finding long term, sustainable, innovative solutions to these problems. many thanks for joining us here. and i'll see international web back at the top. now with all the latest, we'll see it. ah ah ah ah, [000:00:00;00]

a hello in welcome to cross top where all things are considered line. peter lavelle, the west has gone to great lengths to generate a false narrative about the conflict in ukraine. the cab regime is losing and badly so, and no amount of propaganda can alter this reality. this conflict will come to an end and it will be on moscow's terms. ah, to discuss these issues and more on joined by my guess, ladies and in oslo. he's a professor at the university of se or norway, as well as author of the book, russo phobia propaganda in international politics. and here in moscow we have exactly a miro. he is the founder of the center of political strategic analysis strap. all right, gentlemen, crosstalk rules and effect. that means you can jump anytime you want. and i always

appreciate it. i would start out with glen in oslo again, the media continues to turn out a what i think a very warped impression, what's going on in ukraine, the conflict there. but i find which very curious and, and i think it's really important to talk about is that people that should know what they're talking about are essentially talking about how the western influence, the outcome is if they have any influence at all to in force and outcome in minsk 3, now i'm to remind her, honey, and sir is that there were 2 agreements after the, immediately, immediately after the coup in 2014 on the dumbass to don bouts. republics, mom said, look, well, we didn't vote for this guy. and this new government and so they left and then there was centrally a civil war mens one and 2. i put that conflict into deep freeze and it was a process in which the 2 dom bath republics would be re integrated into ukraine.

know, having a lot more autonomy and it's being talked about again. i mean it's in the last, you know, 3 months or so a conflict has not even happened. um and why is it being talked about? and is it a way out, as we keep hearing, a zalinski will define and will decide what victory looks like. your thoughts are well, i've been worrying about this for quite some time. and again, this is something that's well recorded. and through history that 100 years when countries are in conflict, they tend to talk off the victories and downplayed them also to keep more ela and the, and this is something was in this conflict as well. i mean, you have to present a narrative in which the russians being defeated because it was necessary to keep morale going within you can. but it's also necessary the west's to make sure that the public keep supporting, you know, putting the economy on the line and also continue to pump in this building some

dollars the weaponry which we will replace their resources here, but also in risks nuclear war. so there's a necessity to keep up this idea that there's winning, but of course also the literature is very clear when it, when finally, reality catches up and, and it's almost as coming, it's very difficult to change the narrative. so this is where the stage we're at now, and we have to find a way of and negotiating how to start sitting down and finding a piece with russia. how can just be done. and again, some people are now suggesting, well, let's go back to russia terms went russia for, you know, back in february. busy before it is in this conflict, and this is, it is a problem because now we're talking about the telling me for us. but of course, after all this rounds escalation, this is parn gone. and i don't think, well, obviously russia, you know,

it will happy under the means to be minutes to give academy to them. but this was kind of a compromise. so the native question on the internal grant question, but again, that was 7 years not happening. so the problem now was from february on russia recognized independence of the us and then went back against the crate. and now of course, it has been later times now in we had a possibility of a peace agreement, but this was some past us ukrainians. also recognize primarily by a u. k. in the us, in order to essentially, we cannot believe that the russians this isn't working either so, but so, so, so, so this is the problem. none of us might not even be enough anymore because what russia recognized in the fight was a key problem. if it needed civilian administration in the territory last but you can't have anyone volunteering locally to take our civil civilian administration if there is retaliation. when would that ever leave them? so russia have to communicate,

clearly support that they would stay there and never leave. you know, so you've seen this by setting up the national symbols that it's real, real thing inter, everything down to the currency used to the russian license plate on the cars as a few kind of some for example. so, so the problem is, is escalate this point now that i don't think just the bus is gone, i think. so what kind of phone is also gone? and again, this is something they have to take into account cuz it continues to escalate. if there's no peace agreements now, it will have to see what happens once the bought the saw before the russians. the rest will be kind of low hanging fruit for russia, so they can march very easily them once all these forces have been liberated from the bus, that means russian troops liberated from fighting and they're free to fight other places. then it will be very easy. are easier to take a life and at that point, russia will love even the go should be territory. so my, my, my point is for many,

especially ukrainian studies might seem unjust, but it simply do accept now, this territory last or the wait for 2 months and then have you been more? and i think this is the dilemma. and it's quite unfortunate, obviously, and i can understand why many would be hesitant to negotiate on his own favorable terms. but if it turns will only become more favorable that surely this is a good reason to sit down and talk to, you know, we all saw each other recently in st. petersburg, we were sitting at the same table. there was a gentleman from india that had joined us and exactly you and i got into a conversation with him and he said, well, what was needed was a win win solution. and i was really puzzled high that i'm because why? ok, i mean what, what does that mean? the means agreements were the win win as glen, his pointed out. and the cranium regime and it's western backers rejected it. so

