building some dollars into your grants. simply because they're good guys and want to help them out or objective. so i think i'm going back to this now that this other objectives are becoming more august. i don't think necessarily the americans european still have the same objectives and therefore from your perspective, and i'm going to stand 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 that 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 when they pick up on something,

the glen was saying, you know, henry kissinger and said, you know, a negotiation should begin soon. ok. that i give credit to his geopolitical genius . ok. not his policies. it 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. i mean, that's really hard. ok, and, and plus russia has made a commitment here. it can not 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 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 ulta conference, she'll be a union to go with us and you can go, she did the new terms for the work order as a where the 2nd attempt to structure world water. european security order came after the berlin wall and the collapse of the soviet union, which the soviet union and earlier russia negotiated as a virtual loser. now there is an if you were to renegotiate those terms, and i'm pretty sure russia won't 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 i 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 a much more why than your pm security architecture has been collapsing 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. it was coming to the table with diplomacy there, resolving this differences and there,

after you had all these agreements like the charter or is for new europe in which they said the new york should have no defining minds. me invisible. 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. arguing as well as soon as the soviet union come up. so 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 are academic still. this is going to go really wrong. some point because they don't want to get expanded to the if russia will 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 secured 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 live with one where the m b i n f treaty one after another. and oldest treaties collapse. a consequence of nato expanded towards the russian borders. i think if we want to solve this, this car warning ukraine, i would see it as a symptom or consequence of this. 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, larger gun, closer to the head of russia. it doesn't seem like

a recipe for stability. and i think if you are paying a heavy price for from neglecting the security discussions we should have, hadn't in europe over the past 30 years, which we never did. and max closed 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 have to eventually, 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. yeah, i, i know doing this program ever since those documents one day to 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 before once ok,

i saw with dime we have over and late my guest maslow in moscow. i want to thank you for watching us here in our tea scene exam. remember across cycles, 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 doesn't take very long to the pain involved to become absolutely excruciating. but nobody lean finger on you. you are doing it to yourself. we started adopting those techniques when i was stationed in mosul, among them, wordpress positions sleep deprivation,

and using hypothermia. there's 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 will sacrifice the shimmer of effective interrogation. i look forward to talking to you all. that technology should work for people. a robot must obey the orders given by human beings, except where such orders at conflict with the 1st law show your identification. we should be very careful about our personal intelligence at the point, obviously is to place trust, rather than fear a take on various jobs with artificial intelligence,

real summoning with a robot must protect its own existence. with in spring 2022, europe began closing to russian vessels for another. they sanctions package bombs, russian flags, vassals, from entering. you poor belgium bo gary mania, romania, tuna. lee announced that there would be close to russian ships. russian vessels carrying. guess i'll call call some nikolai, and i ran or are not covered by a band is similar decision was taken by canada him later by the united states. ah