for 7, head over to r t dot com. and don't forget to find us on odyssey rumble and gab. we'll see you back at the top of the hour. ah, ah ah .

ah ah, [000:00:00;00] ah hello and welcome to cross stock where all things are considered. i'm peter labelle . the conflict in ukraine has demonstrated tactics can wind propaganda and narrative points while strategy will ultimately determine the political outcome of this conflict. kid in its western backers excel

a tactics. it keeps the conflict going. is this enough to trump moscow's long term strategic goals? ah, discuss these issues and more. i'm joined by my guess, jordan m u l e. in budapest, he's a podcast or at the goggle which can be found on youtube and locals. and here in moscow we have maxine switched off. he is the director of the center for advanced american studies and moscow state institute of international relations for a gentleman cross that rules and the fact that means you can jump any time you want . and i would appreciate it or let's start with georgia in budapest and sure to the last few days we've had this real flurry of, you know, is a negotiations going to break out. you know, we had sold in kiev and then we have general milly, they joined chief of staff saying this is

a good point. and before the interest that's in for negotiations, i think he said, any time there's an opportunity, you should seize it. ok. i mean, are they talking among themselves? are they making overtures? how do you read this? well, it is very difficult to discern what any of this about. it's hard to see how at this stage, any serious negotiations are possible. because what is that to negotiate about having said that, it's also hard to figure out exactly what is going on without question. the russian with roll from harrison city is politically a problem for russia. because now you can think of russia's initial objectives when he's launched a special military operations, which is demilitarization, denot, cation and deliberation, of don't ask and the guns,

not none of these as it has yet been achieved. now this is what we've seen when the withdraw may well be just a, a strategic was role in preparation for the an offensive sometime during the winter, or maybe delayed, maybe into next spring. but at the same time, it's not immediately clear what this offensive will be about, what, what's the, what the strategic objectives will the russian forces seek to attain in this offensive. so at this stage, i think there's a lot up in the air. and really, when i'm real questions about what russia is trying to achieve, what russia has deployed sufficient resources in order to achieve. so i think i started to regard any of the diplomatic overtures as anything very

serious. but they, what the, the, the strategic situation is also some, a problematic emacs. basically the same thing to you because essentially it gets down to this flurry of talk is it is, this is talk within the political lead to the united states. also including nato. and then also the some in the regime here, there for getting a break. the important home in the, it's called russia. ok? mean, that's what i find very peculiar because it says that there are a telegraphing their position publicly among, among 2 sets include excluding the 3rd set, which would be moscow here. so how do you, what do you make of this? does it mean anything whatsoever, or is it just a fundraising event to keep people interested in the conflict in the west as europe descends into recession leak and could join the u. k is becoming dire. i mean,

no one can give 3 cheers the economy in the us. so i, my birth reaction is it's a diversion and it's a distraction. max, your thoughts will come in there if you waste, look at what's going on. i guess one as, as been read here is that need just may be in a way of claiming kind of a starting bargaining position. and part of the united states is that russia, there is a clear bottom line, and part of the u. s. leads that they're the, the, the want to avoid escalating the conflict to the point where it may become, you know, not everyone gets, it's not, you know, just about your pain. but in a case of you, this escalation, be taken to a nuclear level. it won't behave how you can at all so to say, so i think it's clear. ready that the unit us leadership wants to would that scenario. on the other hand, i think there is a sense both within ukrainian and american elite that they need to seize on them. i mention while the ukraine is still on the offensive, when russia is, you know,

recreating beyond the river on the other side of the river and they, they, they seem to care some city. and they want to kind of cement the moment as you clearly appoint and rightly might you want me to out in your introduction, you know, before the winter, where the calculus may change. and i think there is a sense in the u. s. and ukraine elite going to me term and long term time is rather on, on the russia side. whereas on the short term, times on the u. s. side. and the russia is now on the retreat. you know, they want to seize the moment and say, hey, here's your chance. moscow to they are deal none of the things and none of the goals and objectives that you stated before the special manager operation have been achieved. but you are losing, you know, with think you're losing, here's your chance to say face. and here it is. the question is worse now what's,

what's going to happen on, on the, you know, the all kinds of decisions that may be taken, the rush us side. because you know, the pollutants press secretary best golf, stated that harrison is still in the constitutionally part of russia. we didn't excluded from, from the russian territory, which means russia still maintains both political will and the military objective to recapture in some time whether it's going to happen or not happen. whether it's some agreement behind that or would know there all kinds of speculation a way now so but yeah, i think clearly on the us side, you know, it's an attempt to cement the status quo as it is of today now, which will give you brain some time perhaps to a group to re arm and, you know, consider even further movements you know, to, to, to capture don bass and perhaps even crimea. yeah. even in