why go back to something that they reject and then when the back on the ground have completely changed? yes, actually it's too late. russia is a winning the war. and remember the written claims, and the beginning of the operation was a 22 things recognized. try me as a part of russia and recognize the independence of the republics and the refuse it . so the war and as i've change already on the twenty's twos of april, the war and officially are all the ukraine coast and supposedly a region as well. and it will happen, so it's over. but what's changing that on the mainstream media, for instance, i was a reading a statement saying that russia made progress because the, the mistakes in consideration. so of course,

it's not the same as it used to be. and i saw it on the french media as well that, and those are new narrative is ok. russia lost the war because they wanted to invade all ukraine. i don't know where to find that, but actually is i would say in the just ok only pretend to take the number maybe but it's, it's too late, it's sort of rush. i want to negotiate, again on the basis it's, it's, it's quite possible the only think that if you for this not to be reasonable can do is i agree with the creation of never russia to be to be frank frank speaking. and if that, don't do that within a month, in my opinion, the war and will change again. let's talk about a check se, let's talk about both of our, let's talk about turning off and the, let's talk about jeff. maybe again, because or, you know,

a treaty would have to be signed and maybe should have been signed already for 4 months ago. it's interesting to me and i mean, looking at the main street and that's what i do for a living in this conflict. and there's still this kind of impression that the west pounds in fluency or how to determine an outcome. and that is, that is completely unreasonable to believe that ok, and last, and i want to part on the, on the boards all the time. but that wasn't agreement. so why would, why would the russian side believe the rental operators this time? because the last time they didn't fill their side a big deal. so i mean the ukrainians at the behest of the west, united states, new paying really put themselves into a spot because there's, there's no, there's the trust completely. i agree. and i think that's what made, that's the key obstacle to any compromise because it would have to be guaranteed

somehow by hard power because trust doesn't exist anymore. and again, they are correct also less than from nice too, because even what a single poker openly, but not also many leading american officials. i'm also send them agreements, allow them to prepare for war for 7 years and, you know, and then yes, also that this simply doesn't become a peace agreement that becomes a temporary cease fire. so essentially rearm and then go back to the way things were still fighting. so i think this is why i think you russell liver hesitant to accept any, any deal. i mean this is just so this is just reality. 11 in which i want to fight later and i agree to the trust in most of both sides. and of course, i think a key problem would be for, for ukraine, of course, they could have some legitimate fear that the unfavorable terms, ukraine could be serial the weekend, russia could be strengthened while the west would lose interest in ukraine,

and then they could risk disintegrating somebody, so what they want are some solid security guarantees from natal, but they would intervene the future. i think it's not going to happen. so one can see the lack of trust and why they want it. but you also have the side of the russians, which is in any piece agreement that could be usually may use to rearm ukraine. place more american weapon system closer to rush borders and even a lot of lexical spell that the spoken over ethically about destroying process like the navy, the american scientists. you know, so i think that want to keep in mind that this is the main, the main obstacle, like all sides, want some kind of security agreements, but this is why it goes back to why the conflict happened to begin with the work again because you're in security architecture collapse, this is why we're having problems with the real problems in the that the real issue here and again,

mainstream media either doesn't have the intelligence and certainly doesn't have the integrity to discuss it. but just as glenn said, i mean, this is all about russia, this richard security in europe. ok. and because it really in the west refuse to, to interact with them and consider their demands here. russia took the actions and it did. and because of that, and because of the lack of interaction, honest interaction with the west, they will determine when this thing is over and how far it goes. and they're not, there's not going to be any interaction or dialogue here because dialogue was a waste of time. we learned that from december. 17 all the way to february 24th. yeah, actually no, for the, for the russian side, the west didn't respect is a home the signature. it's up on the 1st time on the 21st of february when there was a, an agreement with coach to organize in 6 months. he, a presidential election. the agreement, i remember hold the less than 24 hours without any reaction from the west. after

the weather, i have to jump in here. we have to go to a hard break or break. we'll continue our discussion on some real estate with our tea. ah ah oh, was recently munoz cards and like if you speak russian, keep your voice down while out and about a couple. don't put your human symbols on display a guy so you guys don't talk to strangers. i avoid noisy gatherings,

a mushroom, even your colleagues, and perhaps also your friends think you're guilty because you'll, russian, a specific social with a welcome back to cross talk where all things are considered. i'm peter. well, this is the home edition. to remind you,

