mm mm oh a ah hello and welcome to cross stock where all things are considered on peter lavelle the conflict ukraine has demonstrated tactics can wind propaganda and narrative points while strategy will ultimately determine the political outcome of this conflict. give 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, samuel l. e. in budapest, he's a pod cast or at the goggle, which can be found on youtube and locals. and here in moscow we have maxine swartzkoff. he is the director of the center for advanced american studies and moscow state institute of international relations. for a gentleman, cross stack rules and effect, that means you can jump anytime you want, and i would appreciate it for. let's start with georgia in budapest and george over 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, in our kia and then we have general mill lane. they joined, cheapest staff are saying this is a good point and before the winter sets 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? when it is very difficult to decide what any of this about? it's hard to see how at this stage, any serious negotiations are possible. and because what, 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 look guns, not none of these as it has been achieved. now this is what we've seen when the

withdrawn may well be just a, a strategic was role in preparation for the an offensive sometime during this winter or may be delayed, maybe into next spring. but at the same time, it stopped immediately clear what this offensive will be about, what, what's the, what 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 want to throw real questions about what russia is trying to achieve. what russia has deployed sufficient resources in order to achieve so no, i think i don't regard any of the diplomatic overtures as anything very serious. but what the, the, the strategic situation is also some,

a problematic emacs. basically the same thing to you because essentially it gets bound to this flurry of talk is it is, this is talk within the political lead to the united states is also including nato . and then also the, the regime here, there for getting a very important home in it 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? it doesn't 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. the leak and amik situation in the u. k is becoming dire and 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 visiting 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 just about your pain, but they, in, in the case of you, this escalation being 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 monster would that scenario. on the other hand, i think there is a sense both within the ukrainian and american elite that they need to seize on them and them 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 mind, you went out in your introduction, you know, before the winter, where the calculus may change, and i think there is a sense in the us in the ukraine. but going to me term and long term time is rather on, on the russia side. whereas on the short term, amazon, 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 take our deal. none of the things and none of the goals and objectives that you stated before the special manager opperation 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, of course, now what's, what's going to happen on, on, you know, the all kinds of decisions that may be taken russia side because you know,

the pollutants press secretary best called, 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 speculations 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 pain some time perhaps to regroup, 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 like, you know, the way they sees on, you know, that the, the, the, the, the moment where, you know, we have ukranian troops advancing russian around the russian zone with making a strategic withdrawal. i mean, this is, i can battle, it 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, 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. because 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 all that the united states is seeking to achieve and ukraine, 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 were 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 with roll from house on city was in preparation for some kind of a deal that, that makes absolutely no sense. i told them, 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 a defense. 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, what 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. all right, so here, you know, i'm actually, again, what i find quite the, funneling is that quote unquote ceasefire. well, who, who, when said that, i mean the russians will have gained nothing at great expense, the ukrainians will have lost 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, george is a spot on right. i mean, the u. s. is getting this on the cheap. 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 do you see we told you not get in line? this is, 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. a strategy in the, 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 suggests that 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 my view, it suggests that there are a few kind of geopolitical literatures and kind of spokes food in place. that when the thrushes maneuver and rushes influence over europe at any 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 of how much you believe leverage russia will have over ukraine in europe. but what it cares about in 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 nato 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 country even more complicated regardless of the tactical movements on the ground. your thoughts real quick before we go to the right. i think so. i think it, there's no question that as far as the united states is concerned, they're just going to keep you crazy as a force director, russia. i mean, it's not so much membership and they do. but as a problem, you know, essentially a battleship directed of russia for years to come because it will be in feeble

russia and will be a major and they call them a short break. and after that short break, we'll continue our discussion on some real estate. ah, our ah

with business and you will clean a b e r w that was chosen. yeah, americans great you. when you wrote, you got to really just touching up to 74 when you was just such a short. it was night after the different student info with you throw in the what the problem you're still with yours with choice thought it was a for me to, to one of our thought it which, which in the longer it was just a push to just to remote because or lose know your boss, look you school go with. i don't know who got i know for the don't know as much as a here because that was going to do used to play in finances. come on

both a welcome back to cross type where all things are considered. i'm peter. well, this is the home addition to remind you. we're discussing some real news. ah, ah, let's 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 pen, europe, 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 complex started and where they were sitting right now that it was off or not max. well, i would, i would even make it go even this far to suggest that the situation is even worse, 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 switches and 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 is 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 west 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 pain. and for, you know, i really the key here because again, a, i hope i'm me, i will be eventually proven a 100 percent. correct? is it, this has been tactics. it's about controlling the narrative. um, if i go back to george here on the, on the, the, 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 be 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. what flexible publicly? because it always, europeans are really worried about inflation high energy. and if we, there's no,