a few years. yeah. okay. let me it. thank you max for saying that. ok. in a few years, george, what people are talking about is this simply nonsense because it doesn't resolve anything. this is what i find very frustrating is a, you know, they way they seize on, you know, that leave the them at the moment where, you know, we have ukranian troops advancing russian around the russian zone with making a strategic withdrawal. i mean, this is a battle that has nothing to do with the outcome of all war. ok, i find this very, very confusing. go here, george. no, it, it really is because from russia perspective, i mean if the, if a ceasefire were to be put in place now, then russia will achieve nothing. and so they, so, and ukraine would immediately begin preparations for the next offensive. ok, because for the united states, this is a war,

this relatively on the cheap and he's working quite nicely for all of the, you know, it's, keeps the arms industry humming along nicely. and it's bloody in russia. it's, it's, it's weakening in feebly russia. and that's, that's all that the united states is seeking to achieve when you create the doesn't really care about, you know, getting territory back so much as weakening and hurting rusher. so that, that objective of the united states has to be the chief. so if a sci fi will put in place now, and then this will be in preparation for a renewed ukrainian offensive, maybe next year, maybe in 2 years time. so russia will not have achieved anything through sci fi. so the idea that withdraw from house on city was in preparation for some kind of a deal that, that makes absolutely no sense at all. and i don't think the government in the

kremlin could possibly so why. i think that the question is, what is russia planning on? i would certainly think that they are planning for an offensive in maybe in the winter, or maybe in the early spring. and then we really raise the question, how will that offensive and secure some of their goals? because 300000 was also forces that they are planning to deploy for such events, if that doesn't sound like it's enough, i mean, i think you need much more than that. and then you have to raise the question, why should need to mobilize more seriously to achieve the objectives and all while the in the, in ukraine would be turned into the front line for nato. oh, wow. so, you know, i'm actually again, what i find quite the funneling is that quote unquote ceasefire. well, who, who with that i mean the run,

the russians will have gained nothing at great expense the ukrainians will last even more of their country. i don't see how any side, if we look at the training side in the russian side, wouldn't get anything out of such an agreement. i mean, you're just a spot on, right. i mean, the u. s. is getting this on the cheat. ok. and what it is, is, again, in my introduction, i talked about tactics versus strategy. this is showing telegraphing to the world that rushes in a bind, which is sending a message to the global se, sending a message to china. and did you see we told you not get in line? this is a, this is only working to the united states. that's why you quoted, this got to the spokesperson. you know, nothing is really changed here. your thoughts. busy i agree, i mean, look in my view, the u. s. kind of strategy in, even in the, in the context of recently rolled out national security strategy clearly lays out

china is a key and an only strategic challenger, an adversary in the 21st century, which suggested other you know, a challenger's and adversary such as russia has to be constrained. well, i'll, i'll call it on the cheap, it's not, you know, on the cheaper say, but it means that there's gotta be a system constructed around them that enables us to constrain them and to contain them while, you know, focusing on china, in case of russia, in live you, it suggests that there are a few kind of geopolitical literatures and kind of spokes food in place that limit the rushes maneuver and rushes influence over europe. and, you know, in depth sense, i think us doesn't care for ukraine's territory or say it cares a how much of that land russia has. it only in regard to how much you believe leverage russia will have over ukraine in europe. but what it cares about in a crane is that crane may stays within the west's, you know,

military and political orbit. well, probably outside of nato. but it doesn't mean that, you know, even if it has non natal status, it will be able to receive all kinds of arms. not security guarantees per se, but you know, even more enhanced military training even more, you know, enhanced intelligence and political presence in the country. that ultimately, i think upsets the very objective of the russian operation. you know, to drag ukraine out of the of the orbit, which i think makes all the resolution of the company even more complicated regardless of the tactical movements on the ground. george, your thoughts real quick before we go to the right? i think so. i think it's a, there's no question that as far as the united states has been sun, they just got to keep ukraine as a force directed at russia. i mean, it's not so much membership in native, but that as a problem, you know, essentially

a battleship directed of russia for years to come because it will, it'll, in feeble russia and will be a major headache for them for years. but we're going to go to a short break, and after that short break, we'll continue our discussion on some real estate parking. ah ah ah, when i was showing wrong when i was just a to see how it comes to an engagement, it was the trail. when so many find themselves worlds apart, we choose to look for common ground.