we're discussing some real news with let's go back to the idea here in moscow we were talking about the lack of trust and broken agreements and how we ended up having this conflict. continue on please . yeah, and so they didn't respect the signature for not on the for minced one for me to for the stand my are agreement we're supposed to, we're allowed to implement a this agreement. do i see as well that didn't respect the basic rules because all the ukrainians employees were organizing, spying on the dinner and eleanor territories. so it's impossible to, to trust the west. i mean, from the russian side in a and i can, i can understand that. and the 2nd point is there is another actor we are we have to take in consideration is already galks,

because i'm sure that jeff was planning to invade the don bus in march of 2022. i wanted to say why, but maybe we can, but i'm sure of that. so woo, organize this operation will push to get the story said, this operation to be done is the oligarchs because the last, the last many sinks during as a 1st tape of the, my daily parks. a trainer. yes, yes. and for instance, i met of e last already many, many active in the 1st part of the, of this conflict in 2014, 2015, last variable and is about to last, korea, oregon, and color mirsky is losing a never better off. and so, all this oligarchs, we decided to push a zalinski to organize this military operation to get bags are the properties. of course, want to find a, an agreement, especially if somebody like met of because it perfectly understands that no hero is

a 50 kilometers and enough of a frontline. so it's a next step for russia. and so it will, everything after losing valuable after losing done it's, it's other for him. so of course, is there is all these forces, the west, the oligarchs, well in panic, because they know that sooner or later all this i said, we were told during the, the night ninety's by the oligarchs, that we will get back to the you, people. and so that's a very and, and consequently, the part will stay in ukraine will be the poorest one. router is about to take to port the industry and the gas, for instance. so 45 percent of the gas produced in the ukraine is in the region. in 10 kilometers from the front line, if the original decide to go to but um it would be 45 percent additional. so we'll pay a bill. we will pay for weapons. it's not it what,

what to you with with having to grant it some single like your own you were but the country was a small population. no industry, almost no recruiter. so farther west, it's, and for the already got is, are, is a spanish because they used to steal the money in this territory and they wouldn't, they want to do be able to, they won't be able to do it again. anyway, my name is go back to glen glen and when all this is said and done, you know, one of the things i always find interesting is that they will decide not zalinski. we keep these counter mailing trends here. but one thing i've, i'm are very curious, we never hear about who said, well, when this company comes to an end, well, what about the sanctions? ok of are sanctions are forever. you don't go into anyone's calculus. all right, and we look at the energy wells of europe right now. they're only going to get a lot worse as the year goes on. and we also all the game of thrones winter is coming, and they have not resolved that. the issue of the depends on, on russian energy,

even though what i find is directly weird is that they know cut off kind of all the energy from rush. and then there's anything about building up their storage unit for the winter. so that's kind of running there, but i mean, what happens with sanction regime? i mean if there would be any influence the west would have would be about sanctions . and we know about when america passes sanctions, they never let them grant. yeah. and that's why when you said before that the west, maybe you don't have an influence on that. i disagree to some extent because one of the things that once it's obvious that the removal of sanctions, but you are correct to what extent is it possible. but also would it be seen as reliable or credible and a bargaining chip because if they're mood this anxious today, even if it's possible, you know, why not put it on next week because you know, maybe the risk as i entered about something else. you know, it can be also from syria to, you know, gay, right. it doesn't matter. like the sanctions can come back,

right. run again. so i think that this is the main problem like the russian. so that's why this divorce and from the west economic divorce assumed to be somewhat permanent because they want to get himself from further sanctions. so i think that the sanction question is quite interesting and, and also it's the sanctions on ross energy. that was amazing because russia never actually had to do counter sanction. and it's a great for russia because, you know, he wants to be a credible energy supplier. but he never had to dress in the energy because the west kind of didn't themselves. so it kind of put things on the cell. so there's an interesting move. but i think that if the westport influence there in a peace agreement, the main thing i can do is to go to the heart of the matter. and this is and to look at the issue of european securities, because i'm often told here and also by some ukraine, friends, but there's a ukraine that's a reasonable reason to be fair, careful the russian. they want to go close natal. sure enough. i can understand

that. i think you, chris has reasons to favor to ask and reason to say russia, however, russia also reasons to fear the west needle. and the problem is the security architectural, pos, 30 years left off the 2nd half, which is yes, we have reason to fear russia about russia can have no legitimate fear of nato if they have made them obviously. and this is kind of in the argument and become an idea ology that it's like the biggest military lines in the world, struck against russia openly speaking about, containing russia. but somehow, this is not a threat to russia. you know, when we even have to speak the language that is a defensive alliance, even though anything based on the country is quite extraordinary thing. so this is going to harper international relations, which is a security dilemma. one shot sites, not expenditure expense. another. this was also the key focus all the pan, your p and secure agreements with bella, 30 years ago after the cold war, which was i think, in the west, we'll go and offer something like this to russia. that would be a bargaining chip, which you might get some concessions that are russia,