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 if you're desperately trying to keep together and i to 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 smoke and mirrors. and as i said in my interject introduction, george, just to keep it going. george. yes. on the other hand is in other way looking at it is that the cracks in the global sanctions regime doesn't really work for russia because from russia, one to view 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, we'll skip over sanctions with this country. so in all the sanctions with that

country, then europe is off the hook. you know, the winds are wont 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 say, 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. the russia has 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 no gas does, that they're willing to inflate on the ukrainians, risk averse about getting into a serious military confrontation 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. if i have a month or so ago and rushes problems remain because the, you know, the americans are just going to keep boring, more and more on do, are you great. so maybe the only way out of this is a serious military offensive in russia, which really puts no grain 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. one thing 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 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 me 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, smoke parts of it still exists. obviously it has to 1000000000 used, 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, they're big things. 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, i mean there, you know, all the talk in the western media about rushes and escalation can require a level in my view is interesting and it's understandable, given the russian president spoke about it and our number of occasions,

a low likely different context that is for trade in the western media, but i think 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, the status for the conflict to its favor and a horse in all, are 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 rush has been incredibly risk averse, but also it doesn't seek to escalate to that level. but there are a few things like, you know that the long range aviation hasn't, won't 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 wanting on the table. the other thing on the table with the given the recent election results in the us release to the seeing whether the,

the republican controlled house were put even more pressure on the urban allies as republicans with most from the do and make them pay for paying him terribly and financially and whether this will entail in some kind of displeased between air, 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 dramatically change the supporting crane policy because it seems for now to be a bipartisan issue. but i is still seeing the actions 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 with 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 countries 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. vance and coming senator, you know, that's my position. it's not going to change anything. do you think ahead? no, not in the night. this is the say, i mean, mcgaffey just did this as a thought to is the wing within the republican party. that clearly is happy about ukraine's, but that wing is very small. i mean, when it's, you know, we can name the, the congress people and j d as a one, all in one, starbucks. right? and to be honest, things are looking 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 of high and low politics is the longer the vote goes on, the more likely these are, the democrats prevails or every single seat with the votes account of 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 a way 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 that, but no one has to see though, and you know, what happens if the, if this coming russian offensive then in frank,

serious problems where your brain does the united states, then decide that, you know, they've got a real problem on their hands, if in the event of a total ukrainian, a little trick collapse, that happens then, then the americans might just a, some peace negotiations as well. unless there is a complete electrical last year, the americans aren't going to stop. well my, my theory really real quickly and it's a subject for an entire program actually. the way i look at it is this withdrawal is ukrainian to move in. they will take it and then we could possibly see a major pincer, a stalin grad like a band, 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 30 seconds. 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 just made it as far as the sound, right?

as you mentioned, as for thrown back all the way to berlin. and so it, it seemed 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 circle, but like i said, there are multiple things and multiple liberties on both ends and it's not over yet . it's all the time. we have gentlemen. fascinating discussion to want to thank my guess in budapest, in here in moscow. and i think our viewers for watching us here to see you next time. remember crossed up hills. ah, ah ah

ah ah, i don't like that the united states or the united kingdom had the slightest interest in ukraine itself. should play something to mobilize people around. i think that ultimately, their goal is to undermine the russian federation and to jane dominance over russia itself.

ah, north atlantic alliance recognizance aircraft wolf shipped, cruising close to rushes, borders have become commonplace along with military hardware redeployment and large scale exercises. nato has also developed its offensive capability near the russian borders every year, a russian backed resolution is submitted to the un against the glorification of not system the outcome is always the same view as votes against it. and in recent years with ukrainian backing with typically the u.