oh, welcome back to crossed up. were all things are considered? i'm peter. well, this is a home addition to remind you were discussing some real news. ah, i just go back to moscow. you know, i, on this program i try to remind your viewers of the bigger picture here. and i go back to history, december 17th of last year, when russia communicated very clearly publicly to nato and to the united states about its security demands in the penny repeat space that hasn't changed again, going back to the beginning of our program, this seems nonsensical for me to think that or to believe that moscow would settle

for so little actually in the net negative. if we think about that the, their demands before the conflict started and where they were sitting right now that it was off or not max. well, i would, i would even make it go. and even this far to suggest that the situation is even worse, a given the, you know, the, the, the, the, the length of the border with need or was, it is now even bigger given, you know, the membership. but the thing here is, i guess that i find problematic. i think russia is literally formulated what he doesn't want, but i don't hear moscow formulating what it clearly once and what if suggested once a warm be embraced by the united states. and it's hard to impose these things on the united states. so i guess there's gotta be some creative movements on board of russia to make the worse feel they really need this deal and that they can't win

this conflict on the chief. they can't make europeans pay all the price and that they want a bird. you know, i really the key here because again, a, i hope i me, i will be eventually proven 100 percent. correct. is it. this has been tactics. it's about controlling the narrative for if i go back to george here in the when sullivan was in camp talking to zalinski, you know, you know, doing an attaboy and padding on the back and all that. but you can also interpret that is, you know, zelinski and i got a little bit a little bit more finessed here about negotiations it made. it doesn't have to be real ok, but you have to be more flexible like flexible, publicly because it always, europeans are really worried about inflation high energy. and if we, there's no hope, no hope at all from you in your regime that there will be negotiations. that's a net loss, not for the united states, per se, but for the coalition of the willing that you're desperately trying to keep

together. and i point out to everyone, the japanese have broken ranks and they're staying with the cycling project, which is very, very important. japan, very important to russia. so the sanction of global sanction regime against russia is cracking. so, i mean, again, this is kind of like smoking mirrors and as i said in my interject introduction, george, just to keep it going. george. yes, on the other hand, is in the way looking at it is that the cracks in the global sanctions regime doesn't really work for russia because from russia, one of you, what has really worked so far has been the pain that it's inflicted on the west. and therefore, it's to rushes advantage to keep that pain going. if they stop doing backroom deals with all of the european countries. well, we'll skip over sanctions with this country. you know, in all the sanctions with that country. then europe is off the hook. you know,

the winds won't be quite as bad as they're expecting. you know, they'll still be a little bit of gas. this will be some energy. you know, the industry will stay and therefore russia will not have achieved the pain that it should achieve in the labor and the leg. yeah, that's right. so it's a problem for the rush. it hasn't been rather risk of us in it's a military operation. it's risk of us in terms of the casualties. it's willing to sustain risk averse as to how much pain and no casualties that they're willing to inflict on the ukrainians. risk of us about getting into a serious military compensation with nato. and then risk averse about bringing the european economy to its knees. so that means, you know, you're a, could get through this winter without as much problem as perhaps we thought a month or so ago. and russia problems remain because the, you know,

the americans are just going to keep boring, more and more on to are you? great. so maybe the only way out of this is a serious military offensive in russia, which really puts no ukraine on the back of the make a deal. i personally think that's what's in the cards right now, and i personally think it's going to happen sooner than later. but you know, maxie, if you look at the history of modern warfare, no shock and awe lead the brand from the u. s. when i'm thinking about iraq, specifically, russia hasn't engaged in anything like that. ok, the internet cafe still work in keira. celebrity still visit lensky. and, you know, you know, you can report on what's going on in ukraine from a cafe when you know what's going on and they dont, i mean i watch, you know, cable new and the who asked. and they are very you, people actually had the problem. they were sitting in their hotel rooms, and then we had about 2 weeks ago,

a little over 2 weeks ago we had russia demonstrated, it's pain dial by taking out a good part of the electricity grid. so parts of it still exists. obviously it, it has to 1000000000 use, but this also has a military dual use. and again, you know, if you're in a conflict where it's kind of existential, it's puzzling that russia doesn't put more effort into it because, you know, getting things to the front, their big thing, you put them on trains. and if there's no electricity for trains, you can get to the front, you get what i'm talking about, go ahead. was there, you know, all the talk in the western media about rushes and escalation to nuclear level. in my view is interesting and it's understandable, given the russian president spoke about it and our number of occasions, a low, slightly different context that is for trade in the western media. but i think the,