but you're probably correct and would rather trust this. i think maybe they will be very skeptical. because over the past 2 years, the us demonstrated that it's prepared to withdraw from a lot of agreements, not just with russia about iran and around the world as well. so. so the willingness, the rush to trust disagreements, i don't think it would be very high, but it's not the less important part forward to making sure that we can finally have some stability in in europe. because again, this is conflict. i think everyone has an interest in the continuum in going back to our conversation, the 3 of us have in saint petersburg is that the terms and conditions of ending this conflict with russia has hall the high cards. but part of its calculation is going to be to make sure that there isn't a repeat of this in 5 or 10 years. ok? and that's why, you know, it puts into question the statehood. the sovereignty of ukraine completely. okay?

because we get a, not a peace agreement, not a p settlement with an armistice would say. and then, you know, for the next 5 years to nato dis, pours in whatever left of ukraine. and they want to started all over again. and nature has an interest in doing that because nature was failed, it is failing. okay. and it cannot accept that per ideological and hubris reasons and everything else will be usually on this program. so part of the calculation from the russian side is, you know, we're not going to do this in the next 510 years. i mean, we're going to make a settlement where we feel comfortable and we don't really care when you thing. go ahead. yeah, actually if you look at the 1st written, the claims at the beginning of the conflict, it was then as if you cation and then a meter is ation. so it means anywhere that at least there won't be any certainty in ukraine, as it used to be that me, that russia will strongly survey the militarization of ukraine notification of

ukraine. so on the point of view on the ocean perspective, the, there is no more possible a ukrainian or any just used to be. and i just would like to add the what you said before that rush i need sanctions. because if you look at, for instance, the or planes plane for risha blends industry plan for risha, they just started investing on the bays on the 4 years plan. so it's been 3 and 4 years. russia don't have to get any boeing any airbus on his fleet. so we observe exactly the same. we observed in 2014 a, 2015. that even if the west want to take back the sanctions, russia will continue to adopt a sanctioned because they can't trust the west anymore. and it's a, it's concern, of course the planning in just a print industry. it's called a cheap production where they are no investing

a huge amount of money because they want to be independent using a chinese technology as well. but it's, it's a, we don't have to, we have to, to understand that russia need sanctions. and in my opinion, since the beginning, when a venue put into the decision to start the special apparition, it was thinking about that let's, let's do to we're what we did in 2014, 20152016. it was quite difficult during the 3 years, but after 2017, everything was already ok. all the logistic of movement. no, i really wanted to i to what india. and actually in a 3 months it will be completely a risk to it. so, sanction is good for russia. let me go and finish out here. you know, blending the, there is again this, the western on narrative is and you know, we have to push russia out of europe if it doesn't behave when this is like exactly a say, well,

where she's been preparing to leave europe ever since 2014 and survive those sanctions, it was survive these sanctions. it's not going to be a better rosen's. i always tell people that the impact of the sanctions will be incremental. we will feel it over time, but there is a re orientation. last thirty's. i can see you, but i agree and a roster will feel a lead on it will build up what you are correct and this payment seem to be instrumental enough in the process of the coupling a bit from the west not completely by moving more economy towards the east and that's what that's benefit if you will, from having to sanctions. it puts more motivation behind it, behind, behind this pressures to shift away from the western industries technology, transportation course, banks, currencies, and reorganize the economy closer to asia. this is gonna be very painful in small stuff like insurance, it's under ships. a lot of this has to be built up over time so, so,

so that will become the car will come a lot of economic paints. a request devices are always messy. i want to thank my guest and here in moscow, and i think our viewers for watching us here at our dc and exam, remember, ah, ah, ah, the eastern is absolute. no co with like a little can with some of the free people would end up with shock because usually, you know,

she was come out really who can watch some stuff with the little button. somebody with to deal with a minute and it was up yet i'm off, which can you with they don't finish with

a another plant that was supposed to be the best in ukrainian defense that fell rather quickly. an abundance of nato weapons and scaffold thought to explore what remains of the chemical plant in february on yes, calling the retreat if he had said they didn't announce is the political machinations of g 7 countries off the group announces a worldwide infrastructure project to counter china and global balancing where initiative we worked for for so many years that's not on the