the issue here is that russia hasn't actually employed a lot of non nuclear options that it could have employed that could have changed, you know, the, the status quo and the conflict to its favor and a horse and all, or a lot of people, including military experts and political politicians are asking why this hasn't taken and i think and part george answered that question. russia's been incredibly risk averse, but also it doesn't seem to escalate to that level. but there are a few things like, you know, that the long range aviation hasn't blown a single white. other there kinds of missile strikes on the infrastructure that are used for carrying the weapons from nato countries to the united to the brain and so on, so forth. so that is a force one thing on the table. the other thing on the table, i think, given the recent election results in the us, it remains to the seeing whether the, the republican controlled house put even more pressure on the urban allies as

republicans with most really do and make them pay for your family. currently and financially, and whether this will entail in some kind of displeased between you know, the americans and europeans and most also whether the republicans will start any stretch or control of the funds i will be to, to train. i don't think it will dramatic or change the supporting crane policy because it seems for now to be a bipartisan issue. but i is still seeing the accent will, will, will change and they may also have some impact on the outcome. i'm glad you brought up the midterm. that's where i wanted to go. george, what are your thoughts here? because i think it was more kevin mccarthy's comment. you know? no blank check and all that, i think that was the throw away cheap political, red meat. because there are a lot of conservatives,

the thing why we pay. why don't we control our border, why we're worried about another country's borders, but i, i don't think it was very genuine because it is very bipartisan and it gets, it gets the number of republicans off the j. d advancing coming sen. you know, that's my position. it's not going to change anything. do you think ahead? no, not in the night this. as you say, i mean, mcgaffey just did this as a thought to wing within the republican party. that clearly is happy about ukraine's, but that way is very small. i mean, what, we can name the, the congress people and j d on the one, even of all in one starbucks. right? and to be honest, as things are located at the moment, it's not even clear, the republicans are going to control the house. as happens in the united states, the longer the both count continues, the more miraculously that the democrats win. and so i think the americans need to, you know,

study on brazilian politics because they seem to get the vote out and they get, the reason i'm low politics is the longer the vote goes on, the more likely it is, the democrats prevails on every single seat with the votes account that the democrats miraculously, when so at the moment, kevin mccarthy may not, in fact end up as the speaker of the house. but even if he were i, i don't think republicans would change policy very much. it might change from good to return to the white house, but that's already at the very least 2 years down the road. so i don't think anything very much will change there. but no one has to see though, and you know, what happens if the, if this coming russian offensive then in serious problems where you brain does the united states, then the side that, you know, they've got

a real problem on their hands. if in the event of a total ukrainian military collapse, that happens then, then the americans might see a some peace negotiations as well. unless there is a complete electric last, you know, the americans, i'm going to stop. well my, my theory real quickly and it's a subject for an entire program actually. the way i look at it is this withdrawal is ukrainian, so move in, they will take it and then we could possibly see a major pincer, a stalin grad like of bent and obviously not in the same magnitude, but it's kind of a knockout blow them. george and i are alluding to 32nd stevie. i know it's not fair to throw that she would 32nd. they could give it a shot anyway. i think look, i just conclude by saying that it's not over until it's over right back in the world war 2 times made it as far as the sound. right. as you mentioned, for thrown back all the way to berlin, so that it seems there, there may be no,

the moment may not be in russia's favor or it is, but there is some plan behind it. i can't really say i'm not in the the circle, but like i said, there are multiple things and multiple literatures on both ends and it's not over yet all the time. we have gentlemen, fascinating discussion. i want to thank my guest in budapest and here in moscow, and i think our viewers for watching us here in our to see you next time. remember crossed up hills. ah, a little, you know, one, no, no, not a joke. no, no, well, or more real than what they should end up unit 731 was

a unique organization in the history of the world. what they were trying to do was to simply do nothing short and build the most powerful and most deadly biological weapons program that the world had ever no real you know, to production, but it gives you or she'll book a keynote when you send me a new monitor a new one up on there and i got the owner myself. i i go on monday. i wish to know about the whole new room or gas on more or less than a cheerios. i had a, a good way to go

that route. so i want to bump this. wow, she my indiana. oh, i can send more. a lot on we'll put them out. thank you. bye. ah ukraine balance journalistic use of violating spirit world not to enter her on the images emerged from the city of people, tied up and named ethel operators watch out for it. so this is in walk. it's to see where the labs are. t follows the russian army and it's for let list artillery jewels with your premium troops as moscow repels. he has a tax on the don bass frontline. the stage is that where the g 20 conference and in